< August 02	August 04 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teleplan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Company appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As well as the former repair company now part of Reconext, there is a California-based ESL Technologies / Teleplan [1], presumably a residue of this 2000 acquisition, though that is not covered in the present article's "Milestones" section. AllyD (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. A search turns up company profile returns and press releases. The article contains unacceptable (unsupported) flowery wording such as "one of the most important players in the German market" and "Teleplan concept was so successful" that screams promotional advertisement. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after some searching I am unable to find any good news articles other than press release. Unless better news provided, it does not satisfy notability. Zeddedm (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find the level of coverage sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. Jacona (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any coverage. The icing on the cake is that this company actually doesn't even exist anymore. Teleplan and Cover Wireless merged two years ago and formed a new company, Reconext (also pointed out above), and I can't find any reporting of the event, except this blog I never heard of reposting an obvious press release. [[2]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Following up on my comment above, the text and available coverage of the former Griesheim / Schiphol based Teleplan firm indicates a servicing company going about its business, with routine coverage; the available coverage of the Sacramento-based operation is local coverage relating to layoffs, nor am I seeing anything to indicate that Reconext is sufficiently noted to merit a rename and redirect. Overall, fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can find that meets NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not find the level of coverage sufficient to meet WP:NCORP.183.82.108.172 (talk) 18:12, 10 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: F. It would help the closer if participants didn't suggest redirecting to another redirect.

For me, redirects show up as a different color so you know immediately that the redirect target suggested wasn't appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flux (comics)[edit]

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

Two minor characters that don't appear to have any significant coverage in reliable sources necessary to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel characters or such. Fails GNG as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: F per Piotrus. BOZ (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: F in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel characters. Spudlace (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: F#Flux: Flux does not have any meaningful coverage in reliable sources. Since there are no independent sources in the article, there is nothing to merge. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel characters.183.82.108.172 (talk) 18:13, 10 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!} 06:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Anderson (baseball)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Illinois. Joeykai (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has some sourcing, nothing extensive. The 60-6 award (I think it was) isn't notable, but he has enough coverage for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A player who hasn't made it out of the lower minor leagues isn't going to get much notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's pretty tough to navigate through Google results looking for sources about this guy because most if not all baseball prospects from the last five years appear to share the same name, but there is quite a bit of coverage about him from independent sourcesV available: [3][4][5][6][7][8]. I think this adds up to a fairly uncontroversial GNG pass. Hatman31 (talk) 21:55, 1 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!} 22:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good work by Hatman. I think the level of external sources merits this as an exception to WP:BASE/N Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:41, 4 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 00:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Boswell[edit]

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

Non-notable reality TV contestant; PROD removed without comment. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 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, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough for an article. He didn't win either of the series he was in and I couldn't find evidence of significant coverage of anything unrelated to Big Brother. Suonii180 (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Suonii180; I also could not find coverage outside of his participation. Ovinus (talk) 00:08, 4 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 into single article. There is clear consensus that only a single list of characters is appropriate. Which title that should exist under ought to be determined via talk page discussion, as there is no consensus here. To the unfamiliar observer, this title appears to be the logical one to keep; however, it may be there is nuance here I am missing. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neighbours characters[edit]

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

Surplus to requirements now series has ended, per consensus at Talk:List of regular Neighbours characters#Moving the article. Content has already been merged to List of regular Neighbours characters in its entirety, and project links altered accordingly (and stablisised in their new form). U-Mos (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or redirect?) No need to keep both List of Neighbours characters and List of regular Neighbours characters, as suggested, they can be merged. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge List of regular Neighbours characters and Recurring characters of Neighbours into this one. It's rather ridcolous we ended up with three articles on pretty much the same topic. Note that unreferenced content can be just deleted (per WP:V), so size should not be much of an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Finale (Neighbours) There are four articles that are relevant to this discussion. (1) List of regular Neighbours characters, (2) Recurring characters of Neighbours, (3) Finale (Neighbours), (4) List of Neighbours characters. The fourth article List of Neighbours characters had a reason to exist when Neighbours was still on air, as it had information about "current", "upcoming" and "departing" characters. However, now that Neighbours is no longer on air, the article has only two sections: (1) "Regular characters" who appeared in the finale and (2) "Recurring and guest characters" who appeared in the finale. However most of this information can be found (or could/should be found) in the Finale (Neighbours) article. Therefore all that needs to happen now is to ensure that the Finale (Neighbours) contains the entire list. Chrisclear (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Surely the list of regular Neighbours characters should be merged into this one? 159.196.100.171 (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What you are proposing seems (to me) to be something that is a separate discussion to whether this article (List of Neighbours characters) should be deleted or not. Your proposal could be handled by a discussion on the relevant talk page(s) after this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion is closed. Chrisclear (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if everything is already merged, somewhere, then this should be a simple talk-page redirect discussion, in which case this would be kept under the redirect for attribution purposes. If an identical article/list exists and that presence is the basis for deletion of this article/list, then that should be a CSD-G6. In either case, an AfD discussion is clearly not appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into either, or both of, List of regular Neighbours characters and Finale (Neighbours). And I think that a summary of this article would sit well within the Finale Neighbours article. Rillington (talk) 13:28, 10 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Ali[edit]

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

Pakistani prank YouTuber with more than 3 million subscribers. The only non-trivial coverage is about him having to pay some money because he apparently didn't pay his taxes (see [9] for example). BilletsMauves (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable found, youtubers generally aren't notable here, being a tax fraud (or not) isn't notable. Only sources are listings of him appearing at various functions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it may be a weak keep. He has a significant amount of coverage, even outside of Pakistan: for example, in a fairly large, English language UAE-based newspaper, and in Pakistan's largest newspaper. Tax evasion may not be enough to meet notability requirements, but the fact that his case got national and international attention indicates notability. He was also listed in another national newspaper's "Top 5 male social media celebrities of 2017" and his following has grown substantially since then. This is what I found in English coverage; I did not even look at Urdu coverage, of which there is surely much more.

Chagropango (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 3 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 Tin Huey. (non-admin closure) Tow (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think the album itself meets notability criteria from WP:NALBUM. While the sources in the article might cover the band or artists themselves, there is minimal significant coverage for the album itself. Tow (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tow (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was recently closed as a no consensus—in the previous AfD, you eventually wrote that "I feel a redirect is the ideal solution for this case." So why didn't you try redirecting now? Caro7200 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my understanding was there was no consensus for either delete or redirect. Please advise if I could have redirected myself. Tow (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tow, I think so, although I confess that I don't have the entirety of AfD policy committed to memory. I wouldn't have challenged your mere redirect, as that retains the edit history. Caro7200 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, if this is going to linger, but also don't see an issue with it being kept. Caro7200 (talk) 22:46, 3 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 04:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Finch[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:NBIO. All sources are either of dubious intellectual independence, do not provide in-depth biographical coverage, or both. Ovinus (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors should not be nominating articles for deletion unless they are familiar with WP:BEFORE, and make a modicum of effort to see what might not be in the article. The most cursory search for "Dean Finch Persimmon" shows several quality sources, as does "Dean Finch National Express". He is the CEO of a FTSE100 company and was the CEO of a FTSE250 one for ten years. Such people are almost always notable. Edwardx (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Edwardx: I did conduct a BEFORE search, and could not find reliable articles which are both intellectually independent (e.g., by not being mostly based on interviews) and provide in-depth biographical (i.e., not focused on the company) coverage, as required for notability. If you could give some convincing examples of that, I will withdraw this nomination. As to "such people are almost always notable", notability is not inherited and I'm not sure I agree. Ovinus (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edwardx which would you say are the most significant independant sources to show notablity? Being CEO of any company doesn't make someone automatically notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. Notability is not indicated. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:18, 3 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!} 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how this person is notable based on the article as it is now. It's more like a resume than an article. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The current state of the article doesn't overly matter, it's more a case of do sources WP:NEXIST. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some coverage, but not seeing how it meets WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:06, 6 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Tipperary Senior Football Championship[edit]

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

2022 Tipperary Senior Football Championship

Article about a future Gaelic football tournament that is too soon and does not satisfy event notability guidelines. The one reference is not about the upcoming competition but about the 2021 championship match. There is no significant coverage because there is no documented coverage, which is in turn because the event is in the future.

An article was created in article space and moved to draft space. A stub was then created again in article space. An unregistered editor then copy-pasted the schedule from the draft to the article, which would cause attribution problems if the article were worth keeping, but it is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Ireland. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament is starting in the next day or so, reference to fixtures now added.

Speedy keep: We have loads of future sports events here (2036 Summer Olympics, anyone?) so that's not a problem. Also, we have articles on the previous 8 seasons of this competition at Category:Tipperary Senior Football Championship. As it turns out, it has just started, with Upperchurch-Drombane GAA defeating Cahir GAA today. The source calls it the "FBD Insurance county senior football championship" (not to be confused with the FBD Insurance League). I think the nominator should withdraw. St Anselm (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Concur with St's assessment above. Finnegas (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:NEVENT and partly because of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even the other years don't appear to have enough sourcing to constitute notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not cut it for me. SWinxy (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Competition now taking place, plenty of similar articles already exist along with previous seasons of this competition.Fernandosmission (talk) 08:35, 10 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!} 21:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 July 2022 shelling of Kharkiv[edit]

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

Not decreasing level of this horrific attack but I think it does not pass WP:NOTNEWS and should be redirected to Battle of Kharkiv (2022) as on Ukrainian Wikipedia Renvoy (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Renvoy (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The battle of Kharkiv ended in May so that wouldn't be too appropriate an article. Maybe a new article like List of attacks on Kharkiv after the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) or Aftermath of the Battle of Kharkiv (2022)/Aftermath of the Northeastern Ukraine offensive? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could even redirect to an article about the war itself, we really don't need an article for each and every time a city gets hit in an ongoing war. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a war and there are constant and numerous artillery strikes on cities, and will continue to be (unfortunatley). I think if the arty attack is notable because of particular destruction, then it may warrant its own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was committed two months after the end of the Battle of Kharkiv. If it is to be merged into something, we need an article about the artillery and bombing campaign against Ukrainian cities, a main article for the euphemistically misnamed category:Attacks on buildings and structures in Ukraine (as if destroying residential buildings was about infrastructure and not people). —Michael Z. 13:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see why it just can't be merged into the current 2022 ukrainian war article in the Donbas front section. Its part of the ongoing conflict in that front. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Mztourist (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possibility of merging content with another article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one of dozens of attacks that killed hundreds; a terrible thing, but nothing special. Also possible to redirect to an article Kharkiv shelling (2022), if somebody (maybe @Mzajac:?) would create it; there is a nice RS, a report on it by Amnesty International. Wikisaurus (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering it's been almost 30 days without heavy additions on a highly-publicized war, continual additions to the article is something I'd expect. Unfortunately it's tragic-ness doesn't stand out in a sea of tragedy. SWinxy (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of dozens of attacks that killed hundreds and per WP:NOTNEWS.183.82.108.172 (talk) 18:24, 10 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. The arguments to delete are substantially stronger here. As multiple users observe, we need reliable sources discussing the cuisine of Chittagong as a whole, not just individual dishes from Chittagong; that latter form of content may still be encyclopedic, but only in articles about said dishes. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagonian cuisine[edit]

