< December 30	January 01 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MAN SE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MANAŞ[edit]

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

Not enough sources to show it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MAN SE (the primary company in the joint venture) as an alternative to deletion. Article is unsourced and cannot currently stand alone. czar 22:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elizabeth Paton. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Bishop (Burns)[edit]

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

Notability is not WP:INHERITED, I don't see how this person is notable. Being a child of Robert Burns does not automatically make someone notable, per WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. There is no significant coverage as far as I can see. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a Merge to Elizabeth Paton, per Cielquiparle below. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, United Kingdom and Scotland. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elizabeth Paton. This is easily a merge candidate, as it offers both content and sourcing that isn't captured in other related articles. The question is: Where should it go? I would propose a straightforward merge to Elizabeth Paton for now. Some additional information about Elizabeth Bishop (Burns) should also be incorporated into the Robert Burns and Agnes Broun pages later. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Elizabeth Bishop (Burns), the daughter of Robert Burns, should not be removed. Why not?

In the reasons for deletion within the deletion policy of Wikipedia, no convincing argument can be found to delete this article. It is true that in the section about inherited notability it says: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." However, this is not only contradicted by the general notability guideline ("A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") but by the reality in Wikipedia itself. This is not an oddity or oversight; it just clearly is in line with one of the five pillars of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia has no firm rules" which, among other things, says: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone." It matters for our actual discussion here because there are very very many examples in Wikipedia where articles about people exist for the only reason that they were relatives of somebody famous – like William Shakespeare's grandfather Richard Shakespeare, his parents John Shakespeare and Mary Shakespeare, his wife Anne Hathaway, and his children Susanna Hall, Judith Quiney and Hamnet Shakespeare; Rembrandt's son Titus van Rijn; Martin Luther's wife Katharina von Bora and three of his children Elisabeth Luther, Magdalena Luther and Paul Luther; or Charles Dickens' parents John Dickens and Elizabeth Dickens, and many more members of his family including ten (!) dedicated articles about his children. There are even two separate articles in Wikipedia about Barack Obama's dogs Bo and Sunny. Mentioning these examples here is by no means done to belittle them, rather the opposite; they certainly show at least two things: firstly, that a clear-cut policy in Wikipedia to remove such articles doesn't exist and, secondly, that these articles enrich Wikipedia. Of course always, and importantly, under certain conditions, e.g. that reliable sources are added.
Many other dedicated articles in Wikipedia have been created about people who were in one way or another associated with Robert Burns. If he had not become a famous poet, we most likely wouldn't know anything about these people. The following Wikipedia articles simply wouldn't exist: about his wife Jean Armour; his parents William Burnes and Agnes Broun; his siblings Gilbert Burns, Agnes Burns, Annabella Burns, William Burns, John Burns, Isabella Burns; his father-in-law James Armour; several of his children Robert Burns Junior, William Nicol Burns, James Glencairn Burns, Francis Wallace Burns, Betty Burns; his friends or lovers Jean Lorimer, Frances Dunlop, Jessie Lewars, May Cameron, Jean Gardner, Nelly Kilpatrick, Nelly Blair, Alison Begbie, Peggy Thompson, Elizabeth Paton, Ann Park, Mary Campbell, Jenny Clow, Agnes Maclehose. Would anybody seriously consider to delete all those articles as well?
The suggestion to remove the article about Elizabeth Bishop could imply that she is regarded as a less worthy child of Robert Burns because she was illegitimate, maybe also because she was a girl. Such attitudes, of course, should not have any bearing in Wikipedia. It also doesn't stand up to the facts. Robert Burns not only acknowledged her as his Love-begotten Daughter with a poem but also secured her financially later with the profits from the 'Kilmarnock Edition' of his poems.
Betty Burns was, like Elizabeth Bishop, also one of Robert Burns' illegitimate children, and also a girl. That article shouldn't be deleted either, should it?
Is Elizabeth Bishop considered a person not "notable" enough to remain in Wikipedia because she is assumed to not have achieved much in life? How should this be defined? Not everybody can be a famous politician or accomplished artist or remarkable for some other reason. She simply is the child of Robert Burns which certainly is the only reason why she is known today and people might be interested in her. The closer it gets to our actual time the more examples can be found of people, many of them still alive, who are in Wikipedia only because they are the children of a well-known person. The reason that a growing number of such articles exists is the fact that a huge amount of information can be found in a variety of modern sources about these more recent people to justify their notability in Wikipedia, even independently of being a child of somebody famous. With such rich and detailed material it is possible to find something remarkable or noteworthy about pretty much anybody with a famous parent. But that simply isn't possible in the same way with Elizabeth Bishop. From that point of view, she is just unlucky that she lived such a long time ago, otherwise we also could supply many sources with minute details about her life which would make her "notable".

Stillbusy (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument in favour of notability. The fact that we have over a dozen articles dedicated to questionably notable relatives/friends/lovers of Burns doesn't mean that they inherently deserve separate articles. Much of this could be consolidated into a single article, perhaps titled Family of Robert Burns? Much of what you have written in this wall of text is frankly contrary to Wikipedia's established notability policies, particularly WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stillbusy I agree that there is a lot of confusion in deletion discussions about applying contemporary standards of notability to historical figures, often inappropriately or unfairly, and without much understanding of historical context or sources. That said, my impression is that over the last couple of years, Wikipedia standards have become more strict about standalone articles about family members of historical figures – to the point that there is a lot of consolidation of this type of biographical content, which may seem surprising at first. The fact that many "family member" articles currently exist for Robert Burns and other authors doesn't mean they will all survive future deletion discussions. (Disappointing, I know.) To me, what is important is the actual content, and if quality information and sources can continue to reside on other pages, that is still a net plus for Wikipedia. In this particular case, it really doesn't help that even the ''Burns Encyclopedia'' doesn't seem to offer a standalone entry for this Elizabeth, and that there is barely any information available about her, outside from the poem (which overlaps on the Elizabeth Paton page), and a few facts about her life. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stillbusy OK, I've had another thought, which is: One way to save this as a standalone article might be to look for secondary coverage about the poem dedicated to Elizabeth Bishop. If there is enough analysis found about the poem itself, in additional sources, we could add more content about that and try to justify keeping the page (although we might need to reframe it more to be about the poem, with background information about her). The other thing I wanted to clarify is that after "merging" content, what typically happens is that Elizabeth Bishop (Burns) would become a redirect, so if there is in fact anyone looking for her by that name, they would still be likely to find content about her on Wikipedia on whichever page the redirect is pointing to. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - She is clearly not separately notable. A merger to her mother Elizabeth Paton looks like a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not individually notable. It's very possible that some of other the articles on people attached to Burns also fail notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elizabeth Paton.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against recreation if the concerns raised here can be resolved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucretia (Baldung)[edit]

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

Originally deleted as speedy but challenged so opening up for a bit more discussion. This was deleted on deWiki as a hoax ( see deletion discussion there) and i've been unable to find any solid evidence to disagree with them. Found reference to a clearly different (in both style and format) similarly titled work by Baldung on the met website but that just makes me feel it's less likely. James of UR (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I added the hoax template to the article as a warning during the AfD but if we disagree should obviously remove it. James of UR (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I challenged the original speedy deletion because I discovered [1] and [2], among others, which appear to describe a painting by this name and artist and predate the creation of the en.wiki article. As such, I'm not entirely sure whether this is a hoax or there's some truth to this. I have some doubt because I saw three different presentations of what are allegedly the same work of art; maybe one does exist, but not the one described by this or the de.wiki article. In addition, I suspect that if it were an obvious enough hoax to qualify for G3, it would have been deleted long ago. Any insight on this would be appreciated. ^Complex/_Rational 19:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per some of the comments below, I would support a delete per WP:TNT, with no prejudice against recreating an article that stays focused on the correct painting if it satisfies GNG. ^Complex/_Rational 23:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article states this Leucretia painting is in the Bavarian State Painting Collections (Sammlung Pinakothek), however, a search of their collections (which spans 17 separate museum collections) returns the painting as being by: "Lucas Cranach D. Ä. (Anonymer Meister Seiner Werkstatt) (1472-1553)Selbstmord der Lucretia, 1520/40" not by Hans Baldung, as can clearly be seen here:[3]. A separate search for Hans Baldung works in the collections does not return the painting among the results.[4]. So this seems it may be a case of a possible mis-identification, and not a deliberate hoax. Netherzone (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly not a hoax. [5] A quick google search shows enough coverage in books (manyin German) to satisfy WP:GNG. [6] [7] [8] Toddst1 (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paper, the author, Wolfgang Brassat [de], seems to rely to a worryingly extent on the German Wikipedia as source. I think the picture is real, but by the workshop of Lucas Cranach, not by Baldung; see the link above to the Bavarian State Painting Collections. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. It seems that the painting is by Lucas Cranach, but has been misattributed to Hans Baldung. I'm wondering if WP:TNT is the appropriate course of action here. Netherzone (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This "article" is a 100% hoax. There is and was no painting "Aschaffenburger Dolchmadonna". This was a complete fake in de.wp. This article was translated into various WPs. And even used as only source for an scientific article, which makes it even worse. And the "Renaming" did not make it better because the facts in the article are still fake. For example nobody ever thougt, that this painiting is by Baldung. The only thing which helps: Deletion.--HCBut (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The picture is real, but I don't know how much of the article is wrong (apart from the Baldung misattribution). I strongly doubt it's a notable work of art, and so the article ought to be deleted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you "know": everything in the article is wrong, total invention. --HCBut (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over. See also https://lucascranach.org/en/DE_BStGS_WAF1148 . I merged and cleaned up Suicide of Lucretia (Q722010) on Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TNT, based on the findings that this painting is actually attributed to Lucas Cranach, and not Hans Baldung. Whether or not it is a hoax (which implies deliberate fraudulent intent) is not known, so I believe it is better to assume good faith on the part of the creator at this time. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ . It was a hoax in the german WP, and somebody simply did translate it into english, which does not make it better. It does not help to "assume good faith", there was none. Somebody simply invented the text and even an "academic" reference, where this fake facts simply dont exit. --HCBut (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Duplicate !vote stricken -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Binate[edit]

