< July 03	July 05 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don M. Winn[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published author. Sourced with paid sources like Latin Times and reviews San Francisco Book Review. No genuine notability, like Publishers' Weekly review is also part of "BookLife" program. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. Amon Stutzman (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent analysis of the situation by the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Masterhatch (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PicaBot[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for advertisment of products. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Amon Stutzman (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is more of an advert than an encyclopedic article, poorly written and sourced and does not proves how notability is met. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Emerald Bay, an existing disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) – 333 -blue at 05:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Bay, California[edit]

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

Article does not need to exist because a disambiguation for the name Emerald Bay already exists. Penguin314 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emerald Bay. No need for a separate dab. MB 01:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:INCOMPDAB. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and expand to a full dab page if more places with these names end up having articles. jp×g 19:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page now redirects to Emerald Bay. Thanks. Penguin314 (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it was. This is not a WP:INCOMPDAB case, which is implied by parenthetical disambiguators. This is a phrase that appears to be a discrete placename, and the reader who types or links to Emerald Bay, California probably expects that it will be an undisambiguated title. BD2412 T 05:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D-Rocke[edit]

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

Pro forma nomination for User:Paul W, who attempted to AfD this using PageTriage and encountered some kind of script error preventing the AfD page from being created. jp×g 23:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jp×g 23:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found other than things from Kazi magazine, which don't appear reliable either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Oaktree b said, there are no reliable sources that can be found when D-Rocke is searched up. Nikscholarly20 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable singer per WP:NMG --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable (broken AfD arose following use of Page Curation tool - I now know to use Twinkle instead). Paul W (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul W: Unrelated question, but have you filed a bug report for this? It seems like a bad state of affairs for Page Curation to have an AfD feature if it doesn't work and creates malformed templates. jp×g 18:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't (at least not yet). I saw some discussion in the NPP discussion page in May 2022 here. There seem to be reviewers who simply use Page curation to manage the NPP feed and mark articles as patrolled. Paul W (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find anything that would make the performer notable Kazanstyle (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not verifiable with decent sources as far as I can tell. /Julle (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Poleon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. All sources are trivial in nature. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louka Bertrand[edit]

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

No claim to notability, no news sources, entire article consists of the following text:

Louka Bertrand (born 24 August,2004) Is a Haitian footballer who plays as striker for Barcelona academy and the Haitian u20 team.
born:August 24,2004 (17 years)
Place of birth:cap Haitian,Haiti
Height:1,80 m (5 ft 11 in)
position:forward
current team: Barcelona academy

jp×g 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and Haiti. jp×g 23:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't even played professionally, he's just in the academy. No significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to meeting any inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not a platform for athletes seeking to get hired to post their bios. That is at least what this looks like to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable, but please don't copy/paste full text of articles into other pages. Smartyllama (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. As far as I can tell, we can't build a decent article about him. /Julle (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pessius Polius[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG.Alimovvarsu (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva Ketana of Long Island[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Jewish primary school sourced to own website with one dead-link to a routine-coverage local news article. MB 22:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Judaism, and New York. MB 22:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing in the article or showing in BEFORE that even vaguely resemble notability. Even before when some schools got notability passes, this article didn't show anything close to notability. BTW, not very many of the articles linked in the footer show notability either, although I've not done BEFORE on them. 174.212.212.141 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing here and nothing found in a Google search to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Kazanstyle (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Welland Canal since it is a part of it. (non-admin closure) – 333 -blue at 05:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lock 3[edit]

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

Similar rationale Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burleigh Hill, St. Catharines. Lock 3 isn't really a distinct community, it's part of the Welland Canal. As in, a water passage for boats to skip Niagara Falls, not really a place people live. As far as I can tell, the only sources (at least online) that label it as a distinct community are Wikipedia mirrors. I don't think this meets the requirements for notability in WP:GEOLAND/~~WP:GNG~~. Clovermoss (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm just going to boldly redirect this to Welland Canal. If anyone has a problem with that, revert me and restart the discussion.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Even if it might not meet WP:GEOLAND as a notable community because it isn't a community, it's possible it would pass WP:GNG itself as a lock/place that visit (so far I haven't found any sources that focus on it specifically except in its relationship to other locks/the museum, but it's possible I'm just not looking in the right place and there's more substantial coverage). Which would be another good reason to withdraw, honestly. I think my bold redirect, at least for now, is fine. Someone could always create an article later if there's sources to do so. But honestly I'm worried I might've been a bit too bold. I'd appreciate input from other editors. Clovermoss (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion As this is now a redirect to a well known article, the discussion is moot. Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: I'm not sure how or if I'm supposed to close it since I started the AfD? Couldn't someone theoretically disagree with me? I did withdraw but I don't think that actually means I closed it. I've never actually closed anything before. I'm the person who redirected because it seemed like the obvious choice after the fact. Clovermoss (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I try and stay away from opening or closing AFDs - I think you can just close this, etc. Or just wait out the 7 days. 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@Nfitz: So this seems to imply that it is possible for me to close a discussion, but that I shouldn't because I created the AfD? Although there's a part of me that wonders if I should ignore that advice because I'm pretty sure it's intended as a "don't !supervote to get your way in a deletion discussion" because typically nominating an article for deletion means that you think that the article should be deleted. Although that would only really work if you were an admin because it's not really possible to close things as delete if you can't delete things? So it really could just be a don't do this ever thing. Technically a redirect means that it's kept? So therotically I could close this as keep. I have seen some precedent for someone closing keep as withdrawing their nom though, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Younge-Ullman – an article I should really get around to improving. But I don't participate enough in AfDs to know if this is standard or unusual. Or if norms surrounding this have changed since 2019. Clovermoss (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being Wikipedia, there are always multiple conflicting "rules" and guidelines making it pretty much impossible to do anything, without someone else shouting at you. Nfitz (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajay Naik[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG Sparkle1 (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability, there's literally no sourcing Proton Dental (talk) 04:45, 5 July 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 WP:SNOW delete. There appears to be immediate agreement among everyone, including the article subject, that this article should not be here. BD2412 T 05:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Éamonn Ó Catháin[edit]

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

Non-notable, cited to a single unreliable source, and person claiming to be this person demanded deletion and right to privacy Atsme 💬 📧 20:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Atsme 💬 📧 20:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Autarch (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to WP:AGF as I don't know if the person has been verified as actually being the subject, but I think WP:BLPREQUESTDEL applies. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took a look though the edit history of this article and there are bona fide privacy and safety issues noted in the editing history. While the subject is mildly famous, the right to privacy and safety out ranks this, in my opinion and therefore WP:BLPREQUESTDEL applies. If anyone is about to vote keep here, take a look though content that was removed and apply some compassion please. CT55555 (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete safety concerns aside, I'm not sure what this article is supposed to be about/why do they need a wiki page. Appears like a badly written CV. Non-notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds autobiographical at best and in either case, WP:GNG not met. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanoj Rejinold[edit]

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

Seems to be an assistant prof. Not seeing how it's a pass of WP:NPROF based on citations, etc. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too early in career for notability to be established. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get exactly one hit in Gnews in a foreign script that I can't read; an Indian language, unsure which. Regardless, zero sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:PROF as notability is not there. Gusfriend (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources, no notability. Kazanstyle (talk) 17:15, 9 July 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 merged from Cover Story. BD2412 T 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cover story[edit]

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

Pretty useless as a disambiguation page: one unlinked entry/definition and one entry with three links, only one of which even mentions the term (and limited hangout is a more limited meaning). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cover Story. Both pages are disambiguation pages, but they cover different topics. HenryTemplo (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the other dab here: Cover story is the slightly older page of the two and its title is preferable according to WP:DABNAME. – Uanfala (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've got two different merger proposals here of disambiguation pages and it's unlikely that either will be acted upon without more clear consensus of whether the page title should be Cover story or Cover Story.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also states that the simplest form is preferred. Though yeah, it doesn't explicitly give the principle (which is well established in practice) that common nouns are preferable to proper names: you don't use the proper noun variant (Cover Story) unless all the entries are proper nouns. – Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cover Story. I think "Cover story" is the correct name for the merged page. Once the pages are merged, there'll be easily enough links to be able to write a disambiguation page. --ais523

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Jalal[edit]

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

Person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies Oliver Virk (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Bahrain. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, would appear to have been a resume/CV for the individual, who is now deceased. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Varghese Kurian[edit]

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

Person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies Oliver Virk (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bahrain, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, award seems trivial, no other sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan Khalid[edit]

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

non-notable person who's sole appearance in any media is because of being suspected of being affiliated with terrorism, but nothing official and hasn't even gone to court yet. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abolfazl Soleimani[edit]