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

Pretty much textbook WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, take your pick. Sources clubbed together to make an impressive looking list of references where none of them actually discuss in any meaningful way the existence of a unique and differentiated cuisine of Chittagong. If you're going to argue the existence of a cuisine to one city in the subcontinent, I'd suggest maybe avoiding the claim of biryani and chickpeas as uniquely famous and traditional... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Popular culture, and Bangladesh. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. The concept doesn't exist in English, but this is very much the case where we need to search for and review sources in other language(s). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term "Chittagonian cuisine" doesn’t exist (in both English and Bengali). We should rename it to "Cuisine in Chittagong". Mehedi Abedin 11:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like synth/OR to me. I don't see any indication there is a separate cuisine of Chittagong. This seems to be more a list of dishes popular there, most of which are common dishes in all of Bangladesh or the global region? valereee (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All curries might seem the same, but that is not the case. The cuisine of Chittagong is different in many ways from the rest of Bangladesh and similar in others. Take, for example, Cuisine of Hawaii similar to other states but different. English sources do discuss it; take Mezban, Coastal cuisines of Bangladesh, A mouthful of Chittagong, Bamboo shoot recipes from the Chittagong Hill Tracts and 3-day food festival kicks off in Ctg. The article is in pretty bad shape, but it can be improved. There is scope for expansion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is eerily similar to the Sylheti cuisine article, which also seems to just list popular dishes in Sylhet and the impact that people from Sylhet have had in the food industry. I think both articles should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd support keeping the article as Cuisine in Chittagong. Spudlace (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There is far more extensive sourcing on Hawaiian food as a class than what is currently in this article, much of which seems to be SYNTHy or weak, touristy style content as it stands. No objection to draftification / userification if people believe that further sources *directly* on the topic can be found. SnowFire (talk) 07:39, 10 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!} 23:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Aharoni[edit]

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

BLP is grossly under-sourced, and what citation there is is largely derived from primary interviews or works. No single clear case for notability is evident. It is claimed that she was a professor at Pennsylvania, but this is unsourced and it is unclear if this was a fully tenured position. Her sociological work has only been cited in local media, and it is also unclear if her body of poetry is influential. Added to which which is the concern raised in September 2020 that a major contributor may have had a close connection with its subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a crystal clear case of unnotable person with an exaggerate unsourced self-promotion. Tzahy (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Poetry, Social science, and Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to sit on the fence for now, but there is significant evidence in book sources that her poetry has been widely referenced, quoted and anthologised in books as well as peer reviewed journals. The issue here appears to be that much of that history is pre-internet, and that many of these sources remain to be digitised. You'll find her in books like "The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora (Volume 11) (Contraversions: Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society)" - pretty esoteric stuff, but there's an awful lot of it out there, including many contributions to publications like "PEACE STUDIES, PUBLIC POLICY AND GLOBAL SECURITY" - her poetry is discussed and analysed in The Language of Peace - Communicating to Create Harmony and so on and so on. It's not three whambam past GNG and looking back at the nom with a raspberry, but it's food for thought. There's a lot out there and what's there speaks to there being more. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page, as it stands, certainly already speaks to a certain volume of coverage - what is unclear to me at this point is if there is sufficient quality and reliability of coverage. I see a lot of marginal sources, including peace stuff that could well be more related to the subject's leadership role in the organizations that they themselves founded and clearly somewhat self-promotional career than a reflection of impact in the field of sociology and conflict studies. The peer-reviewed journal above is another example of a slightly marginal-looking source - not sure how to view 'Langlit', but it seems absent from the likes of jstor. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found it here at Academia.edu - it's a 'thing'. But we don't disagree - there's a lot of stuff, but is it the stuff of notability? I'm unsure, to be honest. One issue is date - pre-internet papers, books etc. I'm usually able to be a little more decisive. Honest! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noted author and poet winning notable prizes, see national library entry. She's a notable enough that a book have been written and translated from Arabic (مفهوم السلام في شعر عادا أهاروني) on her work. She is also analyzed in the article: Afrangiya Yahudiya - the literary-documentary oeuvre of Ada Aharoni on the twentieth-century Exodus in the מחקרי ירושלים בספרות עברית journal. I agree the articles on the English Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedia could be improved with better citations. There are also articles in Arabic and Egyptian Arabic Wikipedias that could also probably be improved.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NAWARD about prize notability: ... if the award is to be used as a notability criteria, and, by extension, an article source, it must itself be considered notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NAWARD is not a notability guideline. It was a proposal, and it failed. Jacona (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tipped me over the edge, there. The book alone, together with the anthologies and other evidence of papers that haven't made it into digitalisation/the Internet, speak of a notable person. Article needs a HECK of a lot of work, mind, but (altogether now) AfD isn't cleanup! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused by that book - forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the book listing say that she and her husband were editors? That doesn't count as independent, right? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the translation to Hebrew. The original book, from 1994 I think, is in Arabic by professor Mohamed Daif.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I see this as "No consensus" but will relist this discussion one week to see if a more conclusive outcome is possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided above by Alexandermcnabb and Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) are sufficient WP:SIGCOV to passWP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG given the sources mentioned. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:49, 9 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 Kylie Minogue products#Books. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K (Minogue and Baker book)[edit]

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

A search of sources here, reveals no WP:SIGCOV or mentions per WP:GNG. Not notable or significant. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge anything anyone cares to) to Kylie Minogue products#Books where it is already mentioned. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kylie Minogue products#Books.183.82.108.172 (talk) 18:39, 10 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 speedily deleted (non-admin closure). Mangoe (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henrybuilt[edit]

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

Henrybuilt

Article on design company that is written like an advertisement, but Wikipedia is not for advertisements. Naïve Google search shows that the company exists, and that the company advertises online, and finds plenty of non-independent coverage. However, the article does not provide evidence of independent secondary significant coverage. The article has been reference-bombed, so that a check of the references for whether they are independent, secondary, and significant is not feasible. The author, who has not responded to a request to declare any conflict of interest, seems to have dumped this into article space to ask Wikipedia to find the needle of independent significant coverage in the haystack of advertising. This article does not satisfy corporate notability, and it isn't our responsibility to rewrite it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, New York, and Washington. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. It doesn't seem materially different to the version which was speedy deleted just two days ago. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 3 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) 20:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelah Kay[edit]

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

Didn't pass at AfC and was manually moved to mainspace by it's creator. Don't see how it passes WP:NMUSIC or WP:ANYBIO. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm getting absolutely zero results when searching for this name (aside from Spotify, Apple Music, etc.). I know as a foreign artist, there may be some non-English or local print media about him, but until that's proven to exist, he is simply non-notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article subject has no single reliable source which fails WP:GNG. Secondly from the contribution of the editor who created this article, he or she is here to write and promote people from Port Harcourt that are not notable. It is suspicious that the creator of the article has a close connection to this port harcourt people he or she is writing about.--Gabriel^t@lk 21:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well you know how painful it is to see the article you struggled and researched for being pulled down after days of researches and conclusions and committing to Wikipedia.

i understand you are a well respected person on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean you'll use your power to oppress others that haven't reached your stage in this wikipedia, well table turns

its your turn today doesn't mean it will be for ever. Thanks for nominating the page for deletion after so many research Phwriter20 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of the article is non-notable and does not meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:NMUSIC. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, doesn't meet any notability standard. --Muhandes (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't WP:SIGCOV in WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. Jacona (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 13:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — When the article's creator compares a call for reliable evidence to oppression, you know the forecast for notability doesn't look good. The musician is just getting started and he managed to put a few songs on self-upload services and copied a biography into a few directories. Anyone can do that. Good luck to him but for now, let's be charitable with too soon. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is non-notable and the article's creator was blocked for threats and personal attacks. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:08, 6 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) 20:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emski[edit]

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

It was only fairly recently created, but I'd already moved it to draftspace and it was recreated, and the draft version has already been declined at AfC. Don't see how it meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSIC. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would also say the same reason I said Here on the article editor created. --Gabriel^t@lk 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well obviously you are using your wikipedia powers to suppress and oppress others that don't have it, you have done well Mr. Phwriter20 (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NMUSIC or any other notability standard that I'm aware of. Feels like someone created an article about themselves and their friend. They also recreated the article in main space after it was moved to the draft space. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, doesn't meet any notability standard. --Muhandes (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't WP:SIGCOV in WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. Jacona (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — subject does not meet WP:GNG. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 13:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that the article's author has been banned due to personal threats toward those arguing that his articles are flimsy puff pieces trying to promote unknown Nigerian musicians. Some of those comments have been removed, so now the author is claiming oppression. None of this makes Mr. Emski any more notable. Anyone can upload a few of their own songs to YouTube. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:12, 6 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) 20:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life Christian School[edit]

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

There is no significant news coverage on this school at any time in its history aside from it suing the city to re-open during COVID shutdowns. A search online shows no other relevant secondary source coverage. There are no secondary sources in the article for the information it contains. PDXBart (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article as I don't see any specific notability about this institution. There are many newspapers.com hits for "life christian school", however it seems there are many others by the same name in different states, many prefixed with "new" but their existence doesn't imply notability. There are only ~10 newspapers hits by this school name in Oregon media and non imply notability. May be a future possibility for an article about the family of schools by this name, if deemed notable, but I see nothing sufficient on this particular school. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find the sources the nominator was talking about?[10][11] It seems that this is enough to pass GNG. There is also sports coverage, e.g. [12][13] but you're right - it's hard to know what to search for. St Anselm (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I am not able to access the first two links you provide due to geographical limitations. The latter two just mention some minor sports achievement in passing, among many other schools and do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. The fact there seems to be a number of schools across the states with this name makes me think that the primary article title should not just be about one of them alone, but either all collectively or none at all. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about these? [14][15] St Anselm (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is run-of-the-mill news coverage and not even exclusively about the institution in question, just that they were among a number of schools at the time wanting to reopen. Covid had a significant affect on many sectors, education one of them, and those refs do not in any way assert notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References do not point to notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just MILL coverage in media outside of the 1E COVID bit. And Bungle, there's no relationship between the various schools bearing this name across the country except they offer Christian education. 174.212.227.158 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest there was any relationship or connection between them, only questioning why this particular one should have an article over the others (and that it wasn't the only one I could see by this or a similar name). Fundamentally though, this institution does not appear notable enough for an article, which is the matter being considered. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because something exists doesn't mean it needs a WP article. Businesses/private schools/etc can advertise themselves on their own sites. Does not meet GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless greatly improved). The article appears to be entirely concerned with a failed court case, ratgher than about the school itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not show notability for this school. NMasiha (talk) 09:46, 8 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!} 21:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Derkach[edit]

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

Finding nothing on google but interviews. Can't get to any of these sources except Companies House, which only proves he exists, and three of the sources are from the same publication. None of the references include title, byline...why? Valereee (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems to be almost WP:TNT quality, but there is some evidence of possible notability. For example, in addition to the interview in the Guardian, there is this article in the London times which mentions him, although it doesn't go into depth. Overall, though, it doesn't seem that he passes WP:GNG. Costa's former parent company Whitbread is on the FTSE 100, so if he was CEO of Whitbread he might pass, but he was just managing director of Costa which is a subsidiary, so he doesn't seem to pass WP:NBUSINESSPERSON either. Chagropango (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:57, 10 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) 20:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Zhou[edit]