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

Fails GNG (as well as the obsolete WP:FPL.) All you can find is a signing announcement. Has never played a match. Maybe in the future will be notable, but not yet. RedPatch (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find anything that suggests this footballer is notable Devoke water 17:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; case of WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signe J. Pedersen[edit]

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

Stats stub with no evidence that Pedersen meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches, including ones containing clubs that she played for like this one, did not yield any coverage other than Wikipedia mirror sites. Please note that WP:NFOOTBALL no longer exists although, to be fair, I'm not sure if Pedersen would have met that guideline anyway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found lots of other people named Signe Pedersen, including a handball player and a badminton player, but only one mention of someone who could be this Signe Pedersen in a 2013 blog post about a 7-a-side football match (in which she played for "CBS Sports Football Women"). Not much else found online, though to be fair a player born in 1982 may have additional coverage in media sources in Denmark that are offline and/or not easily accessed. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs in Belgium[edit]

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

This is essentially a WP:CF of Moroccans in Belgium, Lebanese Belgians, and a future article to be written on Algerians in Belgium. It has no value and is problematic given how many people from within these groups are not ethnic "Arabs". It is entirely unsourced. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Belgium. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Brigade Piron says; unsourced and no added value.Call me Matt - Bling Collector 09:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Distorted View Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. The previous AfD ended in no consensus because no one participated in the discussion. I can't find any better sources and the best sources currently cited are minor awards. Maybe if the awards had been a Webby Award and an Ambie Award I would consider it enough to pass WP:WEBCRIT, but I don't think a couple podcast awards is enough. Tim Henson is a redirect so merging or redirecting to the host doesn't make sense. The page could maybe be redirected to Sirius Satellite Radio, but it doesn't seem worth it. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, and Internet. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no sources for the podcast, other than download/streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea for a show, but commitment to a podcast daily a year before it came to prominence, for nearly twenty years, and being produced for seven years before that, along with time linked to Sirius? This passes WP:GNG for me. Also should be properly noted that the first nom was in limbo for thirteen years because of a lack of transclusion, so I don't even consider the first nom to apply to anything. Nate • (chatter) 01:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSchimpf: are there any particular sources that you believe demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage? TipsyElephant (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a strong case for notability, but we'd need sources discussing it, before we can keep the article here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Yes, WP:ITSOLD for a podcast, but WP:INHERENTWEB makes it very clear that nothing like that matters if it doesn't have the sourcing to back up those assertions of notability, and this article's subject does not. I don't think winning one of the several dozen awards The Podcast Awards gives out annually shows notability, given that the awards are based solely on a public poll (such polls are extremely easy to manipulate, especially back in 2005/2006). It's also noted in a source in the award's Wikipedia article that this competition is not well known or covered outside of a comparatively tight circle of podcasters and bloggers so especially in its first two years in 2005/2006 it would not have been a "well known" award, which is what WP:WEBCRIT looks for. This is confirmed by the fact that I could find no independent coverage of this podcast winning the award; if there had been such coverage that might be an indicator as to its significance, but I could not find any such coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Assunção[edit]

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

There is some coverage of this bit-part semi-pro goalkeeper but it's not enough for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Even a Portuguese search failed to yield the coverage needed. There is a Blogspot Q&A but this doesn't meet the requirements at WP:RS. Best sources in my searches were Reconquista, a basic transfer announcement, Mediotejo, a series of match report mentions, and a brief quote in Zero Zero. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Only trivial coverage available online. Jogurney (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ingram (karate)[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement. Other than the spurt of coverage when he foiled the bank robbery in 1981, and even that is mostly simple mentions, there is not any in-depth coverage of him in independent, reliable, sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Martial arts, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Cullen328 (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nathan Ingram has a strong article on medium.com. He was the basis of the character Bruce Leroy on the Last Dragon. A cult hero with real life stories including those with drug lords, bank robberies, and an actor in a number of movies. ^[1] BlackAmerican (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://medium.com/catchesbulletswithhisteeth/nathan-ingram-the-bruce-leroy-overdoer-6e94f722c41

Delete Medium is not a reliable source and there's not enough in terms of RS coverage to support a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GPL93 fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The medium.com is not a reliable source. It clearly states it is for anyone to post on and does not apply any editorial limitations. In fact, it says it's for anyone who wants to create a blog. An interview in a non-reliable source does not provide any coverage towards meeting WP:GNG. There's no evidence he was the basis for the character in The Last Dragon, the only claim is he got his nickname from that character--quite a different thing. He does not meet the notability criteria for actors or martial artists. Coverage about him foiling a bank robbery is a case of WP:BLP1E. In other words, he doesn't appear to meet any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IAT Automotive[edit]

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

The assertion that this company is a "Beijing-based vehicle design and engineering company that has been active for the past 35 years" without any attribution immediately raises concerns. As far as I can see, IAT Automotive may fail any number of tests for notability including but not limited to WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. As always, please do prove me wrong. Pete in Australia aka User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Transportation, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find the company mentioned in lists of parts suppliers, and a few very brief mentions in automotive magazines. The only extended coverage is what is provided here about a fire in their booth during an exhibit. I will check back to see if anyone turns up better sources.
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Membrey[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG academic and engineer. Taken from this revision, I did a quick analysis on the sourcing over at the corresponding section at WP:BLPN.[9] This includes self-published sources, primary sourcing, links to websites where published papers can be searched such as semanticscholar.com, and his personal website. On top of the poor sourcing which does not demonstrate notability, the subject has authored several technical books but nothing of the significance in the genre or in terms of overall literature that would support WP:NAUTHOR. WP:NPROF criteria does not appear to be met either.

Sidenote: The subject has requested deletion of the article.[10] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be non-notable with extremely limited media coverage. And the diff [11] that Saucysalsa30 shared gives the strong impression that the article's subject commissioned the article. Per Wikipedia policy, anyone being paid to create articles here must disclose that fact and this doesn't appears to have happened here. Thanks to Saucysalsa30 for bringing this article up for AfD and raising awareness of a case of possible COI editing.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only criteria that might work here is NAUTH but I do not find any reviews of his books. Admittedly, computer manuals (which is what he writes) don't get reviewed like other books. He's not an academic, and there are no 3rd-party sources about him. Much of what is in the article is unsubstantiated in the sources provided. Lamona (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1 (three publications with triple-digit citation counts) but it's a high-citation field and the UPC and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE issues put me on the delete side of the borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that at the moment we can respect the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as his claim to notability is marginal at best. As it is still early in his career, he may become definitively notable in the future, but we can assess that at a later point. Curbon7 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG we can respect the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as it is a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the sources identified do not establish GNG. That doesn't mean that an article can't be written in the future and I encourage this effort to occur in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Norton[edit]

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

Doubtful if he is notable. Sjö (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arts. Sjö (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any sources, this reads like an extended linkedin profile. Oaktree b (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found for the bio information in this article. I do find info on his "block-chain-your-art" company Verisart and am surprised that no article has been done given the block-chain mania, but did not go far enough into that to determine if GNG could be met for the company. Lamona (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Maybe Rewrite I searched Robert Norton and the name of the company and found a lot of quality news sources on google. I am not going through each one but, it seems a good portion of the article could be sourced. The issue is the article deals largely with his investors in his art company. The bio needs to be redone but, there seems to be enough press from legit sources. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just looked at the company website. There are more than enough articles to establish notability for the company and likely him as well. There are probably close to 100 with everything from the New Yorker to the NY Times. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ScienceAdvisor, could you list some of the articles that you think support the bio? Thanks, Lamona (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds on google of you search "robert Lloyd verisart".. or you can visit his company page at https://verisart.com/press .. I'm not sure that I am prepared to go through it all but, I doubt someone with hundreds of press mentions hasn't established notability. This seems like a project for someone. I am not saying the page is acceptable but, in my experience a poorly written page is not enough of a reason for deletion if notability can be established. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are going to have to be more specific. Hundreds of pages of Google results or even press mentions are not criteria we use. Please see WP:THREE and pull out any 3 independent and significant sources that would support notability. They have to be more than mentions, and they have to be independent of him, his company, or any press releases his company has put out. Thanks, Lamona (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN individual. Cameron Scott (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that all the recent edits from this user have been joke edits about his family, I'm gving this no credence. Probable hoax, or at least entirely misguided. SpinningSpark 22:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC+23:00[edit]

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

Made up. Doesn't exist. This is long beyond the International Date Line. All lands in UTC+23:00 observe other time zones, commonly UTC-01:00 or around it.Mvqr (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Geography, and Europe. Mvqr (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No such number, no such zone. Thincat (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since nothing actually uses this offset, the largest actual offset from UTC is UTC+14:00 and it would make more sense to use UTC−01:00 instead. Also unsourced, and since nobody uses the time zone there aren't likely to be any sources about it. Hut 8.5 10:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a real time zone; no sources are present in the article and I would be astonished if any existed (I found none in a quick search). It might even be borderline eligible for WP:CSD#G3 (blatant hoax) – UTC+23:00 stretches as far as 135° east of the 180° longitude line and creates a very large fold in the International Date Line around the Pacific even in Europe does not even correctly describe such a time zone (165° east of there, if we must place this on a map). ^Complex/_Rational 19:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3 (blatant hoax) ~~and/or WP:A7 (no indication of significance).~~ There is no indication that any location has observed or will observe UTC+23:00. Frank Anchor 19:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wait, what? --MuZemike 20:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pauk (band)[edit]

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

Nearly unknown and lost band. Apparently their only released album and some unreleased material was uploaded by a YouTuber with 53.8k subscribers and they gave a recent reddit interview thread.