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

Doesn't pass NFOOTY, yes not longer binding, but also does not have significant coverage. This is a youth academy player who this week joined the adult club in training camp. The league doesn't restart until October, and he might not even be on the adult team then. Mvqr (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. Mvqr (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not yet notable. We do not create articles on people who may in the future meet inclusion criteria but do not at the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Cross'd Destiny[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Could not find any reliable sources in a WP:BEFORE. Previous AFD from 2008 closed as "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I will note the single Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards win. As per the currently ongoing discussion on Elf Life this might considered sufficient for establishing notability. I don't believe so myself, though, and agree with the nominator that there's basically no sources to work with here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wasn't able to find any substantial independent sources. HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Horses Sharp Swords: Medieval Battles which shook India[edit]

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

The book does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I was unable to locate substantive reviews in reliable, reputable sources (i.e., excluding blogs, self-published sources, etc.). There is not a plausible redirect target as the author (Amit Agrawal) is not notable. Previously PRODded but the tag was removed by the article's creator, Eiagarwal. DanCherek (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, and India. DanCherek (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original PROD rationale: Non notable book by non notable author. Fails NBOOK and GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 11:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't disagree with nom or PROD. The book has some apparent for-hire reviews; didn't find anything reputable. -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We would need to categorise this as "history from a Hindutva point of view". The author does not appear to be an academic historian. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read-only right-moving Turing machines[edit]

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

This is identical to Deterministic finite automaton and only serves to confuse; should be merged there. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:CSK#1. No rationale is given for deletion. If the nominator believes that the two articles should be merged (rather than one be deleted or BLAR'd), then the place to discuss this is the talk page of the relevant articles—not AfD. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Withdrawn Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator OK, I guess this was not an appropriate use of AfD. This is a clear merge (was discussed before on the talk page). I completed the merge and this AfD should be closed. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico del Rosario[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - does seem to pop up semi-regularly in the Saipan Tribune. I’m currently admitted to hospital and can’t really expand upon the article at the moment. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Sources have been found. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found. Giant Snowman 17:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @Davidlofgren1996:. Also, I found these sources which show he is notable in the Northern Mariana Islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. I notice there have been a lot of articles being nominated for deletion without the nominator bothering to find sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. WP:BEFORE searches matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fruit[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Was moved to wrong namespace. Article still has no sources but was already moved to draftspace once, so I will move to where creator intended and it be re-nominated or draftifed by someone else from there. (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DGP Cup Badminton Tournament[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Paul W (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. Articles for deletion is used for articles in the main namespace, not for miscellaneous pages in the Wikipedia namespace (WP:MFD is used for deleting items in the Wikipedia namespace). That being said, the content is absolutely not appropriate at its current location and it should be moved to the draft namespace where it can be submitted through WP:AFC. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Institute of Infrastructure Management[edit]

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

Fails wp:GNG. Akevsharma (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Gujarat, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of primary sources. Third party coverage is not indepth to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of social democracy and social liberalism[edit]

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

This is an essay. It's based on sources about one of the two subtopics, not sources that are about the comparison. Most of the content is WP:OR or based on an unreliable source like Medium. If content comparing these topics is needed, its best contextualized at their respective articles, where it's unlikely to take up more than a small subsection (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this is an essay and it’s a bit threadbare even for that. No obvious solution other than deletion. Mccapra (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No essays please. Information could easily be incorporated into relevant articles, but the subject is beyond my area of expertise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay, un-encyclopedic and heavily reliant on original research. Not notable in its present form. Sal2100 (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) – 333 -blue at 06:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Katchanovski[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR. Two somewhat well-cited items (155, 120), the rest is fairly unremarkable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he meets WP:SCHOLAR:

On Google Scholar he has cited 1431 times.[1]

This piece is cited 115 times [2]

This one is cited 120 times [3]

This one is cited 86 times [4]

This one is cited 85 times [5]

This one 74 times [6]

This one 63 times [7]

This one 62 times [8]

This one 53 times [9]

And so on...

He is author of a book and co-author of 2 other books.[10]

I know this is not an issue to focus on too much, but there are articles by academics that barely show up on Google Scholar, so I don't understand why question Katchanovksi. For example Bohdan Ben [11] Mhorg (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with this. You say this one [is cited] 53 times [12]? How come? This say 9 citations, not 53. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? The Snipers Massacre on the Maidan in Ukraine is cited 58 times according to this -->[13] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only checked link by Mhorg above, and it shows "9 citations" (right upper corner). My very best wishes (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means that this article cites nine others. Nothing about the number of other articles that cite this one, which is what concerns us at Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we might need more references Mhorg if that is to be kept. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is what Google Schoolar says. I assume that not all academic content databases are aligned and some contain certain publications and others do not. However, Google Scholar is a tool that helps us understand how much an academic is cited, famous, etc. Mhorg (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a creator of this page you should not vote here and should not do this [14]. Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that the creator of the article could not vote. Can you provide wiki link about this rule? The same applies to the 'Publications' section, which I see is present on other articles (Tetiana_Starodub#List_of_major_works).

About WP:SOAPBOX which of the five points would concern me? Mhorg (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be there, and I just fixed it. That page is another candidate for an AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it's expected that you'd vote keep, you are absolutely allowed to vote @Mhorg. @My very best wishes is incorrect in that assertion. Star Mississippi 02:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - [15] obviously - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of these, including the most WP:RS (the WaPo article), are articles or guest articles written by, not about, the subject. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing justifies his notability (e.g. "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources") - at least as written. ~~I might change my vote if the page is properly re-written so that the notability of the subject would be clear.~~ He does have a number of publications, but what is his citation index? Here, an H-index of 20. I am not sure that alone justifies his significant impact to the field. What are his actual achievements to be included to the page? Quickly looking at his papers [16], he describes shooting the protesters by snipers during Revolution of Dignity as a false flag operation by Right sector (a conspiracy theory promoted by Russian propaganda). That is why his views are cited [17] by the infamous Sputnik (news agency). Hence, he might be notable for that, but this is not clear from the current version of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I didn’t know that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to his own summary [18], he came to such conclusion by analyzing "about 1,500 (150 Gigabytes) of videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts by mass media and social media in different countries" using "a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality". That sounds fishy to me, but perhaps he is right: that conspiracy theory was propagated so widely in social networks that it became predominant there. Then, he is saying this is true as a predominant view (the "bandwagon fallacy"), even though he frames it differently (due to lack of time, I am not going investigate any deeper; this is Social Science Research Network, not a peer reviewed publication). Then, Sputnik cites him again as a confirmation that the conspiracy theory was true. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Kuzio, whose research interest probably matches Katchanowski fairly closely (that is, ukraine + democratization) in one of his own recent books mentioned Katchanowski briefly and his work investigating the Feb 20, 2014 shootings:

https://www.e-ir.info/2020/12/02/academic-orientalism-in-russia-ukraine-scholarship/

"[Katchanowski's] work reflects that of a political technologist more than that of a scholar through his highly selective compilation of sources gleaned from conspiratorial corners of the Internet and YouTube"

for context, Paul D'Anieri, describes the event as:

There is considerable speculation concerning who was shooting at whom on February 20. There have been allegations that a “third force” was shooting at both sides, trying to spur on the conflict, from high in the Hotel Ukraina, overlooking Instytutska Street and the Maidan. Some point to Georgians, some to Ukrainians, and some to Russians. The chaos of the day and the intense efforts at disinformation that have ensued have made it impossible to disconfirm these theories. The most sophisticated effort to address the issue, carried out at Carnegie Mellon University, found conclusively that at least some of the protestors on Instytutska Street were killed by Berkut forces on the ground