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

Promotional article written by SPA, who also contested a PROD on it. This is the version with the REFBOMBing cut down a bit. The RSes are articles about Bybit, and only mention Zhou himself in passing. Sources found in a WP:BEFORE about Zhou himself are largely self-sourced and promotional material, even in the crypto press. It's not clear Bybit passes WP:CORP either, or I'd suggest redirecting it there. As is, this should be deleted as apparent advertising - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, China, Singapore, and United Arab Emirates. David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most possible sources look like churnalism about Bybit. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B15A:4ECC:3C0E:728A (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources; searches return promotional coverage. Not independently notable outside of role in Bybit, for which no article exists. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage I've been available to find has all been promotional stuff, press releases and such, nothing in-depth. There just isn't any in-depth WP:SIGCOV in WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. Jacona (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources about Ben Zhou (Chinese: 周本). The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. If Bybit had an article (which it currently does not), I would support redirecting there as suggested by the nominator. If Bybit is created in the future, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion, I would support undeleting this article's history under a redirect to Bybit to allow editors to use the content for a selective merge and to undo the redirect if Ben Zhou becomes notable.
Cunard (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
lol crypto. Delete. The company is more likely to have notability maybe in the future, but neither topics constitute GNG. SWinxy (talk) 06:15, 10 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 Withdrawn Probably should have done that in the first place rather than filing an AfD. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of dental colleges in India[edit]

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

This is a directory listing, not an encyclopedia article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough items have their own Wikipedia articles blue linked to, its a valid information and navigational list. Other things need to be removed. Dream Focus 18:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed all the unlinked and redlinked entries. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:31, 5 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) 20:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Canada and Japan[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of rugby union matches between Japan and the United States this article fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NRIVALRY and most importantly WP:GNG. We've deleted a large number of similar articles in the past where no clear GNG passing rivalry can be shown. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Japan, and Canada. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this rivalry (if one even exists) has been discussed at length in WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol I used the same sources that are used to aggregate the stats played between the two pages (here and here). Just an odd thing to add. It isn't unreliable sources at all. The total (up to 2019) can be seen here also: *RugbyData -- Archived 26 January 2019 at the Wayback Machine MarioBayo (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no clear case for rivalry, fails WP:NOTSTATS. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already mentioned, these two sides have played each other the most of any teams outside their own continents. Both teams compete at the RWC frequently (except Canada for 2023), and have a matchup dating back to 1932. One can ignore their historical matches as just pointless stats. However these two teams share a rich history of, not to mention Japan's new status as a tier one nation. MarioBayo (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Bcp67's rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NRIVALRY. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An interesting and very narrow combination of two topics. A non-notable rivalry. SWinxy (talk) 06:18, 10 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 Church Historian and Recorder. There is rough consensus that the sources we currently have are not quite enough for a standalone article. Sandstein 08:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LeGrand R. Curtis Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual associated with the LDS Church. A WP:BEFORE brings up only WP:ROUTINE passing mentions, which seems to be what the majority of the sources are - indirect mentions of Curtis, but not actually about him and is very WP:REFBOMB-like. Therefore, these sources are lacking WP:SIGCOV for a BLP. Short bios by the Church don't really advance notability either. Overall, fails WP:GNG. This article was previously deleted in 2018 and many of the concerns then echo concerns now. StickyWicket (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. StickyWicket (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Church Historian and Recorder. As Church Historian, Curtis is one of the most important officials of the LDS Church outside of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He's also ex officio, but I think also in reality, the head of the The Joseph Smith Papers project, which is of great scholarly importance to historians of American religion even outside the LDS Church.[16] This makes his name a very plausible search/inquiry term. When the article was previously deleted, he had not yet been named Church Historian. Jahaza (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC) (updated Jahaza (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple articles by the independent Deseret News and KSL. I'm not sure how the nominator considers multiple in-depth paragraphs directly of and about the topic to be "routine passing mentions". ––FormalDude talk 08:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I agree that most mentions are passing. He's only been in since 2019, so perhaps substantial coverage will appear in time. Caro7200 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the rationale offered by FormalDude, unless the nominator contends that KSL and the Deseret News are not sufficiently significant, reliable, or independent sources, which is not directly germaine or relevant to this discussion. It is also worth noting that work is underway to establish specific notability standards and guidelines foe articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, including for top leaders of the Church, consistent with Wikipedia policy. It strikesme as somewhat discourteous and disingenuous by Wikipedia standards to actively single out articles and topics about the movement for deletion while discussions about finding the best policy-based solutions to the longstanding issue are actively underway. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I use Deseret News often for music articles and think it's fine. KSL? Not sure. Neither are wholly independent. The biggest problem is that the cited sources don't offer significant and substantial information about Curtis himself; I also didn't find much in ProQuest (A lot of "Curtis returned from Liberia..." stuff). There's nothing wrong with being merely accomplished rather than notable in the encyclopedic sense... I'm an "inclusionist" (shudder), so always happy if someone can find better coverage. Caro7200 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources make credible claims of significance, such as detailing his history within the church and various high-level positions that he has held. ––FormalDude talk 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive independent sourcing. The Deseret News is owned by the Mormon Church (through holding companies) and is obviously not an independent s source about church officials. Other coverage simply reports that he issued press releases for the church, saying little or nothing about the subject himself. Just a flack with a grandiose title -- Vivian 166.149.176.27 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Deseret News is owned by a church holding company, but it has editorial control over what it publishes and therefore consensus is that it is independent for topics about the LDS Church. ––FormalDude talk 21:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that doesn't appear to be exactly the case--or this is out of date. Note that I argued for a redirect, not a delete, but another look at sources, both cited and not, don't add up to enough for me. Again, happy to review secondary sources that are actually about Curtis. Caro7200 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At over 5 years since the most recent discussion, it is stale, and I believe there's at least rough consensus that it is independent. ––FormalDude talk 01:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Church Historian and Recorder. Even if we accept for sake of argument that the Deseret News is editorially independent of the LDS Church, the sources still don't add up to notability under the GNG/WP:BASIC. I've reviewed the sources cited in the article as well as others, and although they contain quotes from Curtis about various issues, they don't discuss him in the depth needed to qualify as sigcov. There isn't much more here than the occasional "Elder Curtis said", and that is neither independent of Curtis nor coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". I agree that a redirect to the Church Historian and Recorder article, where he's listed, is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:26, 3 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 23:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The institution[edit]

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

Main body of the article is entirely self-sourced. Google search turns up nothing independent. Fails WP:NMUSIC Alyo (chat·edits) 16:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, those 1960's interwebs haven't been digitized yet... Local garage band, hardly notable even these days. Oaktree b (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- article creator left this comment on his talk page, which I'll link as his keep !vote. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
he provided links to TV shows he says he was on, we can't verify it happened. I still don't consider it coverage of the band, at best, it confirms the tv show happened. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the article's title is capitalized incorrectly, to get around this. If it is kept, the title should be moved to The Institution (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have perused the talk page discussion in which the article's creator, Tonytt, is absolutely working in good faith and wants to present valid info on this band. Tonytt has the stance of a historian, tracking down far-flung and obscure snippets of information to compile a story of an early band in which several interesting people got started. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in which people/things must qualify for inclusion, and while some members of The Institution may qualify for things they did later, the band itself does not. They were purely local with little apparent influence at the time, and even the hardcopy books mentioned at Tonytt's talk page are about other things like TV shows on which the band briefly appeared. This is all a fascinating historical exercise, which can spruce up fansites and maybe even a feature magazine article somewhere, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Take a look at the Steel Mill entry. For much of their early existence there is very little solid sourcing, instead mostly there are fan sites such as brucebase, dead entries, tribute sites like Garry's Corner, mentions from an autobiography (an excellent one) by Bruce Springsteen who was a member of Steel Mill, making the reference self-sourced. To me, that is not crucial. What is most important about Steel Mill is the fact the several of its members went on to considerable success, including Bruce, Steve Van Zandt, Danny Federici, and that they opened for several well-known groups (which is apparently poorly sourced in the Steel Mill wikipedia entry), not that they were a significant or well-known band at the time, though there was a nice review of one performance in a local paper, as there were short, complimentary words in a letter in a local paper for The Institution. (Note that Steel Mill also played at a Thanksgiving event in 1970 with The Institution, mentioned on their tribute site in a flyer, and Steel Mill's presence on a fan chronology site.)

I strongly believe that there should be a Wikipedia entry for Steel Mill, to show how Bruce and the others got started, no matter how obscure these early groups were. They are an important part of rock history, as is the usually obscure role they played as an opening act. I also believe that The Institution played a similar, but less prominent role, giving a start to people like Joey Kramer, Rickie Rackin, J. Howard Duff, and Philip Rubin. I am fond of outsiders and underdogs, but feel that The Institution was more than this, playing a significant role in the rough and tumble, and usually obscure, early days of garage bands in New Jersey, opening for well known groups, appearing on important television shows like Clay Cole's and Zacherly's, and nurturing key individuals, a couple of whom went on to considerably more prominence than most who were part of this scene. At the same time, I understand that Wikipedia has its rules and standards. I believe that in this instance, the difficulty of documentation from this era (for Steel Mill, The Institution, and many others bands), and the web of connections and verifiability of key individuals who were shaped by playing in this band, should be both important and mitigating factors when considering the deletion of this entry.

Thanks again for your patience in putting up with listening to my point of view on this. I think that is an important entry, if not a standard one, and hope that it will not be deleted from Wikipedia. It was an important part of this early history (at least in New Jersey and clubs in NYC) and will, unfortunately, disappear from history without such an entry on Wikipedia. I first ran across modern interest in the band around 2015 on a website called 60srockband.com. That site is now gone. Many of the links and sites on the Steel Mill site are gone. This history is disappearing. Wikipedia can, and should, help save it. Tonytt (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF, as the weaknesses of the Steel Mill article are not relevant for our current discussion about whether The Institution is notable. If the Steel Mill article needs improvement, or even if it deserves to be deleted, that can be handled as a separate matter by Wikipedia's volunteers. Once again, I think you are doing very interesting historical research, but you're putting it in an inappropriate forum. There is surely an interested readership for what you have found on The Institution, so consider submitting to NJ history publications or the like. Best regards, ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I won't get involved in the question of whether the article should be retained or deleted. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I applaud Tonytt for his interest, passion, and diligence--he should definitely write a book. I think that some of the material in this article, provided reliable sources can be found, could be used as background info. in articles about some of the later well-known acts whose members played in the Institution. And, if some of the Institution's recordings could find official release, that would be very helpful for establishing notability down the road. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. I would suggest Tonytt to find another WP:OUTLET, or even write a book to keep the history alive forever (even better). SWinxy (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't enough independent, secondary, WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS on the band itself. Jacona (talk) 16:22, 9 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Justin Delort[edit]

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

Notability not established for either GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Ireland. Curbon7 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least Redirect to St Patrick's College, Maynooth as the subject is mentioned here as an important figure in the early history of the college. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPROF doesn’t apply to the 18th and 19th century. I don’t understand why the sources aren’t sufficient for a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the Wiki-notability guideline for scholars and academics is geared towards evaluating those who are active now, or in the very recent past; historical figures are outside of its scope. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Eucharistic miracle material makes it awkward to redirect it only to Maynooth, where that material couldn't be merged. The sourcing in the article on the Eucharistic miracle is not great, but there's an academic source here[17]and a long account here[18].--Jahaza (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds, thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG: a Google Books search provides a couple reliable sources with significant coverage, even if they're both in French.[19][20] St Anselm (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep - at worst redirect to St Patrick's College, Maynooth. This was probably only a small college, created so that Irish Catholic clergy would be trained in Ireland, not a (hostile) France. The four professors were probably the only teaching staff, but were presumably instrumental in its foundation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the sources unearthed above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:48, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