There is no significant coverage. It is a lost band with one single (1981) followed by one album (1983). The "gained much popularity" blurb in the article is based on having a discogs.com entry that says nothing like that. Mvqr (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mvqr (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admittedly, this is a somewhat interesting story. As a rock band formed during a Communist regime, they probably had few opportunities for getting gigs or recording. However, it was possible for bands in similar situations to get national and worldwide coverage due to the very difficulty of that situation, such as Omega (band) or Mr. Zoob. That did not happen for this band, who seem to have quickly disappeared after a rocky start. Being rediscovered by a single collector today doesn't matter unless it becomes an episode of reliable media interest. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bombay Orthodox Diocese. As an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Orthodox Cathedral, Dadar, Mumbai[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NBUILDING. No results in Wikipedia Library and news. The article sounds very promotional and the article only has information about when the church has services. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and India. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bombay Orthodox Diocese. The diocese apparently has about 55 churches, with this one being the cathedral. Normally its status as a cathedral might warrant keeping, but there is so little content that I am not sure this is justified in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTWEBHOST. Fails my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creambell[edit]

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

A wiki page maintained for advertising purposes by the digital agency Korra Gurgaon since March 2022. Please refer to the article's edit history for further information. In addition to this, it does not pass NCORP, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH. RPSkokie (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. RPSkokie (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most coverage is PR stuff, this is about the only coverage in a RS (and it's not much of anything) [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 31 December 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!} 07:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Street Trust[edit]

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

Vanity organization of local interest. Does not pass WP:NCORP. BikePortland.org, a one man show reporting outlet does not have meaningful impact in terms of establishing notability and coverage of this organization in media of regional or national coverage is nowhere at the level of significant coverage. Sources have been added since nomination; however numerous minor coverage isn't the equivalent of several coverage in depth and notability isn't inherited. The article on Sarah Iannarone becomig the executive director of this organization is more about her than it being a significant coverage on the organization. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Transportation, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not immediately apparent if this organization passes or fails WP:NCORP. There are a lot of insignificant mentions of the org (under its current and former names), especially in the Oregonian. Better citations of existing coverage in newspapers and government documents could prove notability.

QuintinK (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The initial nomination text seems to suggest that the nominator has personal familiarity with the organization and a non-neutral (negative) POV. A less slanted nomination would be much better and would clarify that this proposal is being made in good faith. QuintinK (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Government documents are generally PRIMARY sources. For example, when a non-profit does more than a certain amount of financial activity, by law, form 990 must be filed. The existence simply means they filed a legally required paperwork. It has nothing to do with notability. Per WP:SIRS, things used to establish notability have to be secondary and totally independent. Government documents / primary sources aren't forbidden when used sensibly, but they're not stuffers to fill contents and would hold no weight in notability. Graywalls (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in secondary sources. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 15:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ORG and specifically WP:ORGCRIT with ample significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:ORGDEPTH is easily met solely through the book sources which have been added to the article, which include:

Leadership changes in the organization also regularly receive significant coverage from news outlets like the Oregonian:

Despite the assertion that the Iannarone sources are about her, they are also about, and contain significant coverage of, the organization itself. This 30-year-old organization has also had a significant impact on transportation legislation and policies. Its efforts led to changes in metropolitan mass transit policy to require bicycle racks for buses and its lawsuit against the City of Portland changed the interpretation and enforcement of the Oregon Bicycle Bill. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of the improvements to the article since the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As much of the new material provided is not available free online, it would be helpful if someone could identify the specific sources that qualify as "reliable, independent, in-depth coverage". I was only able to find short mentions. BruceThomson (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization, under both names, has had sustained coverage throughout the years in Oregon papers and news channels. 610 results in archives of The Oregonian and it's clear from the headlines that many of these are more than passing mentions. Here's a typical example, from 2013, that details one of their advocacy efforts. Profile in a trade journal. Recent coverage. Retrospective from 2014 on their 1995 legal action; there are likely to be contemporary sources for that as well. Jfire (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitively significant coverage, a cover story in the Willamette Week (per the other Willamette Week link above). Jfire (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a local weekly intended for Portland, Oregon only. Which piece in national or regional media outlet significant, independent secondary coverage to satisfy WP:AUD of at least one regional or national coverage criteria of WP:CORP is satisfied? Graywalls (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I concede that the Willamette Week is a local media outlet. But we assess the balance of all sources. A cover story in local media, significant and sustained coverage in the major regional paper, documented impacts on state legislation, and coverage in book sources, on balance, establish that this organization meets the WP:CORP requirements. Jfire (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gobonobo and Jfire. Subject clearly passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator is encouraged to look in non-English new sources in future nominations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EcoProfit[edit]

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

The article fails GNG and WP:CORP. If you search up the topic, chances are it will take you to a organization in Africa. I also couldnt find anything on the internet about this, aswell the article might be promotional or original research. The person who created the page only created the page and Cleaner production left. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Environment, and Austria. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

???? what are you talking about, go to the City of Graz Webpage, to the pages of Munich, Zurich, you will find it by the German word ÖKOPROFIT, go to GIZ India and you will find it there. It is a model internationally used by municipalities and associations to reduce waste, increase energy efficiency in companies. What is your problem? 217.149.160.237 (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tough it's understandable why an article like this, that hasn't been sourced or made encyclopaedic in the last 14 years, would be nomminated for deletion. But a Google News search for the German language title reveals numerous lengthy repuatble news articles about various Ökoprofit projects and initiatives. Sionk (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An EU Case Study says of Ökoprofit that "it has been adopted in many German or Polish communities. As a consequence, the initiative can be regarded as already “common” in a number of countries of the EU". (A footnote in that Study indicates some matters concerning Ökoprofit and Cleaner Production Center which might be researched to broaden the present article.) There is also a journal study: "Innovative CP networks: the case of the ÖKOPROFIT® network promoting innovative clean production solutions for 20 years": paywalled but a list of further references can be seen there. Enough I think for WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 31 December 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 06:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WFBT (Bath, New York)[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced since 2015, this is a station that was never actually authorized to sign on despite filing for a license application (one day before its 2009 expiration) because the application was incomplete. (The FCC actually said, "WFBT has never commenced operation.") It's very hard to imagine there being enough out there to allow this never-was station to meet the GNG; this article on a court ruling against it probably won't be enough. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, this likely doesn't meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pornstar Académie[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NTV. I searched on Wikipedia library, google and Microsoft edge and found nothing related to the show. Most of the results of the show lead to adult websites. Not much I could find else about it. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried a .ca search and nothing turns up beyond regular adult websites. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non etc Devoke water 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 think there is a consensus to Keep this article plus there is a lack of a policy-grounded deletion rationale for why this article merits deletion. I hope to not see this article nominated for a third round at AFD for at least a year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armita Abbasi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One of hundreds of Iranian citizens who have been detained and abused in custody by Iranian security forces during the Mahsa Amini protests. Most of them receive passing mentions, initial bursts of coverage, and attention in local sources. Only a handful of them receive substantial coverage over a period of time, or have a significant, tangible impact. As tragic as Abbasi's detention, abuse, and alleged death may be, I cannot see how she is not one of the aforementioned handful. Mooonswimmer 05:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armita Abbasi is not dead!!! T>he Article is absolute valid! 2A02:8071:2B82:84A0:F93C:F4C6:17A5:7A45 (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are some serious WP:BLP-relevant issues in this article and I have posted a notice to the WP:BLPN about this. CT55555(talk) 15:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. 162 etc. (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying that her case is not notable is similar to saying that the mistreatment and death of George Floyd or shooting of Sandra Bland are not notable because so many others have had a similar story and caused outrage for a while without resulting in tangible impact. These kinds of stories become actionable and impactful precisely when the name of the victims are well known and what happened to them can be corroborated by witnesses and verified by journalists, and something about the victim touches people.

Armita Abbasi's case is relevant, because both her image and her name are known, and because some of the details of what has happened to her have been corroborated by multiple credible witnesses who have risked their lives to offer proof of who they are and how they know what they know, making it possible for credible reporters to verify the information.