Kuzio does mention some well known russia studies scholars that cite Katchanowski's theory (sakwa, cohen). of course, it's not surprising that russian media seemed to have gravitated to this particular narrative Cononsense (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wants to discredit Katchanovski by linking him to Russian propaganda, but without knowing the positions of this academic. For example, here,[19] against general opinion, he believes that the Ukrainian Svoboda party is not "fascist or neo-Nazi or overtly anti-Semitic." Strange statement for a 'Kremlin propagandist'. Please, let's limit the comments to his notability and leave aside the fact that some users like or dislike the results of his studies.--Mhorg (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not sure yet if he should have an article. A bunch of our articles cite him, but I'm not sure if all of the texts by him which we cite are reliable (e.g. non-peer-reviewed conference papers). Having a page on him will enable readers to see who we're citing, but only if we include secondary sources saying who he is. I'm unclear which of the WP:SCHOLAR criteria advocates are arguing he meets. If we're going with The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. what would be the discipline? His heavily cited work[20] is by Seymour Martin Lipset and Noah M. Meltz with Rafael Gomez and Ivan Katchanovski, and it's about trade unions in Canada. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. For example, something like this is WP:SPS. My opinion: if a presumably scholar was unable to publish his paper in a peer reviewed journal, this is something really problematic, and should generally not be used for sourcing anywhere, even though WP:RS allows this in some cases. My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources mentioned above satisfy the requirement of meeting the said notability guidelines. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because he is cited doesn't mean he's notable. He hasn't won any major awards and is only at his Universtiy part time https://www2.uottawa.ca/about-us/media/need-expert-russias-war-ukraine. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mid-level teacher at a mid-level Canadian university. Zero sources in Canadian google and gnews. Some hits as an author in Gscholar. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How you missed this Canadian source? REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Has written quite a few articles and got some citations and coverage, but not sure it's quite enough for WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSCHOLAR having his work cited by CBC.ca,[21] People's World,[22] Jacobin (magazine),[23] a Routledge publication,[24] Al Mayadeen,[25] and other reliable sources. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was certainly cited. Moreover, his citation H-index is 20 (see above), which is not bad for a typical researcher. I just doubt this alone justifies his notability, e.g. "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". One needs reviews of his works by independent 3rd party sources about him that make not-trivial coverage of his work and say: he made such and such significant impact to the field as opposed to saying "[Katchanowski's] work reflects that of a political technologist more than that of a scholar through his highly selective compilation of sources gleaned from conspiratorial corners of the Internet and YouTube (see quotation by someone above).My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More likely to meet WP:GNG than WP:NSCHOLAR I think. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mhorg, GizzyCatBella and Rediscoverbharat. Meets WP:NSCHOLAR contrary to nom's claim. desmay (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at various criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR [26], he might satisfy #1? But if he made an impact to his field, then what exactly was his impact? Which novel concepts did he develop? What did he discover? My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. My position of the notability of this particular scholar is not as strong as before. Weak keep. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPROF. None of the sources cover Katchanovski or his work "directly and in detail" which would be a requirement of passing either WP:SIGCOV or the pertinent criteria at WP:NPROF. As it is, the sources are merely using Katchanovski as a political commentator rather than actually examining his scholarship and providing any sort of analysis. Without any sort of critical engagement or review of his work as a scholar, I don't think we can claim notability through GNG or through any SNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just searched for reviews of his books in Wikipedia Library and found three, he therefore surpasses the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. I updated the article accordingly. I stopped after three, as only two are needed. CT55555 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete nothing of substance found for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC) I've already voted.[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Griffiths (minister)[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NPROF or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 12:53, 4 July 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!} 01:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Elbehiery[edit]

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

The subject has various achievements which are not supported by reliable sources (I have flagged multiple instances). Moreover, some of the claimed achievements relate to institutions with no Wikipedia articles (Vanridge University, Diana International College). I patrolled this article last week and sent it to draft status. However, the original author, User:Mishmashtater, made edits which "improved referencing" then republished - but LinkedIn is not reliable and Wiza appears to be a social app, so is also unreliable. Works in the bibliography includes three pieces published by Lambert Academic Publishing (a subsidiary of OmniScriptum, "a predatory vanity press which does "not apply the basic standards of academic publishing such as peer-review, editorial or proof-reading processes"). The other work (also cited in a reference) is published by B P International, a business which charges academics for publication. I think it fails both GNG and WP:NPROF. Paul W (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity press doesn't help his notability, nothing else found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.Henriklars (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:PROF. Gusfriend (talk) 09:13, 6 July 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. Procedural keep with the nominator being a sock and low participation, I'm going to close this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acropoliis Entertainment[edit]

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

~~No in-depth coverage found to satisfy WP:NCORP. Search hits all contain only passing mentions in articles about the shows they've produced. Hemantha (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, India, and West Bengal. Hemantha (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per numerous shows it created. --Bash7oven (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC) *Can you link to sources which pass WP:NCORP? The argument that notable works makes the creator notable, is valid for persons; not for companies. Note the line in NCORP which says Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. Hemantha (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The production house has made many award winning Bengali films and TV soaps being broadcast in India and Bangladesh. Also, passes WP:GNG. 150.107.146.154 (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houston R. Cypress[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, coverage not independent, in-depth. Quite impressed that the Love the Everglades movement was a blue-link, to find that it's actually been deleted for lack of notability and is a redirect (by the same author). Even the activism award wasn't from a bluelink source. Nothing here is notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely important because Houston R. Cypress is a notable person. Issues with the blue link were not because of relevance but because of errors while editing the page. DipWiki 00:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisdip1 (talk • contribs)

we need links to quality coverage of the individual or it can't be kept here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scattered mentions of art they have displayed, nothing of substance found. Non-notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portugal national rugby league team players[edit]

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

List is completely unsourced, and I cannot find anything online to verify the stats listed. Portugal aren't even members of the ERL, so it's dubious whether these players even appeared in official matches. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Portugal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unable to verify list entries. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louka Bertrand[edit]

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

No claim to notability, no news sources, entire article consists of the following text:

Louka Bertrand (born 24 August,2004) Is a Haitian footballer who plays as striker for Barcelona academy and the Haitian u20 team.
born:August 24,2004 (17 years)
Place of birth:cap Haitian,Haiti
Height:1,80 m (5 ft 11 in)
position:forward
current team: Barcelona academy

jp×g 23:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and Haiti. jp×g 23:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't even played professionally, he's just in the academy. No significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to meeting any inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not a platform for athletes seeking to get hired to post their bios. That is at least what this looks like to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable, but please don't copy/paste full text of articles into other pages. Smartyllama (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. As far as I can tell, we can't build a decent article about him. /Julle (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D-Rocke[edit]

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

Pro forma nomination for User:Paul W, who attempted to AfD this using PageTriage and encountered some kind of script error preventing the AfD page from being created. jp×g 23:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jp×g 23:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found other than things from Kazi magazine, which don't appear reliable either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Oaktree b said, there are no reliable sources that can be found when D-Rocke is searched up. Nikscholarly20 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable singer per WP:NMG --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable (broken AfD arose following use of Page Curation tool - I now know to use Twinkle instead). Paul W (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul W: Unrelated question, but have you filed a bug report for this? It seems like a bad state of affairs for Page Curation to have an AfD feature if it doesn't work and creates malformed templates. jp×g 18:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't (at least not yet). I saw some discussion in the NPP discussion page in May 2022 here. There seem to be reviewers who simply use Page curation to manage the NPP feed and mark articles as patrolled. Paul W (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find anything that would make the performer notable Kazanstyle (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not verifiable with decent sources as far as I can tell. /Julle (talk) 20:36, 11 July 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. Sock creation Star Mississippi 20:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jessup (musician)[edit]

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

Article states he is a Grammy award winner but presents not one shred of evidence to support this - the cite is to a festival where he was to give a masterclass. There is no notability on offer here, sourcing is poor/incidental mentions or non-RS sources - Bach Cantatas article 'contributed by Christopher Jessup' and New York Concert Review is a paid for service - that's just for starters. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't know whether this is any use: [27]? It's a named-author review that refers the Carnegie Hall performances but not any Grammy award. I'm not sure of the reliability of the site, and I'm nervous that the information may have been collected unselectively from other sources. The other sources that I can find are all interviews, e.g. [28]. Really we need something secondary. It might be WP:TOOSOON. Elemimele (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 see here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 14:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carina, Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Virtually all sources are self-promotional from either her or her publishers. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Royalty and nobility. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it more than a little strange that this page existed for fourteen years (since 2008) under the name Carina Axelsson, but that two weeks after the page is moved to a new name with a princely title it gets nominated for deletion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third nomination. DrKay (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first two AfD discussions can be found here (the result of which was to keep) and here (no consensus). --Kbabej (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has virtually zero coverage in independent RS that focus on her specifically. Town & Country magazine covered her wedding, but did not give remotely significant commentary on her. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
German media also focuses on her husband, not her, with the exception of a non-trivial but hyper-local article on an advent calendar she made. Biographies should not be built on recaps of tiny community events. JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move back to the former title, as the name by which she is better known. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carina Axelsson where this article was kept, with notable contribution to discussion from the respected @DGG:. PamD 07:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've canvassed, please ping everyone who contributed to the previous discussions, regardless of whether they supported or opposed the nomination. DrKay (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Just blatant canvassing now? And notability standards in 2009 were orders of magnitude laxer than they are now. JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find which template to add to indicate that this is the 3rd AfD for this article, as indicated on talk page. Could someone please add it? Thanks. PamD 07:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally don't think the subject meets the notability guidelines as an author. However, as a member of a royal family I'd say she does based on "Carina Axelsson" turning up more than 37,000 articles in a Google News Search. That said, I'd like to hear from editors more familiar with notability guidelines for members of royalty, so I'm going to post info about this AfD on WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthernNights, there are no notability guidelines for members of nobility (whether recognized or legally nonexistent, the latter being the case here since all German noble titles were abolished in 1919); they must meet the same GNG/BIO coverage requirements as anyone else. The fact that her marriage received fleeting attention does not mean that she herself has been the subject of SIGCOV independent of her relationship. If all we can say about her is basic biographical facts and how she's married into a defunct princely family; and if that coverage is almost entirely derived from her wedding, then we should not have a standalone article on her per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Even before becoming the partner of the prince (and since marrying him)~~ she had a career as an author. Her books have been reviewed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer here; Fresh Fiction here; and the Young Folks here. There's an in-depth piece on the subjects life and career in the Northern Echo here. Then, of course, there's the many, many sources reporting on her relationship with the prince and their recent marriage. --Kbabej (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:HEY. I've added two magazine cover appearances (German Elle and American Vogue Patterns); three book reviews for the Model Undercover series; added a planned fourth book in that series; sourced out her early life (ethnicity, siblings, etc); added she is friends with the Swedish royal family and is godmother to Princess Athena; added the Royal Rebel series; and restructured the article into two subsections under "Biography and career": 'Personal life' and then 'Career'. I'd love if editors could take a look at the changes and see if that makes any difference in their !votes. Either way, I appreciate the time it would take. Cheers! (PS - tagging the "Delete" !votes above, as some editors don't watch AfD pages on which they've contributed: @JoelleJay, @Ari T. Benchaim, and nominator @DrKay). --Kbabej (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a very large list of magazine shoots accompanied with scanned pages, including appearances in Vogue x2; Vogue Italia x3 (where she was shot by Ellen von Unwerth); and another cover, this time for Madame Figaro. I've added those as well. They don't have URLs, obviously, because they're from the early/mid-1990s, but there are photos online of the magazine spreads. --Kbabej (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a number of issues with the many new sources added. 1. The Seattle PI "review" is actually from user "Sahar" on blogcritics.org, so is not RS. 2. StressyMummy is also quite clearly a blog. 3. The Dorset Echo piece has no byline and is sourced to her website, so is not independent. 4. The Young Folks review was written by an 18-year-old volunteer contributing writer before the site had editors, so is also not reliable. 5. Fresh Fiction might be reliable, but it is not clear whether their reviewers are paid professionals, and the site as a whole is extremely, unabashedly promotional for authors. 6. The Royal Correspondent is also a blog (that I managed to completely extirpate from wikipedia last Christmas). I would say Axelsson does not meet NAUTHOR criteria, but it's possible her modeling career garnered enough coverage for GNG. Do the Vogue Italia etc. spreads give her (written) SIGCOV, or was she just a model for them? JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the spreads are her modeling without SIGCOV about her attached. --Kbabej (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that she has appeared on the cover of several prominent fashion magazines, I would say she passes criteria 2 of WP:NMODEL.4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell she was only on the cover of German Elle and Vogue Patterns, neither of which is particularly prominent. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Madame Figaro as well. —Kbabej (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond the tabloid stuff covering her wedding and social life, nothing found for sources. Also searched in French, all I see are amazon listings and the like for her books, teen fiction it appears. Not notable as an author, or in general. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG per source provied by Kbabej and JoelleJay. Princesses of deposed royalty could be notable, because their businesses, charity work, attendance at relatives' notable weddings, or a notable scandal often provides them with media attention, which would have reliable sources. Taung Tan (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Legend[edit]