André Darré[edit]

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

Notability not established for either GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Ireland. Curbon7 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a 10-page scholarly biography here. Also mentioned here and here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beyond the coverage already in the article (including the Gow biographical article) there's nontrivial coverage of him in Revue de Gascogne 1910. I think there's plenty here for GNG. WP:PROF is not so relevant for academics from so long ago. And the nominator's claim that the article was (at time of nomination) a stub is both irrelevant for notability and false: it was at least start-class. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given by David Eppstein and also concerned by the suggestion that this was a stub.--Jahaza (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur that Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is not really the applicable standard for historical figures, and I think there's enough documentation to write an article. XOR'easter (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG. Doesn't matter if the article is currently a stub or not. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources WP:NEXIST, even if the article is underdeveloped, deletion is not the solution to poorly written articles about obviously notable subjects, it needs to be developed using the sources above. This [21] and this [Revue de Gascogne 1910] (already discussed above), along with a couple of others are certainly sufficient to establish GNG. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the same considerations apply as to the other three professors, who were instrumental in founding St Patrick's College, Maynooth. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article supports WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per David Eppstein's source analysis. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:50, 10 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. I see a weak consensus that he has enough sources to scrape by; the presence of an article in a print encyclopedia is particularly significant. However, merging or redirecting may still be discussed on talk pages. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Anglade[edit]

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

Notability not established for either GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Ireland. Curbon7 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, notability doesn't seem to be established. A WP:BEFORE search only returns a small number of results (a majority of which are mentions in works substantively about something else). I can find no biographical works of which the subject is the primary topic (or other sources to support notability under the other WP:ANYBIO criteria). Book/academic searches return a number of results, but all (as with the web search) are passing mentions in works which are substantively about other topics. I can find no sources/works which deal with the subject as a primary topic (biographical or otherwise). Subject's notability seems to be inextricably linked to another topic. For which we already have an article. Not seeing rationale for stand-alone article. Guliolopez (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least Redirect to St Patrick's College, Maynooth as the subject is mentioned here in connection with the early history of the college. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As pointed out at the deletion debates for Pierre-Justin Delort and André Darré, the wiki-notability guideline for academics is not really applicable to historical figures, being geared instead to evaluating scholars active today. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Sourcing for him, independent of the other French founders of Maynooth, seems to be somewhat scarce, but there is at least a biography of him in the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers, doi:10.5040/9781350052468-0004. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (lie the other three founders of St Patrick's College, Maynooth. I see nothing inadequate in the sources cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under WP:GNG. It's a case of WP:NEXIST not just looking at the article at it stands. The WP:ATD would be to redirect to St Patrick's College, Maynooth, as already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:51, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis-Gilles Delahogue[edit]

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

Notability not established for either GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Ireland. Curbon7 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the context of this AfD, and the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francois Anglade, it is worth noting that the content of both pages is practically the same. See: compare 1102118119 to 1101680611. If both subjects are notable for effectively the same things (and their association with the same topic), then why do we need separate articles for either/both of them? Guliolopez (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least Redirect to St Patrick's College, Maynooth as the subject is mentioned here as an important figure in the early history of the college. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As pointed out at the deletion debates for Pierre-Justin Delort and André Darré, the wiki-notability guideline for academics is not really applicable to historical figures, being geared instead to evaluating scholars active today. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an entry for him in Encyclopédie des sciences religieuses (1879, 50 years after his death), and another entry in Biographie universelle (1834). His Exposé des motifs is widely held in libraries. I think together with the sources we already have in the article there's plenty of coverage for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep just about meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between what we already had and the biographical dictionaries found by David Eppstein, we have the documentation to justify an article. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The founders of St Patrick's College, Maynooth are notable for founding it. The article has quite sufficient sourcing. Even a college history, by another academic, ought not to be regarded as independent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V. K. Garg[edit]

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

Among his most prominent work listed in the article is this [22] it has only 5 citations in 7 years. Fails WP:NPROF KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: [23] Total 16,000 cites, h-index 68. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep he is notable academic and has 16,000 cites as mentioned above.I love to be honest (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:NPROF due to the citation counts, unclear how the nom came to the conclusion that was there most prominent work. WP:NEXIST matters, not just what is shown on the article right now. WP:DINC -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:11, 9 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 No result. Given how radically the article has changed during this AfD, many of the comments are not applicable any more, and as such there is no valid result to be obtained here (not even a "no consensus"; the discussion is simply irrelevant to determining the notability of the article as it stands). I suspect Chinese military exercises are notable, but if anyone disagrees, a new AfD will be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis[edit]

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

A non-notable non-event. Entirely WP:SYNTH/WP:OR; the article takes from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that none of the sources say. No sources specifically describing this hypothetical exist. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article now is practically an entirely new article, with a complete topical shift to boot. This has got to be one of the worst, most chaotic and nonsensical AfDs I've ever been a part of. Curbon7 (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Military, China, and Taiwan. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, some sources mentioning a fourth crisis do exist, such as [24] [25], but this still does not surmount to notability on it's own, as the coverage is very superficial. Feels far WP:TOOSOON still. Curbon7 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. As of now there hasn't been much more than the usual Chinese air drills inside Taiwan's ADIZ and bellicose rhetoric. As it has already been said, this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. And calling the current events the "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" definitely is sensationalism: compared to the previous three, what's happening right now is peanuts. BilletsMauves^€500 18:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. I checked five of the sources and none of them mention the concept of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP: ROUTINE, WP:OR HurricaneEdgar 22:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep: A few sources like that has the name. [26] -184.146.37.152 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per DUH, and btw WP:Competence is required