Armita is also relevant and significant because she represents an unknown number of others in a similar situation whose stories are not known or cannot be verified. Her first name and image has become shorthand for protesters that have been repeatedly raped (and for those whose whereabouts are unknown) in video tributes, Youtube reaction videos, vlogs, and articles.

Her case is relevant because it documents one of the patterns of events that have been rumored to happen in Iran not just with the current imprisoned protesters, but also prisoners from past protests.

She is relevant because, before hearing about her people like me didn't know that this was one of the possibilities for prisoners in Iran, and no credible reporter can inform anyone about people suffering a similar fate if they cannot point to a verifiable case. 104.35.149.100 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Why is this being 2nd nominated, just days after the 1st nomination decision? She is notable and has significant coverage because she a symbol of the Iranian protests. The WP article needs clean up and AFD is not a substitute for a clean up process. Can you give us more specific reasons for this nomination? As a topic she has lot of reliable sources in many languages (see the Persian language article, the prior AFD nomination, and search for her name in Persian, if still in doubt). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG - I noted in the recent AfD [13]: e.g. significant international coverage in How Iran's security forces use rape to quell protests (CNN, Nov. 21, 2022), Sexuelle Gewalt unter dem Mullah-Regime (Taz, Nov. 25, 2022), (and not WP:BLP1E due to the significance), Iran anti-hijab activist missing for 10 days, family fear ‘abduction, rape, torture’ by authorities (FirstPost, Oct. 31, 2022). Since then, there is additional coverage, e.g. Polizisten vergewaltigten Armita Abbasi – Klinik sollte es vertuschen (L'essentiel, Dec. 29, 2022), جوان در اعتصاب غذا؛ مادر آرمیتا عباسی: ۸۲ روز گذشت، به پرونده‌اش رسیدگی کنید (VOA, Jan. 2023, Google translate of lede: "Armita Abbasi's mother, 82 days after the arrest of this young protester, in an open letter criticizing the indifference of the judicial authorities and refusing to accept the selected lawyer, demanded that her daughter's case be investigated"). The ongoing coverage of her individual case and the significance of her case in ongoing international coverage appears to support the enduring notability of this subject. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant amount of coverage available per the above analaysis. scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Currently there are 25 citations spanning over 3 months of time, and the press coverage includes international sources, including CNN, The Jerusalem Post, Voice of America, Die Tageszeitung (Taz), Der Spiegel, Yahoo News Taiwan, L'essentiel, IranWire, Die Zeit, Süddeutsche Zeitung, and BBC Persian. Only Iranian-sponsored news sources appear to be stating this is not important or newsworthy, such as Nasim News/IRIB Nasim, and Jam-e Jam (newspaper). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of DC Universe locations. As an ATD Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rock of Eternity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A fictional location from DC comics. The article consists solely of a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media, and fails WP:GNG, my BEFORE did not reveal anything useful (the best I have is a passing mention in [14] that this location is related to the concept of imagination). AfD a while back was sadly pretty poorly attended but received a significant share of WP:ITSIMPORTANT (in universe) arguments and little else which ended up with no consensus. The article hasn't improved at all since. It's time to revisit this; with WP:ATD in mind I suggest redirecting this to the List of DC Universe locations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information is better suited for a D.C. Comics Wiki. TH1980 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the same reasons as the last discussion. Otherwise, merge with the extra-dimensional realms section of List of DC Universe locations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. I'd like to hear what those who made the keep suggestions in the last discussion say about this one. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom as WP:ATD. Article fails WP:GNG as it's only a plot summary and list of appearances, with no sources to build a substantial reception or analysis section. Editors can always merge/expand the plot summary at a more notable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge upon reviewing the last discussion. I understand the reasons for nomination but disagree with deletion. It makes more sense to combine this with Shazam (wizard) and the role of this location can be explained there. Archrogue (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trapezohedron. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decagonal trapezohedron[edit]

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

Trivial content, nothing new compared to the general trapezohedron article (which for some reason is not even linked in the lead). No significant coverage of this special instance of the class of polyhedra online I can find either. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 03:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 03:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to trapezohedron. Trapezohedra are notable, and the trigonal and pentagonal trapezohedron (because of its use as D10 dice) may also be. Beyond that there is little to distinguish them from each other, little basis for independent notability, and none demonstrated in this article in particular. But redirects are cheap. WP:BLAR could reasonably have been attempted, but now that we've started a full discussion I suppose we should continue it and settle the matter more definitively. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There is no information in the article that is not of the form "here is a general rule about a certain class of polyhedra, instantiated at a particular number of sides". This is reflected in the sources in the article, which do not have anything content that suggests that 20 faces is special, and (after doing a very small amount of searching) I see no reason to believe better sources exist. --JBL (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably redirect, but can one of our mathematician friends look at this paper (arxiv preprint) before this finally closes? The figure is talked about in the paper, but I don't think it is significant. The only other thing I found that was not just a name on a list of solid shapes was this book, but again I don't know if that can add anything to the article. The book is looking at structure of molecules, but as far as I can see, this is not one of the structures they have identified as corresponding to a fullerene (or any other molecule). SpinningSpark 23:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That application (a difficult example for hexahedral meshing) is the main reason for notability for the tetragonal trapezohedron. But I don't think there's any depth of coverage to its treatment of the decagonal trapezohedron. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree -- that is a trivial mention in the sense of WP:SIGCOV. --JBL (talk) 23:50, 31 December 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 01:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram Wittekind[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. The only reference the article had was removed as it did not support the article claims. Was the original article in German that this version was translated from an advertisement for the artist, as it has characteristics that make it suspicious? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of WP:SIGCOV and fairly run of the mill. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Mottier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cycling. Short career before returning to the amateur ranks and best result was second for a race (2.2) that does not meet significance standard if even it had been a win "won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1". KeepItGoingForward (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competed at professional level, there are definitely sources out there. I can find a good amount from the French version of the article already. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they did compete professionally, but which references meet the significant coverage threshold? The rider also did not win anything of significance. Just because a rider was professional does not make them notable. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it appears that you did no WP:BEFORE, I found plenty of coverage on him and greatly expanded the article in only a few minutes. You have to consider non-English sources. I found lots of eveidence of GNG and SIGCOV. You cannot only judge notability on purely results and what is avaiable in English. Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He may have some coverage, but it is not significant. As an example one can be seen by the links you posted around his retirement such as the reference number 10 to his retirement which you linked to a dead page. When pulled from the archieve.org [15] and if we use google translate it states, "Like his teammate Adrien Garel, Justin Mottier announced on social networks that he was leaving professional cycling. Not kept by B&B Hotels-Vital Concept, a team to which he belonged since its creation, the Mayennais, third in the Route Adélie in 2018, posted a message on his Twitter account.

"Life goes on, different but just as exciting"

"The professional adventure only lasted 3 years. Disappointed but not defeated. Life goes on, different but just as exciting. A huge thank you to those who allowed me to reach this level: my family, my club trainer, my amateur clubs, and of course B&B Hotels-Vital Concept. Thanks also to all the people who have always encouraged me throughout these years. Remorse but no regrets!""

It is basically a copy and paste of his social media message and the lack of significant coverage around his retirement shows that as a cyclist he is not notable. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is one source. How about the other ten? You cannot jusge his enture notability based on one event, such as retirement. Once again, you look at this from a very narrow perpective. Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you believe show significant coverage that meets the threshold of GNG to show notability? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate if you would no longer continue the personal attacks here, on other pages, and on my talk page. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you believe was a personal attack, I was simply evaluating your AfD nomination of this article and your reasoning, which is the point of these discussions. I'm not interested in fighting, so I will discuss no more on this page. I found sources and improved the article and stated my belief on the article's notability, and I will leave it at this. Sorry if you disagree with my opinions and do not like what I said, but that is the purpose of these discussions. Also, I did not even add the source you pointed out earlier; it was already present on the article. And to answer your question, I belive most of these sources to show notability. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the items are significant, but there are a multitude of sources that prove GNG and continued coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many source's shown to meet WP:GNG after the expansion. The rider competed professionally plus had amateur success so other sources will be out there likely in french. Paulpat99 (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. After going through the sources, I feel there isn't enough there to pass GNG, mostly Q&A interviews with little or no input from the author. Alvaldi (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Alvaldi. I don't see every "professional" cyclist deserving an article but in just one list (List of cyclists) it seems that if you make a list there are those that will make an article. According to that page (and others) it is not a "narrow perpective" (sic) but a fact. WikiProject Cycling states: Wikipedia has especially strict requirements for articles. Potentially many articles useful to cyclists do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for encyclopedic content. "Useful to cyclists" would be a more narrow meaning than "useful to readers". Not only should notability be dependent on sports related venues (not interviews) it should also require significant coverage in Independent sources. I glanced at several and luck would have it they all were on the same par as Barbara Malcotti. It is stated above "The rider competed professionally plus had amateur success so other sources will be out there likely in french." Just competing does not equate notability outside the cycling world. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to examine expansion of article and new sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough coverage in French media, including this as an example [16], about him talking about retirement. Oaktree b (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this, fairly significant coverage. [17] Oaktree b (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in French sources to justify inclusion. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Jfire (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a real, notable person. I do not think we should delete this article. Maine 🦞 19:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 applies. ✗plicit 01:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vardhan Puri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN actor. Notability is not inherited. UtherSRG (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. UtherSRG (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep: Done lead role in Yeh Saali Aashiqui but I don't know what role he is doing in his upcoming films. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 31 December 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 WP:CSD#5. ✗plicit 14:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rabeeca Khan[edit]