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

A 2004 Japanese space opera RPG. Cool. Sadly, it has zero notability. Refs are to the book and publisher website, jp wiki article is no better. A viable PROD, but maybe someone with Japanese skills can find some Japanese reviews or mentions in RS? My BEFORE in English produced nothing. PS. Related: the article on game's publisher was deleted a while back: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FarEast Amusement Research (unreferenced article about the company, nobody found sources to rescue it). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, couldn't find refs to indicate GNG. VickKiang (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of alien races in Marvel Comics. History is under the redirect if someone wants to perform the merge. Star Mississippi 14:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kymellian[edit]

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

Prodded by User:TTN. Prod changed to merge discussion by user:BOZ then removed by a user banned from deletion topics nowadays. The merge which as far as I can tell was never properly started (no talk discussion found) and was then closed as stale after a year. I concur that this cannot remain as a stand-alone article. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I suggest we convert it to a redirect to List of alien races in Marvel Comics, history can be preserved per SOFTDEL. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 4 July 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} 08:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of alien races in Marvel Comics per my original suggestion and recommendation above, unless sourcing can be found. BOZ (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of alien races in Marvel Comics. The target is already crufty enough, and there is no decent sourcing for this article, so I do not think a merge would accomplish anything useful. Reyk _YO! 01:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of alien races in Marvel Comics in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. To the closer of this article if the outcome is redirect, have any known Kymellians listed under their section if they aren't there already. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 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. Whilst I note that some contributors have limited contributions elsewhere, and there are potential COI issues, it seems clear to me that there is coverage and references, as evidenced by User:Guswen, the author (of both the article and the metric). Stifle (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric[edit]

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

Fails notability. Article was written by Łukaszyk himself to promote his work. It was already deleted back in 2009 for these reasons, after which Łukaszyk restored the article. The paper upon which has been cited a couple of times, as in Refs [4] and [5], but these are only passing mentions. I did managed to find a source that discusses it in detail [29], but the conclusion is that it is a misconception.

Moreover, the author has been hard at work to include mentions to his work everywhere in Wikipedia, including Inverse distance weighting, Quantum geometry, Wigner's friend, Statistical distance, and Metric (mathematics). Tercer (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of sufficient coverage in independent sources. PianoDan (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

I do believe that science is among us not for self-promotion but for inspiring the evolution of further research. Thus, I created the Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric article, covering the subject of my PhD thesis, defended in 2003 at Tadeusz Kościuszko University of Technology in good faith.

Since then, the paper , concerning this distance function and published by Springer-Verlag in 2004 has been cited 133 times, according to Google Scholar.

In particular, the LK-metric enables avoiding singularities and ill-conditioning present in various approximation and interpolation methods (in particular inverse distance weighting and radial basis function interpolation), due to overlapping data points, as it can be fine-tuned to be always greater than zero. Thus, in [30], for example, LK-metric has been classified as an example of a "diffuse metric".

The concept of the LK-metric has been successfully applied, for example, in the fields of:

engineering ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]);
hydrochemistry, geophysics, environmental interference, and ecology ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], ~~[43]~~, [44], [45], [46]~~, [47]~~);
machine learning ([48], [49], [50]~~, [51]~~);
medicine and neuroscience ([52], [53], [54], [55]);
navigation ([56], [57]); and
speech synthesis ([58]).

Therefore, User:Tercer first claim that the LK-metric lack WP:N, as it has been cited a couple of times, as in Refs [4] and [5], and only in passing mentions is false. Similarly User:PianoDan claim that there is no evidence of sufficient coverage of this concept in independent sources.

User:Tercer second claim that this distance function is a misconception is based on the preprint in the field of econometrics, whose author admits (p. 12) that his consideration does not greatly affect the merit of the article, where otherwise conclusive results in applied physics are presented.

Indeed, I included mentions of the LK-metric in other Wikipedia articles. But, again, I did it not to promote myself but to promote this concept, which I find interesting.

Finally, this concept is not the only one that invalidates the identity of indiscernibles ontological principle proposed by the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. This principle is invalid, for example, also due to the Ugly duckling mathematical theorem derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969.

Guswen (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging your WP:COI. I have added a notice to the talk page of the article to that effect. In accordance with that policy, you should refrain from further edits to the article if it survives this AfD. PianoDan (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number of citations is irrelevant. I have several papers with more than 133 citations, I still don't go around creating an Wikipedia article for each of them. What is relevant is whether there are reliable, independent sources that describe the content. I skimmed a couple of the references you just posted, and found only passing mentions. I'm not going to go through each one in this huge list showing that the don't discuss the subject. The onus is on you to find relevant references, if they exist at all. Moreover, the "identity of indiscernibles" in this context is not a philosophical principle that can be valid or not. It is just a part of the mathematical definition of what is a metric. Since your function does not satisfy it, it is not a metric. And, as [59] shows, if you had done it correctly it would satisfy the "identity of indiscernibles" and would be a metric. Tercer (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the LK-metric is not a metric! It cannot be a metric, as it does not satisfy the 1st axiom of the metric. That is why I proposed to change the title of this article to Łukaszyk–Karmowski distance (but I failed).

It is an example of a diffuse metric according to definition 4.9 of this article. The MICo distance disclosed in this article is another example.

What haven’t I done correctly? How do you define correctness in science? As I showed above, the LK-metric has proven to have plenty practical applications and may be considered as a distance between quantum mechanics particles described by wavefunctions ψ, where the probability dP that given particle is present in given volume of space dV amounts:

dP=|\psi (x,y,z)|^{2}dV

The author of the econometrics preprint that you quote, himself admits that his consideration does not greatly affect the merit of the article, where otherwise conclusive results in applied physics are presented. Guswen (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metric and distance are synonyms in mathematics, your function is not a distance either. Tercer (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is it then? A "misconception"? Is my PhD thesis defended almost 20 years ago at a renowned university a misconception? Guswen (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"distance" is an informal term; a pseudometric could be called a distance too in the right context, as it is one way of generalising it. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 10:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But pseudometric satisfies the 1st metric axiom, while LK-metric does not (in general).Guswen (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. I missed your point. If you argue that an informal term of "distance" encompasses all mathematically conceivable functions yielding "distances", including generalized metrics, I agree. Guswen (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This expression has been sometimes mentioned, occasionally calculated, but not analyzed. To justify a page about it, we need surveys, review articles, textbooks, etc., that have done the work of explaining the motivation, assessing the advantages and the drawbacks, comparing and contrasting with related quantities, and all that. (Think of the discussion of trace distance and fidelity in chapter 9 of Mike and Ike.) We simply don't have that here — or rather, the closest approach is a single not-yet-peer-reviewed paper which claims it wasn't done right. Wikipedia is not the place for inspiring the evolution of further research, but rather a place to explain research that has already been done, and whose merit is already clear. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This "expression" has been analyzed in my PhD 20 years ago. And it has been analyzed thereafter. In “Introduction to Uncertainty Quantification” by T.J. Sullivan, for example, it was shown that the LK-metric is the upper bound of the Wasserstein metric.