In a NOTABLE and widely reported actual EVENT in 2021, multiple PRC military planes entered the ROC's ADIZ. Therefore I have expanded the scope of the article accordingly, and we should ignore the opinions of editors ignorant of this history or unwilling to account for it. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article was not lack of notability. The problem was it was biased toward WP:Recentism and Anglo-Americanism. This can be corrected. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of China's ADIZ is way bigger than its sovereign airspace, and some parts of it are situated over mainland China. Chinese "intrusions" in Taiwan's ADIZ are routine, and often take place several times a week. There have been hundreds of them, if not thousands, in the past years, and this did not start in 2021. While this ongoing series of ADIZ "violations" may be notable, related copy-pasted additions in the article really don't show that these sparked any kind of crisis. Interestingly, even though Chinese incursions in Taiwan's ADIZ are frequently reported even in mainstream media, these almost always fail to explain what an ADIZ actually is (i.e. not necessarily sovereign national airspace). Lastly, please keep it down with the caps and personal attacks. Thanks in advance. BilletsMauves^€500 20:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is not to say that the Fourth Crisis won't happen, but at least not at this stage - it could as well escalate into one and then we can create that article. For now, please delete.Kazuha1029 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not so much as mention a Fourth Crisis at this moment. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see. As per Jaredscribe, PRC's diplomatic reactions to Pelosi's visit and subsequent PLA drills are notable. Wait till the end of the events to determine how significant they turn out to be. No News ! 04:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to wait and see for. It's a big nothing burger. The event has been over for a day and nothing has happened, besides a little display of materiel that is pretty routine for China. Curbon7 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we need to wait until there are numerous authoritative media sources that are reporting on a fourth crisis. Until then I think this article is jumping the gun. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, the media coverage is speculation if such a crisis would occur, and it has not yet happened. Once sources describe it as a thing that's actually currently happening then we can re-create. Jumpytoo Talk 05:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Hold / Modify article's contents - Request other users to archive the article's contents until information is substantiated for the article to be a thing. It was reported earlier the PLA fired two missiles from Fujian and traveled through the Taiwan Islands itself. Godspeed to whom may it concern. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed by other comments there are no references to this event as the "fourth crisis", thus modifications would be required or a complete deletion as the final solution. PenangLion (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with points that there are almost no notable sources referring to it as the Fourth Crisis. I think a new article can be proposed with a different name or (probably more sensibly) discussion of the military drills can be added to the article about Pelosi's visit. Dhawk790 (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As HurricaneEdgar pointed out, this is straight up original research. There is no "Fourth Crisis" because of Pelosi's visit. No one is calling it that. We already have Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit. 121.179.189.157 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Global Times twitter account uses the term fourth crisis over Taiwan Straits. Link --AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources are using the term "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis", but just using the term alone is not enough to demonstrate independent notability at this moment, as again, the coverage is mostly supeerficial. Curbon7 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep The actions undertaken by the PRC are a significant escalation. In addition, some sources have referred to the incident as the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis ^[1] ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticForce07 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is problematic, it isn't a crisis, yet, but it may develop to one. However, the live fire drills conducted by the Chinese around the island are probably already notable.PrisonerB (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under new name, the exercises are notable. PrisonerB (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or wait and see: The situation has escalated far enough to make it reasonable to either keep the article, or at least wait for some time before deletion. There are already some international reactions to the situation. The article was created WP:TOOSOON, but currently it means little. The problems can be fixed by editing the article. Ceosad (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now... BobNesh (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you are not required to give a reason, if I may ask, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep this article? Elijahandskip (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very obviously notable event with endless media coverage to indicate that. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or heavily modify. In its current form and with this title, this fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL, as stated by others. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Comment: Stricken out, as the current title and scope of this article is totally different from when I first voted here. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. In its current form, this fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Almost wanted to say WP:RAPID, but since the mover from draft to mainspace is the AfD nominator, I do not believe it applies. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I am not the original creator, I don't wanna be tied to this mess of an article lol. I initially draftified it, but decided AfD was a better venue. Curbon7 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Did not know that, so thanks for clarifying that. I had just seen the move to mainspace then AfD, but yeah, you have nothing to do with the creation of this article. I just altered my comment because of what you said. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan. A redirect may be warranted at some point, for now though it feels like the title of this subject borders on WP:OR given the NOTNEWS/CRYSTAL status. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously is a crises when one nation starts lobbing military missiles and projectiles into another's waters. Highly notable, with much well sourced news coverage. The crises does not require a lot of dead and injured people to be a crises. N2e (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that even on Chinese Wikipedia there is an article referring to the 2022 strait crisis, discussing whether it can be called the "fourth crisis" or "2022 crisis" is one thing, but wanting to deny that there is currently a crisis is crazy. LLs (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Merge This article has improved a lot since it was first published and deletion is no longer a reasonable course of action, but I could see reorganizing it. Jsnider3 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was moved to 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan. I agree that it is WP:TOOSOON and that few sources call this crisis the "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis". The article needs cleanup, but I am against deleting all the work done so far, so I propose to draftify the article under the current name. P1221 (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're now discussing on the basis of the new article name, shall we move the title of this AfD page to the new article title then? No News ! 07:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article with the new title may be keepable, but the OR redirect Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis should be deleted or possibly retargeted. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion should be closed and a new one opened if necessary. Many of the oppose arguments no longer apply after with the new title. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need, the closing administrator will take the reasons for the !votes into account rather than the number of them. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT NOTE: — The article was moved to 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan by Txkk. Any !votes (Keep, delete, merge, or redirect) that !voted based on a “Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis” need to re-!vote, since their vote no longer applies due to the renaming move. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The classic scummy page move during AfD. Re-votes are not necessary. If someone wants to change their rationale, they can strike. Curbon7 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Smith assault of Chris Rock at the Oscars HurricaneEdgar 13:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Re-vote. Original reasoning doesn't apply after move. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC); edit: Strong keep per Mhawk10 below. Article might need work, but the solution is working on it, not deleting it. It is notable enough and with enough sources to keep it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AdrianHObradors - Please indicate your original vote as rescinded, as I've done for my own. Thanks. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete (Modify)~~ (vote rescinded, re-vote listed lower down the page) - The information in this article is not necessarily non-notable in and of itself, but the conclusions that editors originally came to when formulating the nascent title "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" were 100% original research. The first three Taiwan Strait crises are well recorded and researched, in large part due to having occurred a long time ago. Overall, there was no way that this article could stand with its former title. With its current title, it's a bit more acceptable, although there are still various issues with the actual content that's inside of the article. For example, why is Syria's opinion on the altercation so important, aside from simply being a puppet of Russia? (as we can see from Syria's recognition of the Russian breakaway republics in the Donbas). The only relevant players should be other East Asian nations and various world powers (either superpower, great power, or middle power). A third world country like Syria that is located far away from the conflict zone has no weight in this conversation, especially since there are only something like six countries' opinions listed at the moment. On the other hand, North Korea's opinion is obviously acceptable given how relevant they are to Taiwan (i.e. historical relations, geographic proximity, etc.). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've gone ahead and removed Syria from the "international response" section of the article for the reasons that I outlined above. The source that was used to support Syria's position was state media. In my opinion, it is not Wikipedia's job to literally just spread propaganda with an asterisk* (*this is state media). If it's state media and it's coming from some random third world country, then it probably has no genuine relevance to the situation at hand. Syria trying to be relevant doesn't mean we have to facilitate their agenda. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jargo Nautilus:Huh? Why would you arbitrarily consider another government's stance on this matter as "irrelevant"? Because they're "third world"? Because they support the bigger country? This is a globally significant event so any government's stance would be notable, it's not the role of Wikipedia to hide or pre-filter this kind of voices (see WP:DUE), if it is by state media then label it so; most government statements and stances will be issued by state media anyway. You can separate views of countries into categories such as "regional"/"non-regional" or "support"/"neutral"/"oppose" etc and let the reader decide what to do with the information. No News ! 15:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the notion that this is a globally significant event. That's original research. Indeed, at the moment, I would consider this event to be only regionally significant. And, going by that definition, Syria isn't located in the region, nor is Syria really a world player in geopolitics, at least nowhere comparable to countries like France, the United States, or even nearby (to Syria) Israel. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it this way. If we were to go by your definition of "globally significant event", we would have to list the opinions of around 200 different countries in order to be truly fair. Do you honestly think we need that many opinions in this article? Just a few opinions from the most important players would suffice. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When you say "the bigger country", I presume you mean China. But I have to disagree with that notion, because this incident isn't a two-way dispute. Instead, it's a three-way dispute between China, Taiwan, and the United States. And, while China is definitely a lot bigger than Taiwan, it's not really all that much bigger than the United States. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest merging this with 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, though I'm not sure whether the content should be moved there or here. Either way, the original title wasn't good but the current one is ok. ansh.666 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. That article has issues of its own. Both of these articles are Frankenstein's monsters at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NEVENT states that events are very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. This is an international incident affecting the national security situations of China, Taiwan, and Japan. Reuters believes that this event is likely to have broad impact in Japan, as it serves to bolster public support for a military build-up aimed at defence, which is certainly something that is of international importance. It's also drawn response from ASEAN, which bolsters the fact that these drills are internationally significant. These drills have also resulted in some actions that are extremely rare, such as Chinese fighters and naval vessels crossing the median line between China and Taiwan, while missiles flew over the island. There were also significant disruptions in international shipping and air travel caused by the drills. Additionally, these drills have also been covered by a broad swath of reliable sources in-depth, including CNN, Al Jazeera, The Wall Street Journal, AP, Axios, Politico EU, AFP (via NDTV), The New York Times, RFA, VoA, Taipei Times, The Independent, India dot com, BBC News, NHK, etc.
The concerns relating to the old title of the page (Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis) seem to have been resolved by the page move to a much better title (2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan), so any sort of deletion rationale based on the title alone should be WP:DISCARDed. And, while this was done ostensibly in response to Speaker Pelosi's visit to the island, I think that the drills can be covered better in a standalone page than in a section on the page on Pelosi's visit. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I will note that WP:DEL-CONTENT states that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. We're in a situation where editing has changed the page from a synth/or title and presentation of events into one where the coverage is largely of the event and it's devoid of any mention of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" as of this revision, so it does look like editing actually can improve the page from here on out. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan I'm just not seeing any reliable sources which actually say that a Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis exists, thats the bare minimum and we don't have it. WP:RS universally frame this as a response to Pelosi's visit not a stand-alone event. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the article in its current form does not include the words "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" even once. M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may the title has been justified by subsequent coverage, the Center for Strategic and International Studies [27] for example is now calling it the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Based on the shift in coverage I'm changing my vote to keep and restore to its original name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Modify per Ⓜ️hawk10. Imperator Storm (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- now that the article has been renamed to something more appropriate. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL. Chance it could become notable later but not now. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir.copic, how do SYNTH and CRYSTAL apply here? AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more of a WP:TOOSOON than CRYSTAL but the SYNTH is fairly clear. Most of the sources and article is about Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit or prior events with no mention of the August military exercises - including nearly all the sources in the Escalation of tensions and International response sections. From a quick count a third of all sources are from before 2 August and even more are not about the military exercises. I'd happily support a merge with Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit of which this article is a WP:POVFORK. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic: Do you believe that the fifteen sources that I listed in my comment above fail to significantly cover the topic of the August military exercises? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on Pelosi's Taiwan Visit. The events in this article are not notable enough at the moment to have its own wikipedia article. The conflict may warrant their own article if things escalate but not now. Evercool1 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep the information here is encyclopedia worthy for it's notability and relevance. Perhaps for now it could be merged until it can be looked at in retrospect RFZYNSPY ^talk 00:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The GNG has been far and away surpassed here, I don't see the issues with SYNTH. "Fourth Taiwan Strait crisis" was not an appropriate title, but since the page has been moved that vacates all the reasonable SYNTH and poor sourcing concerns. I also oppose a merge to 2022 US Congressional Delegation visit to Taiwan, since that article is already very bloated and doesn't need the detailed day-by-day military analysis that is bound to spring up here. The two are also separate events with separate coverage; the military exercises may have been caused by Pelosi's visit, but she's already long gone. Maybe (and this part is TOOSOON) if it is determined by RSes at some point in the future that this is a "Fourth Taiwan Strait crisis", then all the different parts can be merged into such an article, but until then I see such merges as SYNTH and TOOSOON. Toadspike (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps merge into another article as suggested. Qiushufang (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qiushufang I don't understand these arguments. Toosoon and crystal? How? AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Crystal element plays in here because news outlets are describing this altercation as a "potential crisis" rather than as a full-fledged fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. With that being said, the info is definitely notable enough to remain as a standalone article, but we just have to be very careful about how we classify the information until further developments are made in the real world. Personally, I'm not even sure that I agree with the way that this article seems to almost be presented as a direct military conflict (like a skirmish or a battle). So far, no actual fighting has taken place. It's all "sabre-rattling" at the moment, albeit with a blockade and military exercises by China against Taiwan thrown in. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo Nautilus, not once in the whole article since the move is "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" used. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they still present the altercation as a military conflict with that info-box. This is a detail that I disagree with since I don't think the altercation qualifies as a military conflict at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. No Merge. The topic is notable enough to have its own article. The Pelosi visit is notable enough on its own to also have it's own article. Both articles are related and will have wikilink in each other. EyeTruth (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep Keep it and merged it with the page we got now. As there is some news outlets that starts to coin it as crisis.

The Economist: https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/08/03/nancy-pelosi-has-left-taiwan-the-real-crisis-may-be-just-beginning (Crisis)

NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115234980/what-3-past-taiwan-strait-crises-can-teach-us-about-u-s-china-tensions-today (Crisis)

Hankyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1053402.html (Crisis)

Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-trip-risks-sparking-fourth-taiwan-strait-crisis-us-china-1730063 (Crisis)

As of August 6th 2022, these four news outlets has coin the recent event as crisis. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the articles that you linked seem to be describing the altercation as a "potential crisis" rather than a definitive fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (under the new less peackock title). The event seems notable given the coverage, and is ongoing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Modify - UPDATE: I've changed my vote from "Delete (Modify)" to "Keep and Modify". The info is definitely notable, there's no question about it. The main issue was with the way that the information was being presented. Clearly, that issue has been fixed in large part by changing the title. HOWEVER, I also believe that the info-box is still problematic because it presents this altercation as a military conflict even though no actual fighting has taken place yet. For now, the altercation can only be described as "sabre-rattling", albeit with an illegal naval blockade by China around Taiwan thrown in. For now, it is a case of CRYSTAL to regard this as an actual military conflict, although the situation on the ground may change in the coming days. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is changed to different content. The event seems notable given the coverage passes WP:GNG. Taung Tan (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snowclose. The article in its current state is unrecognizable compared to its incarnation at the time this AfD was initiated. Additionally, during this discussion, the article was preemptively redirected from Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis (a hypothetical name for a hypothetical military conflict) to 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan a notable non-conflict which is now documented as having occurred. Prior delete arguments are simply moot. If anyone wants to argue that 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS that should be a separate discussion. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 08:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the current article depicts the altercation/incident as a conflict because it uses the conflict info-box. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @EyeTruth:.103.141.159.230 (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The PRC military has surrounded Taiwan ROC and has been blocking ROC Taiwan trade and resources. This is not the same fiasco as the 1950s and 60s Taiwan Strait Crises. This event may actually precipitate in President Xi annexing Taiwan. 203.166.241.41 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Curbon7 (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but considering people have already been linking this event with how the Ukraine-Russia conflict precipitated, someone had to say it. It's implied. The article is notable simply because it is an ongoing, important event. The article should not be deleted. 203.166.241.41 (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @EyeTruth: >>

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deleted G11 as most of the text is a copy of https://theprideoflondon.com/2018/02/19/chelsea-barcelona-true-european-rivalry/. It should be noted for future reference, however, that consensus was that the subject is non-notable anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea F.C. - F.C. Barcelona rivalry[edit]

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

No real sources to show that this is a lasting and meaningful rivalry rather than a couple of teams who have played each other recently. Lots of sources are just stats or routine coverage of individual matches. Spike 'em (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is clearly no significant rivalry here. This is another case of an attempted article on a "rivalry" which is actually just an account of a few matches between two teams -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rivalry would have more than contemporaneous sources about the actual Rivalry, discussing it as a Rivalry. I would expect to see evidence of that Rivalry in those sources discussing, distinct to a single upcoming game, the rivalry details. This is fleeting, temporary, news coverage of some (at the time) relatively high profile games. Koncorde (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A transfer battle is not a rivalry. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The teams only clash when they meet in international club tournaments, a total of 17 matches including both ends of multiple two-legged ties over the course of nearly six decades. The prose states that the allegedly rivalry began in the early 2000s, whereas the table lists five matches from the 20th Century. This leaves a total of 12 matches over six Champions League competitions during the past two decades. The understood definition of a sports rivalry requires regular meetings between the teams – e.g. the Manchester derby – but WP:NRIVALRY requires that coverage of any rivalry meet WP:GNG – which is why there is no article on the croquet rivalry between the United States Naval Academy and St. John's College despite it being an annual competition. If sufficient sources are found to meet GNG, please ping me. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant rivalry. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant. If these two have a rivalry significant enough for a separate article, than an article for any pairing of two major European clubs can be said to be worthy of an article. They're not. oknazevad (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No rivalry exists between the teams. Clog Wolf _Howl 07:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even a rivalryMuur (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rivalry made by some mass media as much of the international club rivalries by analogy with the nations rivalry.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, there is greater rivalry between the women's teams of these clubs than between the men's. I agree with the point made above that a rivalry requires seasonal meetings between the two teams and, I think, a degree of proximity as in Liverpool versus either of the Manchester clubs. Chelsea v Barcelona matches are luck of the draw encounters.