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

The notability claim in article is the Singer, YouTuber and number of followers she have on Tiktok, which is not an inclusion criterion at all. The article consist of biographical trivia and references (1 is non reliable) don't support for notability as all are covering her only in the context of the photoshoot rather than career-related. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk)

02:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment Singer with 3 singles in 2 years and no prominent work in fashion industry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ashraf333 (talk • contribs) 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete - It looks like she's trying to get started as a cross-media personality who dabbles in music and modeling, but all she has so far is her own social media promotions. Good luck but you need reliable media coverage to get an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's this [25] and many other hits in the Daily Pakistan newspaper, but I'm feeling most of them are tabloid-ey coverage. Lots on this BOL News TV site [26]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their songs and singing Career Daily Pakistan 1 Bol News 2 3 4 5 6 from big New Side of Pakistan have coverage And I feel we get a lot of articles and a lot of news search coverage on about these Urdupoint.7 Lollywoodcity8 Economy.pk Even biggest, they have been included in Pakistan's big tiktokers list.9 Tichku (talk) 4:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC) blocked WP:SOCK Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Tichku, Daily Pakistan emphasizing her no of followers on TikTok and YouTube and Instagram and also claiming dance on Govinda Naam Mera ft Vicky Kaushal's song. BOL News is primary source for her as she worked in BOL TV Show. Other references you are claiming for her notability here , here and here are blogposts, paid promotions and non reliable and non independent sources.M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M.Ashraf333, This argument is, once again, It only means that this user wants to war and he wants this article to be deleted by any means at best And all of them know very well that this notable is a pride on Tik Tok and also in Pakistani musician And I can tell one more thing that most of the big news sites of Pakistan do not publish paid news articles by taking money from them. Tichku (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC) blocked WP:SOCK Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

No it means we don't recognize social media followers as a marker of reliability, when and until the various social media platforms can prove they aren't bot-driven followers. Look up stream farms on google, literally physical walls of ipods streaming the same song over and over and over, to boost the media. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that it is only famous on social media it is on Youtubers and worth mentioning is singer He has not one but many songs which have got coverage on news sites. and 24 News HD, Daily Pakistan, Urdupoint, and Bol News on that his song and his career got coverage. Apart from this, some other sites have also written about them. Tichku (talk) 2:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC) blocked WP:SOCK Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Tichku, First off, you don't have any right to strike out my comment as you did in last revision. You can explain here in discussion why this article should be stay on Wikimedia. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment The Creator of the article was identified as a sock of NasirRanjhyWala, indicating that the article might be tagged as CSD G5. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Prescott[edit]

~~BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR, having a novel with reviews in NYT, Vogue, The Guardian, Washington Post, Time, etc. Jfire (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me from having a look. StarryNightSky11 ^☎ 02:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with existing sources. Reviews in both national outlets and regional ones, a profile in NYT, and other coverage of her being signed to a publishing deal, and the coverage of the fairly notable lawsuit, easily means keep. Skynxnex (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the existing article and its sources look fine to me. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple independent reviews, meets WP:NAUTHOR #3 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject's novel was a New York Times bestseller with notable reviews in Vogue, Entertainment Weekly, The Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly (starred review), BookPage (starred review) and Kirkus Reviews (starred review), to name only a few. Subject easily passes notability as a creative professional.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:14, 31 December 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. Those advocating Keeping this article have put together a formidable argument. While the name maybe "made-up", it is being used which I believe makes it valid as an identification. Plus, this article can not be redirect or merged to Brokpa people as that page is a redirect, not an article, which redirects to Brokpa which is an ethnic group, not a place. There has also been substantial argument that this location and Brokpa are two distinct and different elements so Merging would not be the best solution. If there is disagreement about the page title or the article content, that can be resolved on the article talk page or in one of our dispute resolution processes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan valley[edit]

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

This is really a non-topic. The term "Aryan Valley" has been invented by the tourist industry to capitalise on the supposed "Aryanness" of the Brokpa people in Ladakh. Since they speak an Indo-Aryan language even though in the middle of a Tibetic-speaking region, the British chose to refer to them as "Aryans". More than half of India and Pakistan speaks Indo-Aryan languages. So there is nothing special here. A recent paper explained the problem saying, "A strong rumour persists which claims the Brokpa belong to 'pure Aryan stock' and this is accounted in sensational newspaper stories and documentaries on the internet, with rumours claiming that westerners come to Leh in search of the Brokpa, to have a pure Aryan child born to them." The paper did a genetic search for the supposed "Aryan genes" in this population, and didn't find many. They found South Indian "Dravidian genes", though.^[1]

Whatever can be salvaged from this page can be added to Brokpa people. There is no need for this page at all. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Adikarla Syama; Varadarajan Santhakumari Arun; Ganesh Prasad ArunKumar; Ray Subhadeepta; Kai Friese; Ramasamy Pitchappan; The Genographic Consortium (2019), Origin and identity of the Brokpa of Dah-Hanu, Himalayas – an NRY-HG L1a2 (M357) legacy, Annals of Human Biology, vol. 46, pp. 562–573, doi:10.1080/03014460.2019.1694700

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Popular culture, Buddhism, Geography, India, and Ladakh. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is about a location, and the sources in the article show notability per WP:GNG and as a populated place it has notability through WP:GEOLAND. It would be improper to merge a geographical article into an article about an ethnic group. The region exists and is defined by reliable sources; that the nom suggests it was "invented by the tourist industry" does not override the notability established by reliable sources. The genetics of its inhabitants similarly does not detract from the notability of the subject. The article certainly needs work, but deletion is not a solution to any of the issues brought up. - Aoidh (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh, you have provided only one source, and it does not satisy the significant coverage criterion, because there are only passing mentions of "Aryan valley" put in quotation marks. It is also doubtful if it is reliable, because newspaper articles are only reliable for news, not ethnography. We need a minimum of two reliable sources with signiicant coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You made that rule up ;) The article needs sourcing for this *name*, and no, it doesn't need to be in an ethnology journal. Elinruby (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEWSORG. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. A newspaper article claiming certain groups to be "Aryan" carries no weight whatsover, especially when scholarly sources have denied it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I provided one source because the rest are in the article and very clearly show notability. With that article I shared above, the entire article is about that area by that name; that it only uses that name once does not matter, its about the article's subject. That coverage could not be more significant. This entire piece is about the article's subject. Here is a book source that goes into some detail. Here is a piece from the Journal of the Anthropological Society of India. I'm not going to just list examples but they are numerous, and more than sufficient to show notability through WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is exactly what WP:GNG looks for. If your issue is with the specific name then that's an WP:RM issue, not an WP:AFD one. There is no reason to delete this article. - Aoidh (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you mean by "signficant coverage", it cannot possibly mean one-sentence or half-a-sentence mentions. Tht is what you find in your first source and your third source. Your second source has a few more mentions, but it is an anthropological study that is describing how the people are using the term; the scholar is not using it or descrbing it. For example, she says:

Soon after their villages were thrown open to tourism, Brogpa travel agents, either independently or in collaboration with more established tourist companies, organized packaged tours to explore the "Aryan Valley".

You cannot possibly derive a Wikipedia page out of such mentions. In summary, you have produced nothing of use here, and your claim of WP:GNG is wholly unsubstantiated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're reading only the abstract of this, because it has much more than a single sentence. Here is yet another with significant coverage; it's not hard to find many sources that detail this subject with much more than enough coverage to easily meet WP:GNG. I'm not sure how downplaying the one study as an anthropological study that is describing how the people are using the term somehow diminishes its significant coverage of the subject; it is precisely the type of source that the article needs and unambiguously contributes to the well-established notability of the subject. Remove this fine, there's still multiple sources with significant coverage of the article's subject, even if one of them is merely anthropological, as if that's a bad thing. The argument that the sources available for this subject lack significant coverage is not a persuasive one, especially if you take the time to look for sources not listed in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite confused as to why Kautilya3 is now dismissing an anthropological study, after telling me that news stories < scholarly sources, which is of course a good rule of thumb, but does not for all of that preclude the use of news sources. This editor has for example been edit-warring to keep Al-Jazeera out of Brokpa, even though it is a reliable source all day long, not to mention reverting sourced additions as "OR". This would seem to be inconsistent. AGF, it is possible that the editor is worried about the admittedly awful use that was made of the term "Aryan" in the late 19th and early 20th century, and is under the impression that Minaro123 wants to endorse this origin story, which is not the case. It is simply the name someone else gave his language group ;) Yet the best explanation I can conceive of for what is going on here is that he's being held responsible for its appropriation by crazy people a hundred years ago. Admittedly he is new and on his fourth or fifth language and therefore somewhat difficult to understand at times, not to mention only just now beginning to understand reliable sources since someone has taken the trouble to explain the policy to him. I don't see Kautilya3 making any effort to collaborate however.