Indeed, Wikipedia is a place to explain research that has already been done (20 years ago in this case), and whose merit is already clear (as confirmed by the publications that I quoted above). I used my belief that science should inspire the evolution of further research to justify my good faith in creating this article 13 years ago. Guswen (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two homework problems about it (Exercises 5.10 and 5.11) are hardly substantial enough to serve for our purposes here. And even taking them for all they're worth, they rather indicate that if we were to cover this topic, it doesn't deserve an article of its own; for Sullivan, it is of ancillary interest to the

p

-Wasserstein distances. XOR'easter (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No study shows that LK-metric is useful in quantum computation, like trace distance and fidelity discussed by Mike and Ike. On the contrary, LK-metric has been shown to be useful in classical computation, such as inverse distance weighting and radial basis function interpolation by removing ill-conditioning. Mike and Ike is a profound study, yet irrelevant in this discussion. Guswen (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This completely misses the point of my comment. I pointed to a discussion of distance measures between classical probability distributions as illustrative of the type of coverage we would need in order to justify having this article. We don't have that coverage, so we shouldn't have this article. Passing mentions like those provided by Google Scholar ("Other modifications to IDW include using a probability metric instead of Euclidean distance...") don't cut it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. Jean Raimbault (talk · contribs) claims that "the content of the article is entirely trivial (...) the work it describes (...) should be named "expected distance between two random variables", and [consists in] computing some easy examples". And he is right, in a way, as this concept is, indeed, pretty simple (though published only in 2003). Therefore, no coverage other than my PhD thesis should be required. On the other hand, you seem to turn it into some kind of rocket science. It's at least a useful tool enabling to avoid ill-conditioning of various deterministic algorithms, which tool initially found applications in experimental mechanics and later on in other fields, such as e.g. pursuit-evasion games. Guswen (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was simple; I didn't say it was complicated. I said that we had insufficient evidence that people have cared enough about it for us to write an article. Even if it were "simple", we would need more than your PhD thesis. We also need evidence that this topic stands on its own to a sufficient extent to warrant a page devoted to it, instead of being only thought of as a bound on something else or a calculational step in some procedure. Everything you have provided turned up in my own searches, and I remain unconvinced. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that the list of the publications to support the LK-metric coverage in independent reliable sources (below) will help in convincing you.Guswen (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the list and evaluated them before I wrote my comment above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mere google search for "lukaszyk-karmowski metric" reveals about 1400 results. One cannot say that LK-metric lack WP:N --Zvid (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Zvid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's not a substantial argument. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it it is an argument nevertheless (cf. WP:GOOGLE). Guswen (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my PC Bing reports 12,600 and Yahoo about 84,300,000 search results for the words lukaszyk-karmowski metric.Guswen (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very page you point to says Hit-count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. Let us then not count hit-numbers alone. --Guswen (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The described metric is applicable in calculations as evidenced by citations in the scientific literature [60]. The described metric was the subject of a doctoral dissertation successfully defended at Cracov University of Technology, one of the leading universities in Poland. It has practical applications in calculations in the fields of metrology and quantum mechanics. The ongoing scientific discussion on it should not prejudge its encyclopedic nature. However, in my opinion, its applications described in the works cited above indicate the advisability of leaving the article. PawełMM (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a doctorate. Does that mean the subject of my dissertation is inherently notable? Of course not. The subject of my doctorate is an obscure piece of specialist equipment with no coverage in secondary sources. I'm very proud of it, and I hope it is of some use to the users of the device. But it does NOT deserve a Wikipedia article.

Can we stop saying "this was the subject of a doctoral dissertation" as if that were in any way meaningful? 99.9999% of doctoral dissertations are not notable. PianoDan (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. The most of doctral dissertations lack notability. But the list of independent publications below supports the claim that this is not the case here.

I do hope that your specialist equipment will also gain notability in the future. Guswen (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe Guswen proved above that this metric was applied many times by many independent researchers, so it has the required notability. The accusation in the deletion request "I did managed to find a source that discusses it in detail [61], but the conclusion is that it is a misconception." is invalid, the quality of a probabilistic metric is not a subject of this discussion and not a reason for deletion. This sentence, however, explains why the other accusation, that this metric hasn't been analyzed in independent papers is false. The conflict of interest of the author is not a reason to delete an article on a notable subject. So I can't see any reason to delete this article. Olaf (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [62], [63], [64])— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tercer (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
   — Comment: In my opinion, the content of the article deals with a rather hermetic field such as higher mathematics. The links cited above appeared in the Polish Wikipedia on pages designed to discuss articles. I see no justification here for the accusation of canvasing, since discussing such specialized issues as the article raises should be done by those with expertise in the field under discussion and therefore able to assess its notability. PawełMM (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
   The text of the notifications clearly violates our rules for such comments, which expressly prohibit posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner and recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint. XOR'easter (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no convincing opposition to the the arguments of Tercer (talk · contribs) in the !votes above, as witnessed by the current state of the article where no description of a serious application is given, just references. On the other hand the mathematical content of the article is entirely trivial, judging from the article itself the work it describes consists in putting one's name on (a particular case of) what should be named "expected distance between two random variables", and computing some easy examples. I don't see any reason to keep the article. jraimbau (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the opposition to the arguments of Tercer (talk · contribs) is strong: WP:N is void, while the alleged misconception is based on a single preprint in the field of econometrics, whose author admits that his (possibly false) considerations do not affect the merit of this concept.

Current state of the article certainly needs improvement to include applications of LK-metric. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to do this due to clear WP:COI.

The mathematical content of the article is based on my PhD thesis.

I did not want to put my, nor the supervisor of my thesis, name on this concept. I was, in a way, forced to in 2009, while creating this article.

Novelty and usefulness of a concept are unrelated to its simplicity (or triviality). Even more so, simple concepts frequently turn out to be more useful than complicated ones. Take Shannon entropy as an example. Furthermore, often a concept seems trivial after it has been disclosed. However, it remained undiscovered prior to disclosure. Take could vs. would approach used by the European Patent Office to ascertain the inventive step of a patentable invention as an example. Guswen (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novelty and usefulness are also unrelated to notability. Let's try not to get distracted - if the concept has sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, it's notable. If it doesn't, it isn't. PianoDan (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the opposition to the arguments of is strong" : that seems false in view of the discussion above, not one substantial application has been described and the arguments are reduced to "there are citations" which as pointed out does not mean anything for notability if these citations do not directly relate to the topic. This is the main point made by Tercer which so far has not been seriously countered either in this discussion or by adding content to the article (you may not be allowed to edit the article but the other persons who claim that substantial applications exist certainly can).

regarding comments on triviality and novelty: while i agree that in general mathematical sophistication is not relevant at all to notability, 90% of this article is spent on mathematical trivialities, while the "applications" section is essentially empty, so it seems to me to be relevant to comment on it. It is also relevant in view of the clumsy appeal to authority in the comment on the canvassing observation above. jraimbau (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly advise, how should I seek for help in expanding the applications section of this article, not to be accused of WP:CANVASING again ? Guswen (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIREQ gives guidance for how editors with a conflict of interest should request changes to pages. You would place a "conflict of interest edit request" on the talk page for the article, and then wait for a neutral editor to evaluate the proposed change. PianoDan (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certain publications to support the LK-metric coverage in independent reliable sources:

X. Pan, et al. "Theoretical Analysis of Image-to-Image Translation with Adversarial Learning" (19 Jun 2018)

The LK-metric is used as divergence in the definition of Generalization w.r.t Generator. It brings convenience for analysis and requires only several technical steps to satisfy Lipschitz condition.

X. Pan, et al. "A Geometrical Perspective on Image Style Transfer with Adversarial Learning" (23 Jul 2020)

A metric (21) similar to the LK-metric is derived. Two theorems involving the LK-metric are provided.

P. Castro, et al. "MICo: Improved representations via sampling-based state similarity for Markov decision processes"

The LK-metric is found to be an example of a diffuse metric on probability measures defined in this article and used in a definition of a diffuse metric space. "Diffuse" as the non-zero self distances arise from a point being spread across a probability distribution. Another distance, the MICo distance

U^{\pi }(x,y)

, is then defined in terms of the LK-metric. It is shown that a state

x\in \chi

has zero self-distance iff the Markov chain induced by

\pi

initialized at

x

is deterministic, and the magnitude of a state’s self-distance is indicative of the amount of “dispersion” in the distribution.