Sistorian (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:42, 5 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 procedural close. Article has been speedy deleted by Jimfbleak under G4, and 11. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wadhwani Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. AmirŞah 14:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Schools, Social science, and India. AmirŞah 14:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article does not satisfy SIGCOV. The references appear to be based on PR material and cannot be used to support NCORP. VV 15:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy delete Reads again as advertising. The Banner talk 17:21, 3 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 keep. Withdrawn by nom, no !votes other than to keep. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Dalal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Professor with expertise in the paramagnetism subject, but not well-known enough to be included on Wikipedia. PlayOboe (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. PlayOboe (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPROF on multiple accounts. He is a distinguished professor, holds another named professorship, and holds 2 academic fellowships. Curbon7 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Easy and obvious pass of WP:PROF criteria #C1 (highly cited publications), #C3 (twice, fellow of APS & ACS), #C5 (twice, distinguished prof & named prof). No evidence that nominator has paid any attention to our academic notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Now I'm reading the policy pertaining to professors WP:PROF. I hereby withdraw my nomination. PlayOboe (talk) 16:51, 3 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 Narnia (world)#Cosmology. The existence of sources about a subtopic of a well-defined larger topic is necessary, but not sufficient, for the existence of a standalone article; there also needs to be a valid reason for keeping the material separate. No such rationale has been provided here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wood between the Worlds[edit]

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

This does not meet the WP:GNG as there isn't significant coverage that is more than a trivial mention. There is a trivial mention connecting this to the novel The Wood Beyond the World, but the rest of this is entirely WP:OR. Jontesta (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is mostly referenced. Why should it be that "the rest of this is entirely WP:OR"? Daranios (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narnia (world)#Cosmology. The Narnia article needs a lot of work, so utilizing content from this seems the most sensible. The topic doesn't seem like it'd ever have undue weight in the main article. TTN (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narnia (world)#Cosmology - The basics of what it is, is already covered fairly well there, but could stand to have some of the information and sources moved over. This is one of those WP:NOPAGE situations, where its better to cover the topic as part of the broader concept where there is more context, rather than spinning it out to a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Article is mostly WP:PLOT summary, which is what Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. There isn't WP:SIGCOV of how this has been received outside of the fiction, and agree that the in-universe details are better presented in context. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic and its significance is discussed in a number of secondary sources. I think WP:GNG/WP:WHYN could be fullfilled with the this article (has just short of a page) and this one (has a several-page section on the topic). Deletion is not clean-up, so with the help of this secondary sources WP:NOT is no longer an issue. WP:NOPAGE may apply, which could have been evaluated in a merge discussion. But stating broadly "does not meet the WP:GNG as there isn't significant coverage that is more than a trivial mention" indicates in this case that no WP:BEFORE search was done; when notability/lack of sources is the main argument, this in my view is a WP:Disruptive misuse of the WP:Deletion process. Daranios (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narnia (world)#Cosmology. Not every topic mentioned in secondary sources is worth having a seperate article on. I do not think this has enough to merit a free standing article. We are better off developing articles with substance than a lot of little articles on small aspects of the plot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the articles uncovered by Daranios. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the articles uncovered by @Daranios: or merge with Narnia (world)#Cosmology in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 26.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Narnia (world)#Cosmology. Even if the subject is technically notable, notability is a necessary but not sufficient criterium for inclusion. Another consideration is editorial in nature: it is unhelpful to readers and invites the addition of excessive detail to cover a (relatively minor) element of a (relatively unimportant) fictional work in its own article. Such content is better presented in the context of an article about the work. Sandstein 13:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an AfD outcome. While merging is reasonable, independent notability has been demonstrated so any merger should be a merge discussion, rather than an enforced AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator the point of Wikipedia is to build WP:CONSENSUS. Considering that every !vote here expressed that a merge is a reasonable outcome as per WP:NOPAGE, I am willing to join the WP:CONSENSUS to resolve this issue.

As a tangent, Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. ... A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." I don't think this AFD was made in error, and merger is a valid outcome given that this topic isn't notable separate from existing articles. But even that aside, it's WP:DISRUPTIVE to acknowledge a consensus around a reasonable solution, and still find some misinterpretation of procedure in order to prolong a dispute. Jontesta (talk) 22:07, 10 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 Robyn discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cherrytree Sessions (Robyn EP)[edit]

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

Not a notable release, and lacks any source since it’s been created. Sricsi (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero sources found, there is a record label called Cherrytree, gets a few hits. Otherwise, nothing. Oaktree b (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robyn discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:25, 6 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 per criterion A7, lacking any credible indication of importance. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Motzoid India[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tried to PROD but noticed that there is an old AfD so is ineligible for soft deletion. Rationale still applies Topic appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG based on what I can find.

Possibly WP:TOOSOON as company was founded in 2021. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, India, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nominator. Not meeting WP:GNG. Nupamjo (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe WP:TOOSOON, but certainly WP:GNG fail. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 3 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!} 21:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incap[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It was deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Incap and reuploaded again. I didn't see it when first edited it a few weeks ago. Also I found it was declined at AfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Incap_Corporation and it's still in draft Morpho achilles (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you compare the current live article and the one in drafts you'll see that they are very different. The published one has been translated from the Finnish Wikipedia article and it has many analyst reports used as a source (like HighKing and Jtbobwaysf wished in the previous deletion discussion). In the Draft version there were 49 sources of which 28 were internal to Incap. In the live version there are 38 sources, 2 of them Incap internal. Jjanhone (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jjanhone, sounds great. Can you link here to the analyst reports you believe meet NCORP criteria? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can see the links in the Ref section. Kauppalehti, Talouselämä, Tekniikka&Talous are Finnish magazines concentrated on business news and analysis and their content is behind paywalls. Jjanhone (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - E.g. this one.Jjanhone (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm unable to access those articles but I can see the headline and snippet. From what I can see, most appear to be based on company announcements. Can anyone (who has access) confirm these sources meet NCORP and they're not simply "reporting" on an announcement with no "Independent Content" as per ORGIND? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Cheers HighKing! How about checking the news by Yleisradio aka Finland's national public broadcasting company? As it's public broadcasting company it is not that business oriented but based on news: [28]. Let's see if I can find some active Finnish Wikipedia users, who can have access to Talouselämä. Might be difficult as we are so few in general in the English Wikipedia.Jjanhone (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking at the news headlines on that website only shows articles based on company announcements and PR (e.g. Layoffs, ownership announcements, financial announcements, etc). None pass ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Ping Finnusertop, Taavi, Apalsola, Veeti_Davidsson do you have access to Talouselämä/some other Finnish media talking about Incap? Jjanhone (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see the article has a live articles in Finnish and French wp versions. So we are talking about deleting the English translation. Most of the discussion above seems to relate to people not having access or maybe not being able to read the content. Seems to me we should hold off on delete and maybe put the Finish version to AFD first, and see if it passes (Finnish people and/or people that can read the language will be much more qualified to comment). If it passes Finnish AFD, then we know that we are more dealing with a translation issue and a tag for the English article would be more suitable. Let's not get too wrapped us in thinking the EN wikipedia is the 'correct' one, and maybe defer to the other languages first. For example I have seen EN versions of a CN article to be very weak, while the CN article is robust and fully built out. The Finnish article has 38 sources (and I cant read a single one of them), but some might be decent and pass NCORP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well in Finnish Wikipedia "stock listed companies are usually notable" [29] and as there is so much media attention for this company there's no proper reason to start an AFD there. The article was created in 2015.Jjanhone (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have perfect visibility to all the paywalled sources, but the coverage seems to be either standard announcements (e.g. [30] based on the headline) or PR pieces (e.g. [31]). I'd greatly appreciate if those proposing to keep would do something along the lines of WP:THREE, listing what they believe to be the 3-4 best sources together with descriptions of their length, depth and how independent they appear. Currently, I'm leaning delete. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ljleppan! Am I free to choose the best sources or should I prefer the ones you have access to? If so, which are those? If I choose the best ones, can you point me an example about how to describe them (lenght, depth and independence)?Jjanhone (talk) 10:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chooosing the best sources might be difficult if I dont know the criteria. E.g. you said that this is "PR content" while I saw it as a journalist interviewing a CEO, making it original content, not just a press release puff. As it's not behind a paywall I invite others to judge it too. Jjanhone (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just to be clear. If the journalist simply repeats what the CEO said without adding any "Independent Content" (that is the journalist did not add *substantial* and *in-depth* opinion/commentary/fact checking/analysis) then that fails ORGIND. Sure, it might make it "original content" (in that those precise sequence of words may never have appeared in that particular order in the past) but unique is not the same as *independent*. Sorry for the emphasis, just trying to explain so that you should be able to understand, yourself, what "Independent Content" is. Basically, if it is information that was provided by the company (e.g. financials, PR, website, interview, quotes, etc) we exclude that content (for the purposes of establishing notability - that content can of course be used to support facts, etc, within the article). HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalled is fine, if you give a good description of what the article is about, the tone, depth etc. W/r/t the Ilta-Sanomat piece, the content is wholly uncritical, and seems like it would be sourced solely from what a company rep would tell a journalist. Basically, regurgitating a bunch of press releases with a few quotes from the CEO thrown in. Ljleppan (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I tried to find analysis of Incap (searching for Incap + analysis). Here's what I found. Jjanhone (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arvopaperi 5th May 2022: Incap on ylisuorittunut epäsuositulla toimialalla komeasti – Asiakaspuoleen sisältyy kuitenkin sitova riski (Incap has outperformed handsomely in an unpopular industry - However, there is a binding risk on the client side). Lenght about 2,600 chars, mentions about Incap's biggest customer and how it has evolved. No sources mentioned, but the magazine is concentrated on stock companies. Contains critic.

A quote: "Incap's growth story comes with its own risks. Victron Energy, the company's largest customer, accounted for as much as 61% of its turnover last year. ... Although Incap's position as a subcontractor may be considered disadvantageous, customers do not easily change contract manufacturers. Incap's profitability comes from lower costs than its competitors."

Talouselämä 4th May 2007. Nyt kävi kyyti kylmäksi (Now the ride got cold). It's a review of the market, aka Electronics subcontractors in Finland in 2006: Elcoteq, Perlos, Scanfil, Elektrobit, Aspocomp, Incap, Cencorp. Lenght of the article: about 7,400 chars. 8 mentions for name Incap and the part telling about the company is about 1,000 chars.

A quote is telling the journalist is having own thoughts about what Incap should do - co-operate with another company: "In recent years, Incap has made good progress. Last year, it was the only decent performer in the analysis set. Unlike most companies in the group, Incap is not Nokia-dependent, but has a diverse customer base." "Together, Scanfil and Incap could be a strong player in the small series production of demanding industrial electronics. Both have already downsized in Finland and Scanfil in Belgium." "Scanfil is undergoing a generational change. There are signs of it in Incap too."