It takes more than dismissiveness to AfD an article, and beyond the genetics discussion that Kautilya3 seems to want Brokpa to be, there is a great deal that can be said about the identity as an economic initiative, about the politics of sovereignty in Kashmir, about the fragmentation of an endangered language, about the Line of Control, which goes right past some of these villages and has split families up with members on both sides, about initiatives to preserve the culture and about a proliferation of microbusinesses around this renaming. All of this can be done while explicitly repudiating neo-Nazis and refraining from making the article into some sort of promo booking site. I do also think that Kautilya3 should refresh her understanding of the RS and NPOV policies. Being written about by anthropologists does not preclude a cultural isolate from being a living breathing community of individuals who farm, choose sides in a conflict or run for office. If Kautilya3 wishes her article to purely focus on the anthropological body of work, then fine: another article can quite legitimately focus on the other aspects of the community, especially when there's a completely different nomenclature. OWNership is not a healthy trait in one article, let alone when someone is insisting that it should be the *only* article. Elinruby (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby, I suggest you read about the Use–mention distinction. If a scholar is mentioning a term, attributed to somebody else, it does not mean that the scholar is using that term, and claim that it establishes notability for your topic. You are either completely misunderstanding what the sources are saying or deliberately misrepresenting them. If you try to write a small paragraph to accurately summarise the sources that are being presented here, you will see for yourself the fallacies of your own arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I think you completely misunderstand a number of things starting with Wikipedia policy and the intended scope of the article. But out of curiosity, what is your objection to Resisting Occupation in Kashmir? You don't like news articles, you don't like anthropology, shrug. You're very hard to please and you keep shifting the goal posts. I personally don't think it matters whether the name meets with your approval. I dislike quite a number of place names. But if a government refers to a place under its jurisdiction as x, and in this case it is established that it does, then that is an aspect of its identity, whether we approve of the name or not. The NPOV way to deal with this is to explain the controversy. It may be appropriate in a Wikipedia article to also mention a traditional name, or to create a separate article on the place's niche in the local cosmology as the ancestral homeland of a given community, for example, but that will have nothing to do with the microfinance programs of the local development bank, or the constitutional authority of the local legislative body. I think it is time for you to drop the stick and back away from the horse. You are imposing normative judgements that you perceive to be correct but are not, and would in any event not be a reason to AfD the article. You are supposed to search for sources before you nominate an article for deletion, and in this case they are thick on the ground Elinruby (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Kautilya3: and yet none of this is in the article? I see an extensive discussion of a local origin story, but nothing at all about this. Is there something that distinguishes the people of this area from other Brokpa people? If not, perhaps what you are describing should be an article about the racist myth? Elinruby (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Followup comment I am beginning to see why the OP objects to the article. This seems relevant: [27]. However the people and the places and the mythology appear after a start at some due diligence to be quite real, whereas the article title appears to have elements of some sort of racialized promo. But this is not a reason to delete it. We write about such things, we don't censor them, right? There is indeed such an initiative. Still doing some work on the article. Could use some opinions on whether the Indian Express and the above journal are RS. There are a couple of others that seem not to be. Doing a BEFORE search and It looks promising. Elinruby (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also here: [28]. Have not tried to incorporate this more nuanced narrative yet; still doing a copy-edit and wikilink check. Elinruby (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby, please note that an AfD discussion is about the validity/notability of a topic, not about the content of a page. Since the page on Brokpa people is present and will remain forever, the only reason to keep this page would involve some content that cannot possibly fit on the Brokpa people page. What is it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have no opinion on the matter -- notice that I have not voted -- but there seems to be some controversy on the subject. I just left a plethora of questions on the article talk page; you are of course free to chime in. As a rule of thumb, where there is a controversy, we explain both sides of it. We don't dismiss one side of it. Do I misunderstand your issue with the article? I will not be offended if the answer is yes ;) Elinruby (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ATAD.Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Kautilya3: Comment: keep . The dna result also says "The mtDNA profile shows a predominance of mtDNA HG A4 that must have arrived from outside the Indian subcontinent. " Please don't just keep a one side of a story . And maybe for having some percentage of a Indian subcontinent gene they have got mixed with the local population by living in Indian subcontinent for thousand of year . The dna results doesn't says that they have a dravadian gene , rather it says they have a some percentage of gene which is also found in South Indian and other part of Indian subcontinent like jammu etc. Background stories : 1:Last time kautilya3 have reverted my edit on Brokpa page because you were adding a fake cencus of Brokpa people which was somewhere around 50, thousand. But after I showed you many reference and these things was discuss with many wikepedian and finally you has to step back and change the population which was somewhere between 3000- 4000.The discussion could be easily check at the page of Brokpa page and Brokpa,Drokpa,Dard, and Shin 2: My personal opinion: Please these need a special investigation , kautilya3 has always change the Brokpa page according to his opinion, though we have presented a reliable resources ,but he always step back. 3: Aryan valley is not a tourist made name ,it is just a opinion of few people and including kautilya3 , Aryan valley is using by the Indian administration like government officials in their website as well as by reliable newspaper by Indian Express. commmet 2 ': @Kautilya3: Comment: keep the Aryan valley page . All the sentence of Aryan valley page is cited with reliable book by popular writer and reliable news like Indian Express , It is unfair to delete a page of a region and adding it to a ethic group page , though the Brokpa ethnic group also is according to your opinion, you cherry pick whether which sentence should be there and which sentence should not be there and you add a reference according to you . Though , popular reference book and newspaper cited that Brokpa area believed to be a decendent of Alexander the great , but you always deleted that sentence and it's relaible reference . Keep the Aryan valley page because it deserves. I think kautilya3 has a personal enemy with the Aryan valley na Brokpa people, because he don't cited the popular theory of relaible source .he only cherry pick the sentence according to him. Please kautilya3 avoid having personal attack in Brokpa like saying a false statement like " Brokpa has a dravadian gene" which is not true , since Brokpa lived in these Indian subcontinent for hundred of year,they have a gene Which is found in South India and places like jammu . And according to the dna result : Brokpa also suggested a predominance gene which must have arrived from Indian subcontinent. comment 3: Even though ,It is just a theory about their origin and migrated by popular anthropology, we are not here to varify whether they Brokpa are indeed the decendent of Alexander or not . We are here to discuss about a region which is Aryan valley. Now ,the every sentence of Aryan valley is cited with reliable sources and this wikepedia article could be verified easily . So , just look at the citation and close the topic. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaro123 (talk • contribs) Uh, no. The references do need work as I have been telling you at great length. Have you read the WP:RS page yet? It's very important that you do that. I think it can be sourced but you are not there yet. Elinruby (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] Minaro123, I have warned you to desist from making personal attacks. I don't have any "enmity" to the Brokpa people. I am in fact the main author of the Brokpa page. I only object to the "Aryan" propaganda that you apparently subscribe to. Contrary to your claims, the journal article cited above, summarily disproves the "Aryan" claims. Should the Brokpa be an offshoot of early “Aryan”/IE speakers, the R1a1-M17 clade would be expected to occur at a high frequency among them. In fact, however, the Brokpa showed low frequencies of NRY-HG-R1a1(M17) (8%). It also says: ... (various pieces of evidence), all suggest that Brokpa male ancestors might have originated from a deep Indian/south Indian ancestry. So, please stop this propaganda. Wikipedia is not the place for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Kautilya3: Conclusion "The Y chromosomal studies suggest the Brokpa to be pre-Vedic settlers of the Himalayas, 9000 ybp, with an isolated evolution. The mtDNA profile shows a predominance of mtDNA HG A4 that must have arrived from outside the Indian subcontinent." Please don't show me a one section , why are you hasitate go show me the statement " shows has a gene of mtDNA HG A4 which must have reached out side of India " . Please don't do cherry picking . And stop bullying . You were not the first Creator of Brokpa page and secondly , After I repeatedly deleting the fake cencus and adding a discussion in talk section of Brokpa , you had to listen me and you needed to step back and changed population to 3000- 4000. Whenever I added any statement like " Brokpa believed to be a decendent of Alexander the great " cited by aljezerra , atlas of humanity , and other reliable book .,you always deleted it and even though everyone can edit the wikepedia with relaible source, but just because you has more number of edit doesn't mean that you are always true,on the other hand the Westerner wikepedian editor , and other countries wikepedian are very friendly and they never deleted such statement ,but you always do a bully to new editor even though they provided reliable source, Wikepedia is independent, autocratic editor are always harmful. And yes Brokpa page needs to add other useful resource from reliable source but I don't know why you never allow a editor like us to edit it , You always referred back , you have a benefit ,just because you have a more number of edit,no body questions you ,so you cherry pick and say according your mind. And yes I have read the reliable citeria of wikepedia and I respect it .

Please see WP:ATAD.Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Kautilya3: Comment: keep .

The dna result also says "The mtDNA profile shows a predominance of mtDNA HG A4 that must have arrived from outside the Indian subcontinent. " Please don't just keep a one side of a story . And maybe for having some percentage of a Indian subcontinent gene they have got mixed with the local population by living in Indian subcontinent for thousand of year . The dna results doesn't says that they have a dravadian gene , rather it says they have a some percentage of gene which is also found in South Indian and other part of Indian subcontinent like jammu etc. Background stories : 1:Last time kautilya3 have reverted my edit on Brokpa page because you were adding a fake cencus of Brokpa people which was somewhere around 50, thousand. But after I showed you many reference and these things was discuss with many wikepedian and finally you has to step back and change the population which was somewhere between 3000- 4000.The discussion could be easily check at the page of Brokpa page and Brokpa,Drokpa,Dard, and Shin 2: My personal opinion:

Please these need a special investigation , kautilya3 has always change the Brokpa page according to his opinion, though we have presented a reliable resources ,but he always step back.