It is also shown, that in general

U^{\pi }(x,x)\neq U^{\pi }(y,y)

for distinct states

x,y\in \chi

.

M. Mio, et. al "Beyond Nonexpansive Operations in Quantitative Algebraic Reasoning"

The diffuse metric space is investigated. An extension of the quantitative algebra framework allowing to reason on generalized metric spaces and on algebraic operations that are nonexpansive up to a lifting is presented, allowing for the axiomatization of the LK-metric.

C. Hazard, et al. "Natively Interpretable Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence: Preliminary Results and Future Directions"

It is found that using the residuals in the k-nearest neighbors system with the LK-metric, calculating new residuals, and then feeding these back in, generally yields convergence of the residual values with notable convergence after only 3 or 4 iterations.

M. Lake, et. al. "Generalised uncertainty relations from superpositions of geometries"

The LK-metric is generalized from probability-weighted measure to amplitude-weighted sums, a la canonical path-integral techniques. The associated amplitudes are not interpreted as the wave functions of quantum particles on classical backgrounds but represent the weights associated with spatial points in an entangled superposition of geometries, represented by a higher dimensional phase space.

L. Pronzato, et al. "Bregman divergences based on optimal design criteria and simplicial measures of dispersion"

The dispersion measure is defined and it is shown that the directional derivative thereof includes the LK-metric.

F. Angiulli, et al. "Uncertain Nearest Neighbor Classification"

Various concepts of similarity between uncertain objects are thoroughly discussed in the context of uncertain data.

P. Durdevic, et al. "Cost-Effective ERT Technique for Oil-in-Water Measurement for Offshore Hydrocyclone Installations"
S. Pedersen, et al. "Online Slug Detection in Multi-phase Transportation Pipelines Using Electrical Tomography"

Adaptations (novel forms) of the LK-metric are provided. It is shown that the application of the LK-metric leads to more smooth results.

B. Brutovsky, et al. "Towards inverse modeling of intratumor heterogeneity"

The Markovian-based conceptualization outlined in the paper links uncertainty of environment with intratumor heterogeneity, both expressed in probabilistic terms. The evolutionary nature of carcinogenesis is respected, as the transition probabilities correlate with statistical match between environment and the attractors of the respective states, which corresponds to the bet-hedging strategy, evolved in biological populations that face time-varying environment.

A Regularization of Hellinger distance for a pair of gaussian distributions is provided highlighting the interesting connection between traditional geometric and functional distance measures. It is shown that the consequences of random switching could be readily quantified using the LK-metric which specifies geometric distance of the points with coordinates known up to the respective probability distributions.

Guswen (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list seems to support my initial claim that the LK-metic inspired the evolution of further research.Guswen (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this assessment. A brief look at some of these papers or preprints shows that lots of them cite the paper without using it. The work of Castro et al. is a bit different, they refer to this metric as an example of a "diffuse metric", but without using the contents of the original paper at all otherwise. Moreover wikipedia does not have an article on "diffuse metrics" so this article existing on the basis of being an example of one makes no sense. jraimbau (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please specify, which of the above papers cite the paper about the LK-metric without using it? For example:

X. Pan, et al. use the LK-metric in as a divergence in a definition of a generator (i.e. an adaptive model that maps a gaussian noise to a fake sample) and derive two theorems concerning such generator in theoretical analysis of image-to-image translation. Similarly, X. Pan, et al. use the LK-metric

{\displaystyle D_{LK))

in as a divergence in a definition of a generator (this time a mapping between manifolds).

M. Lake, et. al. investigates further applications of the Lk-metric in quantum physics.

L. Pronzato, et al. recovers the Lk-metric in a directional derivative of a dispersion measure and defines a Bregman divergence on this basis.

P. Durdevic, et al. and S. Pedersen, et al. provide novel forms of the LK-metric

{\displaystyle D_{Luk))

(for independent marginal distributions) and show that its application leads to more smooth results in a minimum distance algorithm.

B. Brutovsky, et al. apply the LK-metric in the Markovian framework to relate population heterogeneity to the statistics of the environment in anticancer therapies. The generalized distance-based concept is applied to express distances between probabilistically described cell states and environmental conditions, respectively. It is shown that where small noise perturbations induce random switching between (stable) coexisting point attractors of different relative depth, the consequences of this switching can be readily quantified using the LK-metric.

And this is not an exhaustive list of publications, in which the LK-metric was successfully used, analysed, adapted, recovered, etc. (cf. e.g. additional publications listed in the practical applications section of this article and at the onset of this discussion page). Guswen (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, on the contrary, P. Castro, et al. use the LK-metric

d_{LK}(U^{\pi })(P_{x}^{\pi },P_{y}^{\pi })

to define their MICo distance

U^{\pi }(x,y)

. Therefore, they use the contents of the original paper (cf. p. 6, l. 16-22 of P. Castro, et al.). Perhaps, it's time to create a Wikipedia article on "diffuse metrics"? Guswen (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's time to create a Wikipedia article on "diffuse metrics" that's another discussion.

i had a brief look at two of the papers you quote (first and last ones). the first is not concerned with the LK distance, at best they use it as a technical tool. The second seems to analyse the properties of statistical tools based on a formula similar to yours but the actual contents do not bear much resemblance to the current article. jraimbau (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brutovsky and Horvath use a different distance between probability distributions and say that the topic of this article "should also be mentioned" in the last two lines of the appendix. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The discussion above clearly shows that this topic is notable. Numerous literature references prove that It has been successfully applied, researched, classified, extended, and modified. And, obviously, the fact that it is now called "Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric", not “Probability metric”, as in the author’s Ph.D. dissertation has nothing to do with the reliability of these references. Jilaszczuk (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that this is Jilaszczuk's only edit to the English Wikipedia. They appear to have edited their personal page on the Polish site, but made no other contributions. PianoDan (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking through the discussion pointed to above and examining the literature, it appears that the article's creator invented the name "Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric" and every mention in the literature got the name from Wikipedia. Citogenesis, in other words. I'm tempted to call any paper whose authors learned about their topic from Wikipedia unreliable de facto, but that's only because I'm familiar with Wikipedia. XOR'easter (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I'd like to amplify what I said before. Forget the "tempted" part. It would be unethical for us to allow a term to be invented on Wikipedia and then use papers based on Wikipedia to justify keeping the article that originated the term. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please elaborate, on why would it be unethical to keep this article under this name? Would you withdraw this objection if we rolled back to "Metric on random variables or random vectors", as proposed by User:Melcombe in May 2009? Guswen (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think what I wrote needs elaboration: inventing new ideas, or even new terminology, is not Wikipedia's purpose, and we would fail as a community if we let that stand. The proposed alternative is completely awkward and unworkable on its own merits. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This distance function was discovered by me (Łukaszyk) and revised by the supervisor of my PhD dissertation (Karmowski). That is why it can be called Łukaszyk-Karmowski distance function (or Łukaszyk-Karmowski metric), not because such term was invented on Wikipedia. Furthermore, this concept exists in the literature under various names. For example:

* [65] uses "Łukaszyk–Karmowski distance on probability distributions",

* [66], [67], [68] use the original term "probability metric",

* [69], [70], and [71] use "Łukaszyk–Karmowski distance",

* [72] uses "expected distance",

* [73] uses "probabilistic concept",

* [74] uses "Łukaszyk distance measure",

* [75] uses simply "Łukaszyk-Karmovski", while

* [76] and [77] use "Lukaszyk-Karmowski probability metric".

I have no objections to change the name of this article to any of the names above or, perhaps, some new one.

We may fail as a community for quite different reasons, that I would not want to delve into at this very moment. Guswen (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to name things after oneself. Particularly things that already existed.