Kauppalehti 16 Sep 2019 Törkeästi noussut Incap jatkaa nousurallia? – Tavoitehintaa nostaneet analyytikot: "Arvostus ei täysin huomioi ketterää toimintamallia" (Will Incap, which has risen sharply, continue its upward rally? – Analysts who raised the target price: "The valuation does not fully take into account the agile operating model"). Lenght: about 3,500 chars. Two analytics from Inderes commenting the company.

A quote from the analysts: ""In our view, the current valuation of Incap does not fully reflect the competitive advantage and strong operational performance created by the company's lean and agile operating model." The analysts also say the relative discount to the share price remains "unjustifiably large"."

The above mentions sources have not been used as ref atm. Let me tell my favorites of the current refs. Jjanhone (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talouselämä 19 May 2000 Incap löysi viimein itsensä (Incap finally found itself). Length: 3,000 chars. Summarizes the history and has a critical tone.

A quote tells that the writer has opinions: "Compared to other companies in the hot sector, Incap's share price has been sleepy, except for the February technopeak. Investors' reticence is explained by the mixed-use retailer's reputation and declining earnings. Incap's focus on capital goods has not helped either." "Grittiness flourishes in the CEO's review..." "Not surprisingly, the Incap board decided in early May to relieve Frey of his duties."

Tekniikka & Talous 19 Feb 2010 Intian ihme Incapin tapaan (Indian wonder like Incap). Lenght: 5,500 chars. Summarizes the history and tells e.g. about companies challenges.

A quote, interviewing Incap marketing manager Munipalli in India tells about the problems: "India is a land of opportunity, but there are plenty of problems too. Munipalli simplifies the dilemmas of the environment: "There are too many of us Indians, the infrastructure is all over the place and corruption is a bad problem."" Earlier in the article: "The biggest challenge is building the brand. The company is not a big player like Flextronics or Elcoteq, nor is it a small player focused on prototyping. Local customers need to be convinced of the quality of the service." Part of the history chapter, cannot say if this was taken from the website back in 2010 but I doubt: "The industry's transformation is illustrated by the multi-generational history of the trade union at Incap's now-closed Vuokatti plant. In December 1978, the people of the Sotkamo plant of the state-owned cathode-ray tube factory Valco organised themselves as electronics workers. After the fall of Valco, the activities continued at Finn-Valco, then at Valmet and, since 1983, at Elektrostep. The latter was merged into Incap Electronics in 1996. After the restructuring, what remained of the companies in many sectors in 1997 was Incap Electronics, a contract manufacturer of electronics, and Incap Furniture, a contract manufacturer of furniture. The parent company was listed on the stock exchange. Furniture manufacturing went its own way in 2002. A year ago, its entire staff was made redundant after the main shareholder Ikea stopped taking orders."

I've posted above what I hope will assist you in determining whether sources contain "Independent Content" (as per ORGIND) or not, since you appeared to be under the impression that a report on an interview provided by the CEO was "original content" and therefore OK for establishing notability. With that in mind, the descriptions you provide of various articles above fails to identify whether or not those articles contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. For example, is the summary of the company history generic (e.g. same as website as other articles)? What exactly is the "critical tone" - does it have critical analysis/opinion that is in-depth? Where was the information on the company challenges sourced from (e.g. financial news? announcements?). These are the details that are required to satisfy other editors that the sources meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining HighKing. I wonder if my quotes (above) are helping here to get the tone of the articles. Jjanhone (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Based on the extracts posted by Jjanhone above and the likelihood of more examples of analysis/opinion being available in the Finnish press, this probably meets our notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources identified by Jjanhone. Weak, because I have no personal visibility into the identified sources. -Ljleppan (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems a notable topic. Passes WP:GNG. Nupamjo (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Less news coverage, but notable company. We occasionally need to think outside the box. NASDAQ-listed PCB assembly company. Even though I can see stated COI, I checked each content in good faith and found noteworthy.PlayOboe (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 8 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 keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ankan Deka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources available to establish notability. Another singer who only made a few solo or duet recordings. Possible COI (someone wrote the articles for his whole family). Need proper investigation by experienced editors. PlayOboe (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Assam. PlayOboe (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coverage in the Assam Times, unsure how reliable it is as a source. The COI is bothersome. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There appears to be no basis for this nomination - COI is reviewed and not a basis for deletion, reliable sources exist, e.g. [32], and the article subject has done more than "a few solo or duet recordings." Per RS cited in the article, he has also won multiple awards. The article can be improved, including by finding archived versions of sources, but WP:BASIC notability appears supported. Beccaynr (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
via the WP Library, e.g. "Assamese musician launches school in Bangalore" (Hindustan Times/ANI 2010, via ProQuest), "Song against sex crimes remembers Delhi girl - Bangalore-based musician makes music video to encourage people to raise their voices" (The Telegraph 2013, via ProQuest), "Great Gigs in the Clouds" (The Economic Times 2017, via ProQuest e.g. "Also hitting the high notes is The Euphony Rock Contest in Guwahati, founded in 2009 by Eastern Fare Music Foundation, a collaborative artist retreat for emerging professionals and celebrated artists." (He is the festival founder)). Beccaynr (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He composed a song about the newsworthy 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder. He is not notable for Wikipedia because of that.PlayOboe (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC notability appears to be supported because multiple independent and reliable sources offer secondary coverage over time about a variety of aspects of his career, and when combined, demonstrate significant coverage. Some sources are also available at the Internet Archive, e.g. Where folk & Western tunes merge (The Telegraph 2012). Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 6 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 Thomas Bergersen discography#Humanity. Article can be restored in the near future once the album series or any of the albums in that series has garnered enough coverage. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 08:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity (album series)[edit]

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

Very impressive looking article about a significant work of seven albums created around the theme of humanity. It's when we get to sourcing that the problems appear - the composer's website, Facebook, a blog, an enthusiast-run upload site and Apple Music. Search gets us nothing more than evidence that this WP article has already promulgated other Wikis/sites in the short time since it became searchable. It therefore fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Norway. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the four chapters released to date have charted on Billboard as per WP:NALBUM#2. TurboGUY (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nominator is right. Article lack reliable source and the fact album has been charted on Billboard doesn’t mean it supposed to be on main space --Gabriel^t@lk 09:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the fact album has been charted on Billboard doesn’t mean it supposed to be on main space" is an argument against WP:NALBUM#2, rather than this specific album, which states a recording can be notable when charting on a country's music chart, i.e. Billboard. – TurboGUY (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was difficult to search due to the common term, but I didn't find any additional WP:SIGCOV in WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. Jacona (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas Bergersen discography#Humanity. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. Their Billboard chartings can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. Perhaps we can move this to draft space as there are still another three chapters to be released and the subsequent full collection release which may garner future notability. – TurboGUY (talk) 12:24, 9 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 keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabananda Deka[edit]

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

Blatantly promotional article! There are numerous citations provided, yet none of the contents are found in source articles (very interesting 😊). The article was effectively written to promote the author. Nothing came up in a Google search either. I'm surprised that this piece has lasted this long. No reliable sources available to establish WP:GNG PlayOboe (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. PlayOboe (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Assam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GNG - this article does not appear to be WP:PROMO, the subject was a prolific scholar and author, referred to as one of the "literary luminaries of Assam" in an accessible source in the article that also includes a substantial overview of his career. WP:NPROF#7 appears supported. Beccaynr (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the WP Library: Bhabananda Deka memorial lecture (The Assam Tribune 2011, via Gale, e.g. "The annual lecture is held to commemorate the hallowed memory of late Bhabananda Deka, former principal and eminent economist of yesteryear, who pioneered the writing of books on Economics in Assamese."); "Documentary screening, books release function" (Assam Tribune 2017, via ProQuest, "A documentary film - screening and book - release programme has been organised [...] on the occasion of the 8th death anniversary of pioneer Assam economist and a leading litterateur of the golden Awahon Ramdhenu era of Assamese literature Prof Bhabananda Deka and six months of death of renowned storywriter, radio dramatist and social activist Nalini Prava Deka"); "AWARD INSTITUTED TO HONOUR SANKARI SCHOLARS" (Hindustan Times/Assam Tribune 2006, via ProQuest, "the translation of the highly revered book of Srimanta Sankardev the Kirtan ghosa into English had been accompalished by the renowned Sankari scholar, literary pensioner, author and former Principal of Pragjyotish College Bhabananda Deka, after his untiring eight years long singular effort."); "EX-PRINCIPAL OF PRAGJYOTISH COLLEGE DEAD" (Hindustan Times/Assam Tribune 2006, "His death has been condoled by Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi. In a condolence message Gogoi said the contribution of the noted economist would be forever remembered by the people.") Beccaynr (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : He is just another college professor who has written some college books. By that reasoning, any professor at a university will be notable for a Wikipedia page. And contrary to what the article said, he is not Asom Ratna. His son wrote that piece for the Assam Tribune (who happened to be a journalist). My research supports these claims. Wiki Seniors make the final decision. PlayOboe (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His son did not write this in-depth coverage in the Assam Tribune, which helps support WP:GNG and WP:NPROF notability, in addition to the sources in the article and the sources noted in this discussion. It is unclear which AT article you are referring to, or what research supports the claim that he has a son who is a journalist. Beccaynr (talk) 18:40, 6 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!} 06:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solmaz Naghiloo[edit]

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

No claim of notability is made here, subject does not qualify under any existing SSG. A Google search turns up only 8 hits, among which is this same Wikipedia article along with some Facebook results. No significant discussion was found, at least not in English. If other language sources exist, they need to be shown. A loose necktie (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same case as all those non-notable shooters here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Hossein Sharifzadeh. Sports2021 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete junior medals are not important in this sport.--Miha2020 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same problem like the other articles. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 4 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 11:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starr Humphreys[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dominica women's national football team#Players. No notability independent of the team. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:443C:9603:3623:E956 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches completely failed to yield any SIGCOV. Does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Oppose redirect as there is no guarantee that she will remain a permanent fixture in the Dominica squad. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 3 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 Kato Airline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kato Airline Flight 603[edit]

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

The article should be redirected to Kato Airline where this incident is already covered. There is not much more to say which warrants a separate article. Bruxton (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. A lightning strike doesn't warrant an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question, but what do you mean by saying that? Do you mean that the incident alone does not warrant an article because an incident that had lightning strike involved is not significant enough to have an article on its own? Planeandcarguy (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial transport passenger planes are hit by lightning an average of one or two times a year." I missed that it resulted in the plane being written off, but it was a light aircraft, to which Afd applies different standards than large airliners. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dornier 228 is not a light aircraft. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some Wikipedia editors have done the same with the Loganair Flight 6780 article and the article was eventually included on Wikipedia, he felt that the more information about the incident the better it should be on Wikipedia. Julian AR (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two differences: Loganair's Saab 2000 is over the weight limit for light aircraft. More importantly, changes were recommended for the autopilot. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dornier 228 is not a light aircraft. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Light aircraft says 5,670 kg is the max. weight. Dornier 228 says its empty weight is 3,900 kg. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5,670 kg maximum gross takeoff weight vs 3,900kg empty weight. The 228 has a max gross takeoff weight of 6,575kg. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kato Airline as suggested above. Given the nature of the incident, I am not convinced it is notable enough for a standalone article but I think redirecting to the carrier where the incident can be mentioned is a suitable alternative. The article history of this can be kept so that the current sentence on the target article could be expanded if needs be. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bungle. Seems like a fairly WP:ROUTINE incident; lightning strikes hit aircraft all the time and this was a small one. Crashes of small aircraft are probably only notable through other aspects, such as being terrorism (2010 Austin suicide attack) or involving the death of a famous person. Props to the pilots, though. Ovinus (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:30, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Mr.weedle (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judith McKinlay[edit]