3: Aryan valley is not a tourist made name ,it is just a opinion of few people and including kautilya3 , Aryan valley is using by the Indian administration like government officials in their website as well as by reliable newspaper by Indian Express.

commmet 2 ': @Kautilya3: Comment: keep the Aryan valley page .

All the sentence of Aryan valley page is cited with reliable book by popular writer and reliable news like Indian Express , It is unfair to delete a page of a region and adding it to a ethic group page , though the Brokpa ethnic group also is according to your opinion, you cherry pick whether which sentence should be there and which sentence should not be there and you add a reference according to you . Though , popular reference book and newspaper cited that Brokpa area believed to be a decendent of Alexander the great , but you always deleted that sentence and it's relaible reference .

Keep the Aryan valley page because it deserves.

I think kautilya3 has a personal enemy with the Aryan valley na Brokpa people, because he don't cited the popular theory of relaible source .he only cherry pick the sentence according to him. Please kautilya3 avoid having personal attack in Brokpa like saying a false statement like " Brokpa has a dravadian gene" which is not true , since Brokpa lived in these Indian subcontinent for hundred of year,they have a gene Which is found in South India and places like jammu . And according to the dna result : Brokpa also suggested a predominance gene which must have arrived from Indian subcontinent.

comment 3: Even though ,It is just a theory about their origin and migrated by popular anthropology, we are not here to varify whether they Brokpa are indeed the decendent of Alexander or not . We are here to discuss about a region which is Aryan valley. Now ,the every sentence of Aryan valley is cited with reliable sources and this wikepedia article could be verified easily . So , just look at the citation and close the topic. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaro123 (talk • contribs)

Uh, no. The references do need work as I have been telling you at great length. Have you read the WP:RS page yet? It's very important that you do that. I think it *can* be sourced but you are not there yet. Elinruby (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minaro123, I have warned you to desist from making personal attacks. I don't have any "enmity" to the Brokpa people. I am in fact the main author of the Brokpa page. I only object to the "Aryan" propaganda that you apparently subscribe to.

Contrary to your claims, the journal article cited above, summarily disproves the "Aryan" claims.

Should the Brokpa be an offshoot of early “Aryan”/IE speakers, the R1a1-M17 clade would be expected to occur at a high frequency among them. In fact, however, the Brokpa showed low frequencies of NRY-HG-R1a1(M17) (8%).

It also says:

... (various pieces of evidence), all suggest that Brokpa male ancestors might have originated from a deep Indian/south Indian ancestry.

So, please stop this propaganda. Wikipedia is not the place for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Conclusion "The Y chromosomal studies suggest the Brokpa to be pre-Vedic settlers of the Himalayas, 9000 ybp, with an isolated evolution. The mtDNA profile shows a predominance of mtDNA HG A4 that must have arrived from outside the Indian subcontinent." Please don't show me a one section , why are you hasitate go show me the statement " shows has a gene of mtDNA HG A4 which must have reached out side of India " .

Please don't do cherry picking . And stop bullying . You were not the first Creator of Brokpa page and secondly , After I repeatedly deleting the fake cencus and adding a discussion in talk section of Brokpa , you had to listen me and you needed to step back and changed population to 3000- 4000.

Whenever I added any statement like " Brokpa believed to be a decendent of Alexander the great " cited by aljezerra , atlas of humanity , and other reliable book .,you always deleted it and even though everyone can edit the wikepedia with relaible source, but just because you has more number of edit doesn't mean that you are always true,on the other hand the Westerner wikepedian editor , and other countries wikepedian are very friendly and they never deleted such statement ,but you always do a bully to new editor even though they provided reliable source, Wikepedia is independent, autocratic editor are always harmful. And yes Brokpa page needs to add other useful resource from reliable source but I don't know why you never allow a editor like us to edit it , You always referred back , you have a benefit ,just because you have a more number of edit,no body questions you ,so you cherry pick and say according your mind. And yes I have read the reliable citeria of wikepedia and I respect it .

Delete and redirect to Brokpa - Per nomination; NOPAGE applies. I intend to write a section on this topic, at Brokpa, once the AfD is closed. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: The Aryan valley region is cited with reliable references like Indian express and also books , please don't delete it ,it is indeed a region

Keep or TNT if necessary

@Minaro123: On this page you need to put ~~~~ after your comments, to sign them. You really need to read WP:RS, if you wrote this after you starting posting journal articles on the talk page.

@Kautilya3: as admirable an ethnological survey as Brokpa may be, it does not give you ownership of all adjacent matters. Minaro123 has provided multiple instances of the district government using the term in its official capacity. I have found others which are secondary. I am explaining primary sources to him/her, but these links do seem to be evidence of an official renaming. Don't bite the newbie, please, or in this case explain to him/her what he/she is genetically, according to anthropologists. Isn't that a bit ethnocentric, to use the ethnological term of art?

Btw, he/she is not asserting the Alexander theory as truth; merely saying that others have done so. He/she hasn't sourced this statement very well on the page, but those sources do seem to exist, and since he/she seems to need another source for his/her further assertion on the talk page that the Alexander theory is untrue, perhaps that one study you keep posting will work for that.

@TrangaBellam: You seem to have mistakenly swept my examples of by-gosh secondary sources discussing the renaming into the collapsed section above titled "arguments to avoid", which I submit that they are not. Please remedy this. For convenience, I am reposting them here: [29][30] The matter is just not as simple as you seem to think, and Kautilya3 seems to be bringing a genetics argument to bear on an administrative matter.

There are nuances that are not in the Aryan valley article, sure, but this can be remedied, and the administrative aspects of the matter are notable whether or not Kautilya3 thinks they have a sound genetic basis. I do see the tourism campaigns, but my links above would seem to discuss them in a scholarly context, and nobody has demonstrated that this or any sort of "propaganda" is the reason for the name change. And supposing that they were, on Wikipedia we discuss propaganda as propaganda, and advertising as advertising. we don't ignore or dismiss them Elinruby (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is likely notable (interesting source, if reliable: [31]). It's possible the article has NPOV issues or such, but I see no need to TNT this, nor am I convinced it fails GNG. The nom's argument, with all due respect, sounds a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT (perhaps due to said NPOV issues?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

clarification: the TNT suggestion was based on a look at the existing sourcing. The author is new but is responsive. I like that source also but it isn't currently used on the page. Going to work on that personally though. Already did a copy-edit for some English issues -- nothing too unusual for articles about India, just punctuation etc. Elinruby (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, Your source has "Aryan Valley" in quotation marks in its title. Why do you think that is? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3,Quotation marks around single words can occasionally be used for emphasis, but only when quoting a word or term someone else used. The authors just want to give a special importance to Aryan valley in that sentence that is a reason he used it, you can use quotation marks for emphasis to separate a certain word from the rest of the sentence. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaro123 (talk • contribs)

There is only one mention of "Aryan valley" in the article, which says:

Domestic and international visits to Brogpa villages are now packaged as explorations of the “Aryan Valley.”

There is no emphasis of anything. It is a second-hand mention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commeting to kautilya3 (talk • contribs) The national Reasearch organization,ignac quotes:

Our journey in a Aryan valley have started in 2016, a small initiative was taken when we have a community in Dha village for setting up a Aryan valley museum.

The Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts,a centre for research, academic pursuit and dissemination in the field of the arts. They research organisation have cited the above statement in their paper .[32]. --

The Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts,a centre, further quotes:

:::

The Aryan valley have a distinct culture , however is gradually influenced by neighbouring culture and effect of civilization ..

and also this , Even the

national researchh agency recognise Aryan valley and use the term to denote the region . --

Rendezvous with the Himalayas to set up a Museum in Aryan valley.

And this is the title they are using it .

The national Reasearch organization,ignac quotes:

The stone utensils of Aryan valley and other utilitarian object are also displayed on a decorative shelf called Tsangs in local langauge.

Aryan valley has its unique history , traditions and culture .

Aryan valley is used by offical of India to recognise the Aryan valley region . And newspapers etc in spite of ladakh subregion gets very low media attention due to its remote area and cut off from the rest of world for 6 month in winter because of huge snowfall at its passes . And this is just a beginning , as of now ,there is a more than enough evidence and reference to show aryan valley as a region . But as time goes by ,more and more media attention would get and new wikepedian will cited source and the Aryan valley articles will keep improving . had Minaro123 (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The national Reasearch organization,ignac quotes:

Some of the areas of Aryan valley are restricted for outsider since it borders POK and Indian forces are stationed there for keeping watch and vegil in this region.

Some border places of Aryan valley region , are restricted for outsider because of security issue, it clarifies that Aryan valley is indeed a region and it is accepted by a research organisation of The Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts.

[33] 20:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment When an article has 37 references, and hardly any of them use the term in the title, the odds on the name being made up approach 100%. If the article can be merged elsewhere, that's probably a good idea. If it cannot, then a descriptive title is probably the way to go. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark Dear sir/Mam, The older name of the Aryan valley in 19 century is Dha hanu country / Dah hanu District / which included all the major villages of the present day Aryan valley that is Dha,Hanu,Darchik and Garkone , these title was used by a author at that time and It has quoted those history . And the same region was also called as Brogyul during 1950 to 2000, and recently , since nearly 2005 upto present, no one seems to use the Brogyul for these region and naturally the place name was known as Aryan valley by thousand of newspaper,journal ,book, government etc .so we should use Aryan valley . Thank youMinaro123 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Futher comment:

:: Economic and political times weekly  2018, it is a reliable source . It quotes :

I was at the Women’s Empowerment Centre (WEC) in Dar-chiks, a village rich in apricots, almonds, pears, apples andgrapes, situated 70-odd kilometres away from Kargil in Jammuand Kashmir, in the area popularly known as Aryan Valley.The village is one of three major settlements of the Brokpa.