I could maybe, maybe, see the merit in an article called something like "Expected distance between random variables", but even that would require blowing up this page and starting from scratch to cover the long history of quadratic dissimilarity measures in ecology [78], bounds on the Wasserstein distance [79], etc. And seeing how these quantities are used, I'm still not convinced that a dedicated page would be the proper presentation of the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The expected distance between two regions

\int \int ||x-y||dP(x)dQ(y)

(disclosed in p. 3(36) of your reference), where P and Q are probability measures in

{\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{2))

is not the same as

\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }|x-y|f(x)f(y)dxdy

(Eq. (4.3) of the LK-metric disertation; particular version of the LK-metric between independent continuous random variables), where f and g are probability density functions. As stated in your reference (p. 3(36)) "Even in the most simple case of uniform distributions, the evaluation of these (the former) formulae, when possible, is very time-consuming", whereas computational complexity required to calculate the latter formula (4.25) (or (4.24)) of the LK-metric disertation (p. 29) for uniform distributions is insignificant. Guswen (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same idea, apart from being defined on the plane instead of only on the line. The complexity they're talking about is due to the shapes of the regions on which the densities have uniform support. It has nothing to do with "computational complexity" in the algorithmic sense and everything to do with integrals being hard to do by hand. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. After your explanation I see that the expected distance between two regions

\int \int ||x-y||dP(x)dQ(y)

corresponds to the 2-dimensional form of the LK-metric of mutually independent random vectors (4.39), (4.42) (p. 34). I was not aware of that study until you put it on the table (and I was not aware in 2000). Seemingly, neither the reviewers of my PhD dissertation (2003), nor the reviewers of the Springer article (2004) were. Thank you. It certainly needs to be cited in the Wikipedia article (perhaps long with this paper, also published by Springer) in the "Earlier research" section. Yet, this study, for example:

considers only 2-dimensional convex regions supporting independent probability measures, not arbitrary (and possibly unbounded) probability density functions (probability measure is not precisely the same as probability density function);
does not extend this idea to other dimensionalities (Which could be called obvious. But, again, could vs. would);
does not prove that this expected distance satisfies the triangle inequality (4.46) (p. 36) (the proof of symmetry is trivial);
does not prove that this expected distance reduces to the metric for the Dirac delta distributions;
does not derive particular forms ((4.15), (4.16); (4.20), (4.21); (4.24), (4.25); (4.28), (4.29); (4.35), (4.36)) of this expected distance for various probability density functions;
does not provide a simplified form of distance (4.48) (p. 37) between random vectors that uses these derived particular forms and thus, enables to avoid time-consumming evaluations due to - as you point out - integrals being hard to do by hand;
does not discuss physical interpretations of such an expected distance in quantum mechanics.

Guswen (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose to blow up this page and start from scratch to establish a historical background, in order arrive at my PhD disertation defended almost 20 years ago? And perhaps move it further to include further research [80], [81], [82], [83], etc.? Why not just add sections "Historical background" and "Further research" at the top and at the end of the existing article? Guswen (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the COI issues are irreparable, we have no reliable indication that the content currently in the article reflects a justifiable choice of topics, and we have no reason to say that prior work was merely "background" to your PhD thesis. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content, currently in the article reflects my PhD disertation. And it was you who said that this content has to cover the long history of quadratic dissimilarity measures in ecology, bounds on the Wasserstein distance, etc.

By no means did I want to say that prior work is merely a "background" to my PhD thesis. It seemed to me that you wanted to add some "historical background" to it. Guswen (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll do my best to present someone with my WP:COI issue in a hope that s/he's able to improve this article pursuant to your guidelines. Guswen (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kweku Tetteh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG;WP:NPOL. Lower Manya Krobo Municipality is one of thirty-three districts in the Eastern Region of Ghana. "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politicians at this level are not default notable, and we do not have enough sources to justify an article otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 5 July 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. Nomination withdrawn.(non-admin closure) bonadea contributions talk 12:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Gerrard (doctor)[edit]

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

Biography of an individual who does not meet WP:GNG. Being a Chief Health Officer of a state does not automatically make a person notable. bonadea contributions talk 07:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. bonadea contributions talk 07:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He has, from what I can gather, at least several publications with over a hundred citations, mainly on Photorhabdus infection in humans in Australia. Other publications are 75 (2016), 92 (2006), possibly 79 (1995). His research on photoluminescent pathogens in humans entirely warrants WP:SCHOLAR. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to his scholarly work above, there is coverage like [84], and [85]. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, @Ari T. Benchaim: and @LibStar:! Withdrawing my nomination in the light of this.

Feel free to apply a trout in my general direction for shoddy WP:BEFORE check. --bonadea contributions talk 12:12, 5 July 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. As even the maybe keep has sourcing concerns. Star Mississippi 16:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rintaro Yajima[edit]

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

Naught but match reports and database entries for all variants in which this name could be spelled. Fails GNG. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the sources giving substantial coverage that are required to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
maybe a keep per Japanese wiki article, however the sources there seem dodgy, the content suggests there is a degree of notability around. Considering this is a Japanese footballer, then the sourcing will come from both German and Japanese searches and not English so much. On that note I doubt a true WP:BEFORE has been done? @Doctor Duh: Do you know Japanese or German? Govvy (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy, I'm fluent in German and can assure you that all potentially usable German-language sources only mention him in passing as part of routine coverage of matches he appeared in and the like. For Japanese sources I admittedly depend on online translators, but have likewise found nothing particularly compelling. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctor Duh: Okay fair enough, I am use to footballers that play in the English leagues being well covered and expected the same level of coverage in Germany. I had looked at your user-space because often people tend to give an indication of what language they represent with a user box, however you didn't have one, so you will have to forgive me thinking you only knew English. Govvy (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy, no problem. I actually had those until recently, maybe I ought to put them back. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:10, 7 July 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. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration of Ellen G. White[edit]

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

As advocated by Wctrenchard. Note that I don't agree with them, since deletion is not cleanup. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comprehensively sourced article, clearly dealing with 'a thing'. As noted by nom, AfD isn't cleanup and sending an article to deletion on the basis of one user's issue with the tags on it isn't going to work, IMHO. Not sure why said user isn't just, well, cleaning it up themselves! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course, I or someone else could "cleanup" this piece, but that is not the point. Not every "thing" deserves a Wiki article. The main issue is that no matter how this is cleaned up, it will still be an unacceptable, theological apology concerning the "inspiration" and religious authority of a particular 19th century person. You should note that the only other apparent "inspiration" article like this is "Inspiration of the Bible"! There is not even a counterpart for Joseph Smith -- and appropriately so. If something about this needs to be said somewhere, I will be happy to add a sentence or two to the bio article on Ellen White. Wctrenchard (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply stating with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV what the SDA Church believes is not apologetics. And we also let its critics have their say. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The info could be put on Ellen White even though it's not needed there Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So, let me try to trace the lineage of what's going on here. Wctrenchard noted on the article's talk page that there were a couple maintenance tags, and... it is now at AfD? Even though the nominator doesn't support deletion? Why are we even here? jp×g 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I wonder whegter this should not be repurposed as Theology of Ellen G. White. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well sourced article on a topic that has been the subject of debate in multiple reliable sources. Note that sources that show scepticism of the subject are already included in the article so neutrality is shown, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sourced, of historical significance. This should never have been nominated for deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One could argue that the grouping of several issues is WP:SYNTH, but I think the reader benefits from the context of a combined article. As an aside, Writings of Ellen G. White would be a more neutral title and could provide a clearer distinction of what goes here and what does in Ellen G. White. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's no consensus to delete or redirect the article, but not enough consensus to keep it either. Nonetheless, editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in this discussion to the article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Batwanes Beek[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The song is briefly mentioned at the performers article. This article was simultaneously created as a pair with and linked from an article on the composer Salah El Sharnouby which also appears to be an AFD candidate and IMO was most likely created to support / be linked from the Salah El Sharnouby article. North8000 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Warda was one of the most famous Arab singers until her death a decade ago. Most songs by her are likely to be notable as they will have been extensively discussed and commented on. That said I can’t actually find any RIS covering this. If nobody finds anything I suggest redirecting to Warda Al-Jazairia. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There IS stuff out there in Arabic and as Mccapra says, both she and this song, in particular, were prominent. Al Masr Alyom here and Akhbar Alyom here are examples of the Arabic coverage, but I fear not enough to save it... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Close to meeting WP:NSONG with sources presented by Alexandermcnabb. SBKSPP (talk) 23:47, 8 July 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. Consensus is that the subject meets GNG with sources shared during the discussion (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Brady[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT - no independent notability & tagged as such since February. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ireland. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with sources like this and this which are literally on the first page of a 'Jack Brady Shelbourne' Google search. Giant Snowman 19:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @GiantSnowman:. In addition, I found sources about him like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and he has been interviewed on many different podcasts. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG per sources provided by GiantSnowman and Das osmnezz.--Mvqr (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valerian Gârlă[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. Coverage of the subject appears limited to trivial coverage on athletic database websites—three are listed in the article's External links section: RomanianSoccer.co, StatisticsFootball.com (these two appear strangely similar in terms of website design, from certain fonts to even the colours and patterns of the websites' headers, so I question their independency from one another), and Soccerway. Per WP:SPORTCRIT, this is not enough to establish notability. I searched for other coverage of the subject on Google Search, Google News, and Google Books, but didn't find anything substantial. —Matthew - (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)—[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, per sources provided by Das osmnezz. —Matthew - (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG which is now our standard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Sources have been found. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found. Giant Snowman 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found sources about him in Romanian and Russian - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz: Thank you for bringing these to attention. I withdraw my nomination. —Matthew - (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per a source review, and the aid of Google Translate, the subject meets WP:BASIC. Several sources provide significant coverage, although a couple of those listed above only provide mentions. Overall though, the subject meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Choi[edit]

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

It lacks many sources. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 04:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep due to lack of logical deletion rationale, there is no requirement to have many sources, no comment on notabiluty has been made by the nominator at the time of proposing deletion. See WP:SKCRIT CT55555 (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep in agreement with the last voter due to a faulty nomination. By the way, the article certainly needs improvement but the musician has some media notice in the classical community: e.g. [86], [87], [88]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:34, 4 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Integrated Residential Housing, Mazandaran[edit]