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

Article relies on only 1 source. Whilst some publications, no evidence of notability in academia per requirements for academics. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr.weedle (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New Zealand. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added six published reviews of two of her books to the article. There are four articles by others about her work in Bible and Critical Theory 15 (1): 2019, and a panel discussion partially about her described at [33]. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. This article was nominated for deletion less than 20 minutes after its creation, and the nominator's description of what's in the article, rather than what's available more generally, reflects a misunderstanding of notability (specifically WP:ARTN) and a lack of WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on these grounds, appreciate it. Mr.weedle (talk) 06:26, 3 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!} 05:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Kerry[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG. She did what the majority of doctors do worldwide: she worked with the poor. PlayOboe (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Nigeria. PlayOboe (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get a few hits about a Nigerian beauty pageant woman with the same name, unsure if it's the same person as the subject of the article here is. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC, an online search finds coverage related to her previous pageant career but primarily her work in public health and her public health foundation, e.g. Vanguard 2011, Vanguard 2017 (known as Dr. Matilda Kerry-Osazuwa), The Guardian 2017 (award nomination list), New Telegraph 2021 (mostly an interview), Vanguard 2022 (her and her foundation), Vanguard 2022 (quoted as a medical expert). Beccaynr (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG given sources found by Beccaynr. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Beccaynr. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:29, 9 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 keep. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no remaining delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zibby Owens[edit]

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

~~Run-of-the-mill! Fails WP:GNG. She is a skilled but not particularly well-known podcaster, according to my thorough investigation. PlayOboe (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did some investigation too about things missing from the article. 1) Zibby Owens: The New York woman upending the publishing scene on The Jerusalem Post on 8th July 2022. 2) Author on Good Morning America [34] 3) interview about her new book on Good Morning America 4) "Owens has staged an awards show to honor the best books, and even started her own publishing company, Zibby Books." at ABC7NY 5) Owens interview on Forbes, 6) Owens' book on Penguin Random House 7) Owens on CNN 8) Owens on Business Insider 9) Owens on Psychology Today 10) Owens on Publishers Weekly. So I think she deserves an article for the amount of notable media featuring her. Jjanhone (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::Comment Here is my evaluation of the sources you provided: 1) Zibby Owens: The New York woman upending the publishing scene :Running a publishing company and promoting reading don't automatically make someone notable. 2) [35] : An article recommending books on a programme or website. 3) Forbes : Same as Good Morning America article. 4) Other articles are promotional and don't indicate her notability. I don't think those articles are suffice to prove her notability. Good day!PlayOboe (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PlayOboe (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Authored some books, one Kirkus review here [36]. Business Insider piece on her [37]. She seems to review books for the Washington Post, having several columns published. Other papers reprint her reviews, she might just pass the notability bar. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::Comment: Examined those articles carefully. It says a lot to be a billionaire's daughter. PlayOboe (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 8 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!} 21:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is really an essay, and indeed is structured as such. There's way too much compare and contrast of primary sources (admittedly cited in secondary works) This should be edited down and merged into the main article - I can't see any real reason why this specific battle should get a rather unusual "Assessment of " Unbh (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Vietnam, and Australia. Unbh (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Battle of Long Tan is already a large page with a detailed Aftermath and assessment section (that this page largely repeats) for what was a minor and inconclusive 4 hour firefight. There is simply no justification for this page, nor for Order of battle for the Battle of Long Tan. The fact that the battle has WP:SIGCOV mainly in Australian sources doesn't justify 3 pages about it. No doubt Australian Milhist users will pile-on once again. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is deleted then a lot of its content will probably need to be merged into the main article rather than deleted out of hand. That will take an editor who knows what they're talking about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Battle of Long Tan. Apart from the more detailed "Assessment" section, there isn't much here that already isn't in the primary article. I don't see a compelling reason to warrant a separate article for these extra details. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Battle of Long Tan, what is not redundant and is RS sources, accordingly. Otherwise, is just a content fork (see WP:CFORK) and it is unnecessary for this page as a separate article. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Merge out of same reasons. Geysirhead (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already have constant complaints that Battle of Long Tan is too large, and you guys want to merge all this material into it? No. Just no. WP:SIZE is solidly against a major expansion of an article that already contains 95 K of readable prose. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a WP:CFORK. It is encouraged in circumstances like this. (WP:SPINOUT and WP:SPINOFF) I completely agree with Mztourist's contention that the Battle of Long Tan has attracted far too much attention, both in the literature and on Wikipedia (and the article gets around 500 page views per day with some huge spikes) and has become a poster child for the Matthew effect. There are many Vietnamese, American and even Australian actions in Vietnam that have received too little attention, and that doesn't seem likely to change any time soon, but we are not here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't much of value in the assessment page that isn't already in the Aftermath section of the main page, so this is an unnecessary and overlong fork. Mztourist (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am with Hawk on this. This seems like a valid subarticle. If the main article was short, merge would make sense. As things stand, split was warranted. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already argued before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan. Discussion on talk page on the original article for the Battle of Long Tan, decided that article was too long and despite some culling, it was decided to split out the assessment section. Now for this article, it is well sourced by multiple reliable sources and clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. It probably does have disproportionate coverage but that is because of the relevant interest in the battle for New Zealand and Australia military.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that a page has been AFDed 2 years ago doesn't preclude another AFD. The main page is already vast and adequate to satisfy any reader, while the assessment page contains little that isn't already in the Aftermath section of the main page, so this is an unnecessary and overlong fork. Mztourist (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consensus can change but I would like to know what the nominator thinks has changed. And what I'm seeing is that the main article gets 550 views per day, making it the 14th most popular article in Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War, and the assessment article gets 20 views per day, which is still above average for a Vietnam War article, indeed it ranks it the 120th most popular in the category, so it does seem that some readers are not satisfied with the main article alone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have no way of knowing if those 20 Users view the page because they're not satisfied with the main page or just because its there. Using that same logic, 530 Users are satisfied with the main page and don't see the need for the Assessment page. I don't believe that [m]any of the 13 more popular Battles and operations of the Vietnam War pages even have separate assessment pages. Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are only seven actually; and I'm fairly certain that none of them have separate assessment pages. This still fals under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just hope the 20 users a day are not from staff college. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Otherstuff is as valid as 20 User views a day. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Mztourist: while I understand that already having a deletion discussion doesn't preclude discussing the article again, it was more to point out as Hawkeye7 said that I don't think anything has changed from the previous one and the reason it was kept then.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 05:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - A User can test if consensus has changed after a reasonable time (2 years being more than reasonable), they don't need to explain why they think consensus has changed. Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging all the relevant information would make the main article unwieldy. There's clearly a lot of in-depth analysis, which makes a separate article appropriate. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fine example of an article spinoff. I would prefer a different article title, such as "Military analysis of..." as I believe that is more accurate to the contents. Ovinus (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawkeye7 and Ficaia. Cabrils (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article about the battle. This feels like extended and slightly ponderous duplication of what exists in the Aftermath section of the main Long Tan article. I understand the power of regional attraction to an article, but in the larger scheme of the war Long Tan was one battle among many. Intothat darkness 18:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly too much detail to merge into the Battle of Long Tan page. If I was coming up with more comprehensive approach I would:(1) Rename this page to Aftermath of the Battle of Long Tan with extra information from the main Long Tan page, (2) trim the existing assessment section on the main Long Tan page, (3) trim down some of the content on this page that is covered by other pages and (4) look what else can be split from the main Long Tan page. Gusfriend (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Support keep, if it would trim or legitimately split content from the long main article that would be beneficial and it would not be redundant. It can be achieved by discussion and regular editing. Spudlace (talk) 23:36, 7 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!} 03:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Business Assist[edit]

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

This article has no sources nor could I find any coverage that would establish notability Whpq (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any sources. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Thoroughly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to locate any references that meet WP:NORG's criteria for establishing notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages nor a platform for promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Francis (politician)[edit]

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

Subject does not automatically qualify as notable per WP:POLITICIAN; the references given here include his high school year book and WP:ROUTINE election results coverage, neither of which qualifies him as notable either. A loose necktie (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would PSC not qualify under WP:NPOL as a statewide-elected position? Curbon7 (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The PSC isn't elected statewide but rather based on Congressional districts. I'm unclear if it would fall under "members of legislative bodies." - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because Mike Francis was the chairman of the Republican Party of Louisiana from 1994 until 2000, he is absolutely notable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone is a state party chair doesn't mean they're inherently notable, as neither WP:NPOL nor WP:POLOUTCOMES makes that distinction. In fact, POLOUTCOMES even says: "Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons". Curbon7 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep: He was elected to a state office. I understand that it's not a statewide election or a legislative body so he's not automatically WP:NPOL, but being elected to a state office and being a former party chair seems enough establish notability to me. --TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment being the chairman of an American state political party is not a claim to automatic notability as far as I am aware, I have seen numerous articles on such figures deleted previously. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further sources available that would establish a more solid footing for notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG per these articles from Louisiana newspapers: [38][39][40][41][42]. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This 1999 AP report on an intra-party feud also covers him a fair amount. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - I have added more information from RS to the article. Some of it probably counts as SIGCOV, some doesn't, but he was at the helm of one side in a years-long party feud (including the episode above) that garnered some media and academic attention in the 1990s. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided above. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the new sources added to the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has been improved since nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:31, 4 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!} 03:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Jabbour[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Honduras. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find significant independent coverage in English-language sources. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:44, 3 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!} 03:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Doori[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iraq. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence of the subject's notability in English-language sources. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:38, 3 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!} 03:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Francisco[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Angola. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence of notability in English-language sources. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he does not meet our notability guidelines. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 06:03, 6 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 Deleted (G11) by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 03:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kolemann Lutz[edit]

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

Only sources that show up are LinkedIn, Facebook, his website (Mars University), and his researchgate page (of 11 publications, one citation). Does not appear to be notable. Also seems to be self-published. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. Clearly non-notable. Mooonswimmer 02:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11. Reads like a resume. Mori Calliope fan talk 02:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And he wrote it himself, deleted per ((db-g11)). – Athaenara ✉ 02:38, 3 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 Numerology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arithmancy[edit]

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

Thinly sourced and duplicative of Numerology, isopsephy, gematria, etc. Sennalen (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest relocating anything useful to those other pages, then redirecting to Magic in Harry Potter#Arithmancy Sennalen (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to numerology. Nothing is well-sourced or well-written enough here to preserve. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to numerology as a plausible search term. I see nothing of value that is sourced that should be merged. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, both this article and numerology are incredibly poor. They are indeed the exact same subject, 'numerology' though being the common name by a very wide margin (e.g. Google Scholar results 41.300 vs 245; Ngrams). There's nothing worth merging anywhere as far as I can see, so yes, please redirect to numerology. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone above. Ovinus (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, more or less per WP:TNT. I think numerology is broad enough, and arithmancy (in the meaning of: divining the future through numbers and dates associated with the subject) a specific enough subtopic that it could plausibly have a standalone subtopic article, per Wikipedia:Summary style. But the articles in their current state do not serve that function. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to numerology, per above comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, because it is just an archaic name for the same. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 09:16, 4 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.