The relaible writer acknowledge that that the area is known as Aryan valley which included , darchik as one of its prominent village .

References are :[34] And [35]Minaro123 (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Thank you[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about a geographic region, not a people, so the suggestion of a redirect to Brokpa people is nonsensical. It is a region, according to sourced information in the article (which no one seems to be challenging), that was once an independent country. All countries are notable (that is not just common sense, it's blindingly obvious, but if you insist it's per WP:GEOLAND a populated legally recognised place). Once notable, always notable (WP:NTEMP) ergo once a country, always notable. Most of this discussion (and the nomination) centre around the claimed Aryan, or Indo-Aryan heritage of the locals. None of that is currently in the article as far as I can see so that is now a non-issue. That just leaves the name. It may be true that name has been cooked up for tourist reasons, or some nefarious nationalistic plot, but that is all beside the point. There is enough sourced discussion of "Aryan valley" for it to be on Wikipedia. Just the controversy over the use of that name, such as the source found by Elinruby, is in itself notable. At the very worst, that calls for an article name change, not deletion, and even then WP:NPOVNAME allows for the use of a POV name if that is what is being used in sources. SpinningSpark 21:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, Please see this footnote [36] which is the only clear-cut description of this region there is. There is no "legal recocognition" and WP:GEOLAND doesn't apply. If you have been led to believe so, it is due to the WP:POV and WP:OR that infests with this page. The whole reason for this bringing this AfD is to save ourselves the need to keep battling this POV for eternity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason for this bringing this AfD is to save ourselves the need to keep battling this POV for eternity. That is not the purpose of AfD. The subject is notable and meets both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND (being legally recognized is one option, not the sole requirement). There is no cause to delete this article; that it might need cleanup is a surmountable problem and is in no way a reason to delete an article. - Aoidh (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: He named the region as Dha Hanu country, which was independent at the time. Is that, or is it not true? If it is, then it is notable because it was a country. There is a reason that WP:NCOUNTRY does not exist. We don't need it because all countries are notable. Your footnote is irrelevant, that is about the people, not the region so does not affect my keep rationale in the slightest. Nor does whether or not they really are Aryan. SpinningSpark 18:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given your non-neutral language above I suggest you refrain from further comment about what OR "infests" the page, especially since you are again biting its newbie author on the talk because you don't think his source matches what you feel you measured on a map. I suggest a meditation on self-awareness, especially since you just injected your point of view into the lede. I have no particular issue with either of your sources, and have in fact already cited them here, but those points are not yet in the article body, which the lede is supposed to reflect. We all understand that you have strong feelings about this for some reason, but you are not editing in keeping with the values you profess on your talk page. Unclench your jaw from around that newbie. You are being told that your dislike of the article does not translate to a need for Wikipedia to delete it. That said, you don't seem to have actually read the article, either. Of course there is legal recognition. It's the name used by the local councils and territory governments. There are four or five references for this. There can be more if they are needed. I just haven't gotten to writing a section on infrastructure yet. So drop the stick and quit telling Minaro123 that all his sources have to contain the term "Aryan Valley", including those that deal with the previous century. Elinruby (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a complete outsider to this topic, but have been researching this and working with the article author, Minaro123. I believe the following is a correct summary.

Aryan Valley is in fact a made-up name, not organic, but it was made up by the government ten years ago, which uses it officially to designate a very specific area not just for purposes of tourism but also when describing electrification initiatives, agricultural extension programs and other administrative matters.

The people of the area describe themselves as Minaro. The name Brokpa was given to them by a different ethnic group that is more akin to the Tibetans, and "Brogpa" means "hill-dwellers". Along the Line of Control it applies to a number of unrelated communities that are respectively Buddhist, animist, and several types of Shia. There is another, different, group known as Brokpa in the next state over who herd yaks. The Minaro, a subset of those described as Brokpa in Ladakh, grow fruit and barley and are animists and nominally also Buddhist. This is a cultural designation, not a racial one, as Minaro123 (talk · contribs) feels that the Brogpa across the line of control are not Minaro, because they no longer practice the traditional ways. The Minaro who live in Aryan Valley do not consider themselves Aryan, by the way, although their oral history says that they have distant roots in Europe by way of Gitgit. They do not have a written history. The "Aryan" idea stems, as far as I can tell, from 19th century British amateur ethnologues. The Minaro seem to agree that they are Dards, but neither the Aryans nor the Dards used these names to describe themselves. I have not yet discovered the reasoning behind the Ladakh government choosing this particular name for the region, but it may (my speculation) have been an attempt to differentiate it from nearby areas of Kashmir being marketed as tourist destinations by the Pakistani government. It should be noted that the Brogpa are a minority culture in Ladakh. There is a controversy that can be explored about the name, and should, but the name does in fact designate a specific region within Ladakh, whose components Mindaro has enumerated at my request on the talk page. There is also a section on the talk page where I try to enunciate the distinctions between the various overlapping ethnic group names.

I thought we had established the government use of the name, and had moved on to looking for secondary sources that described the region. However, Minaro123 has provided several links to local English-language news, and work on the article can focus on this aspect of the name for a while, if this is still a concern. Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically in favor of keeping, but there's a lot of poor votes, a couple of non-bolded comments that are clearly supporting deletion, and very little explicit analysis of notability. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deen the Great vs. Walid Sharks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENTS. No evidence of significant coverage (most of the reporting I found was by DAZN themselves), as well as no evidence that this event will be historically significant. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 17:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, United States of America, and Texas. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 17:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep: ESPN reported on Greg Hardy being on the card. It will be of historical significant as this card includes the defeat of Hasim Rahman Jr. to Greg Hard. As well as the location to where KSI announced he is fighting Dillon Danis. You could argue with alot of other boxing articles having a lack of historical significant while this being the most tactical YouTube match thus far. GhaziTwaissi (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think an ex football player and MMA fighter taking on a boxer who is best known for NOT fighting Jake Paul is historically significant. I've noticed a theme that these YouTube crossover events usually don't meet GNG or EVENTS, and this appears no different. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 21:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you could argue with alot of other boxing matches. Mayweather vs Moore, Thor vs Eddie Hall, etc. This was one of the first full professional crossover events that I'd consider significant as well as the Dillon Danis encounter at the Weigh-in which I will add now. GhaziTwaissi (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ESPN covered this, multiple big sources reported this, Bloody Elbow, MMAMania, MMA Fighting and more had live coverage. I say keep. D MCCG (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:21, 16 December 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, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable fight (event). I think passes WP:GNG. Gothamk (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event, but most of the sources are from the same nonreliable website.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove I see some heavy bias because of KSI's involvement with Misfits promotion, as most of the information on this article rely on a single source and have not verified information with other reputable sports publications. However, I can't see why the creation of possibly a larger Misfits article wouldn't counter these issues. Sure, we would have to clean it of single-source edits but I think that would be the best compromise. MF & DAZN 3 was a small event with little notoriety outside the influencer boxing community, and I believe there is good justification for it's removal.--Jsraynault (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event and big on the boxing scene MickyJFan6790 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page. Irrelevant and not historically significant. These KSI fans are creating these pages for no reason and littering Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.42.114.132 (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Boone[edit]

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

Boone is solely notable as a member of The Lovin' Spoonful. Redirect to that article is recommended. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on co-authorship of two top 10 hits (one of which was Billboard #1), albeit with the Spoonful, but often that is criteria enough. And although I'm unwilling to do the research, I'd be surprised if there wasn't pre-internet age reportage of his post-Spoonful arrest as a drug smuggler, FWIW. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is easy to find sources for this founding member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame band The Lovin' Spoonful. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, I am not having success in finding sources (beyond blog-type ones and chatty fan articles) so I would appreciate your listing some of what you've found. Thanks. Lamona (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Lovin' Spoonful. 99% of this article's content is either from primary sources or sources that focus on The Lovin' Spoonful. Much like Lamona, I am also not finding any reliable secondary sources that have in-depth coverage of Mr. Boone as an individual. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has good sources and he his band is very famous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "good sources" are all about the band, and notability is not inherited, so this "keep" doesn't offer any rationale based on policy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Davidgoodheart: Yes, his band is very famous. And he is only famous because he is a member of that band. WP:BLP1E applies, and a redirect to the band article is the proper response. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit like saying Keith Richards is only famous because he is a member of Rolling Stones. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. Keith Richards has solo records, projects with other artists, a host of individual honors, etc, and all of that is documented in volumes of reliable sources. Steve Boone isn't in any sources that aren't about The Lovin' Spoonful. It's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and skyscrapers. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is adequate coverage of his career and activities independent of The Lovin' Spoonful, for example his ownership of the Blue Seas recording studio and authorship of a memoir. Here is a RS review of the latter; there are probably others. Jfire (talk) 23:40, 31 December 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.