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

Mass-created stub by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs). PRODded by VersaceSpace (talk · contribs) who asserted that the designation as a "village" and a "military installation" is WP:OR, but I think we will need a WP:BEFORE check to confirm or disconfirm these claims, per WP:NGEO. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Geography, and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. desmay (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's obviously not a village, and one has to assume that base housing is associated with, um, a base. I cannot even begin to guess which base that might be. We have very rarely kept base housing if it can be determined to be a separate settlement, but there's no way to tell with what we have. Mangoe (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more sources are added that show the topic is notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:58, 6 July 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. Although there were a lot of keeps in this discussion, I don't see how any of them can overcome the NOTNEWS rationale of those wanting to delete. In particular, the claim there will be more coverage in the future isWP:CRYSTAL. I'm not going to close this as (the already carried out) merge to Sherani District#Modern history because I'm not convinced that that is not WP:UNDUE even there. But that does not preclude anyone from creating a redirect there until and unless inclusion of the material there is challenged. SpinningSpark 12:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC) SpinningSpark 12:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Balochistan bus incident[edit]

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

An accident like this happens with relative frequency all over the world. WP:MILL. There is no indication that this accident will meet WP:LASTING or WP:GEOSCOPE guidelines. Bruxton (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with nominator here. We don't host articles on every vehicle accident on every road in the world, even when many people are killed in a given accident (as here), because such incidents, though covered in-depth in reliable independent published sources, are routine events. We could almost start treating American mass shootings in the same way for the same reason, except that in a shooting there is always the deranged mind of the shooter which makes these events notable, even if several started to occur every hour or so. A driver who miscalculates the width of a roadway in a ravine, even if many die and it gets covered in the news, is dog-bites-man news (if the driver were deranged and drove a bus off a cliff to deliberately kill all the passengers, THAT we would probably want to have an article on, however!). What makes this particular vehicle accident more interesting than most vehicle accidents? If nothing, then, no matter how tragic, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. A loose necktie (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Last coverage was 3 days ago.[89] It is not getting coverage anymore. Editorkamran (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep because this incident is now getting coverage and mention even in other recent reports about different incidents.[90][91] Editorkamran (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorkamran: Passing mentions at best, and one is just a regional publication, does not meet WP:GEOSCOPE. There will likely be many bus accidents today in the world - and especially in Asia because there are 4.5 billion people there. And most of them will not meet criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. We are WP:NOTNEWS. Bruxton (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this moment per WP:RAPID. More coverage is obviously set to happen. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major incident widely covered in in National and international media and as well received condemnation from various national and international leadership. 103.141.159.229 (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zakaria1978. 28 is also a big death toll. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the news. Yes, it's a tragedy, but we don't cover every every (or even many) vehicle accident. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication this is a notable bus accident. It was in the news, but that does not mean it was encyclopedically notable. Star Mississippi 15:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There will be no lasting, significant coverage of this. In five years, the list of sources would be exactly the same as it is now. Therefore, per WP:NOTNEWS, should not have an article. Wes sideman (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Sherani District.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sherani District#Modern history. If more coverage comes, fork it back. BTW - I already merged the article there. It's the only thing in the modern history section now, but the article is already heavily tagged, so hopefully someone with an interest in Pakistan can fill in some of the info gaps. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skappelnabben Spur[edit]

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

Not notable. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD was listed in February and never seems to have made it to a daily logpage. Formatting and relisting now. jp×g 03:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current article comprises only the text that appears in the SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica ^[1]. I'd agree it isn't notable. There is an article for the expedition, and Wikipedia can't include every place named during it. (This is my first involvement in a discussion so hope this comment is formated ok) Buckland1072 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica". Australian Antarctic Division. Retrieved 8 July 2022.

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 12:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susan E. Roberts[edit]

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

I created this page for Susan Roberts when I worked at WPRI 12 in Providence, RI. Neither she nor I currently work there. She recently contacted me and asked me to take the page down. She no longer works in television news and is no longer in the public eye. However, I don't have access to the email address used to create the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekrause1219 (talk • contribs)

Comment: This AfD was created some time in April 2022, but was never listed on a daily logpage; I am formatting it to relist now. jp×g 03:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a BLP of borderline notability who requests deletion (per WP:BLPREQUEST). jp×g 03:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering about this deletion of content and wondering if the subject is still working for CGTN America and this is an attempt to 'sanitize' their online footprint. Also as the creating account does not match the nominator, G7 cannot be applied. Nate • (chatter) 04:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Sure, but even in that revision, it doesn't look like there is a whole lot of notability. jp×g 05:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just trying to do my full diligence, but yes, otherwise it's a delete for me due to a lack of N. Nate • (chatter) 06:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not very notable. We should value privacy. Delete as per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE CT55555 (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable fails gng.Henriklars (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a person who never actually made any significant contributions to media. We should have never had this article in the first place, the subject very clearly never met our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her regional Emmy nominations show some significant contributions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep as 2 regional Emmy nominations meets notability guidelines. Improve, but keep. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close as the redirect to Urination#Standing_versus_sitting_or_squatting already happened. If there's a target issue, RfD better at this stage. Star Mississippi 19:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urination positions[edit]

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

The section on urination positions was deleted from the List of human positions article which this redirect links to. BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BobKilcoyne: Then this page should be redirected to this section instead. Jarble (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that would be fine. BobKilcoyne (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change redirect - in the absence of any other comments I will change the redirect. BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD was malformed, and seems to have never been added to a daily logpage or closed properly. I will attempt to relist and close now (since a merge already occurred during the time it was technically "open"). jp×g 03:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, for the record, although it seems to have already been done some months ago. jp×g 03:48, 4 July 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!} 23:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daru Taumua[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non Notable per WP guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been expanded since the last "delete" !vote, requires additional evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even then I would lean towards delete. Per this [92] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, agree re: WP:1E Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Henriklars (talk) 08:34, 5 July 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 02:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bains Sharif[edit]

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

Non-notable village. I have performed a search and found things that seem to affirm that it’s a real place that exists (e.g. weather reports) but nothing substantial. I am also nominating the following related page because it is about the same place and is therefore equally non-notable:

Bains (Mirpur)

postleft on mobile! 03:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per nominator; the article has no citations (and content indicating original research), and a search failed to turn up any sources whatsoever. Does not seem like a subject for which sources could be found. jp×g 03:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was nominated in December, but for some reason (possibly a script misfire) it was never transcluded onto the daily logpage, never !voted on, and never closed (although the article bore an AfD notice the entire time). This makes it quite possibly the longest-running AfD in Wikipedia history -- I'm relisting it now so that people other than me and the nominator can see it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Village in Pakistan has fields and sufi shrines. Woopdedoo. Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other article in this nomination was never tagged. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, now that there are two articles in the nom, per my above comment (only reference for the second one is a Scribd document, which is essentially a random unverified PDF). jp×g 19:29, 5 July 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. Star Mississippi 19:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. B. S. Jeyaraj[edit]

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

Entirely sourced with the article person's blog, own writing, and interviews. No WP:SEC, no independent SIGCOV. Hence nominated. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 03:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely lacks notability, sourcing per nom is awful and there's nothing else out there for very good reason - subject is not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Checking the article I have created a STA as below:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
dbsjeyaraj.com	No	Personal blogs are not reliable	Page not found	✘ No
dbsjeyaraj.com	No	Personal blogs are not reliable	Page not found	✘ No
Daily FT	Yes	Yes	Interview	✘ No
Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)	Yes	Yes	No	✘ No
Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)	Yes	Yes	Subject's own writing	✘ No
dbsjeyaraj.com	No	Personal blogs are not reliable	No	✘ No
Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka)	Yes	Yes	Passing mention only	✘ No
Frontline (magazine)	Yes	Yes	? Permanent dead link (Web Archive failed with 301 error)	? Unknown
dbsjeyaraj.com	No	Personal blogs are not reliable	Blogger's own writing about Indian Prime minister Rajiv Gandhi	✘ No
Nieman Foundation	~ May be	~ May be	Alumni gallery contains his name only	✘ No
Review of Journalism	Usually	Usually reliable	~ Interview with some mention	~ Partial
The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka)	Yes	Usually realiable	2 lines of tiny statement by the pererson	✘ No
Funding the "final War" (Book	Usually	Usually reliable	3 para cited from Jeyaraj's own writing	✘ No
Asia Times	Generally realiable	Generally realiable	Partial	✘ No
The Sunday Leader	Generally realiable	Generally realiable	Subject person's article about something else	✘ No
dbsjeyaraj.com	No	Personal blogs are not reliable	Subject person's own blog opinion about LTTE	✘ No
dbsjeyaraj.com	No	Personal blogs are not reliable	? Own blog about the person itself	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

_{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admire the diligence, but I don't think you needed to go to all that trouble - it's a clear WP:GNG fail!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: trying to learn to assess sources. :) Thank your for your words. Regards _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk

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. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Bohachevsky[edit]

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

A Google search (granted, in English) turns up less than a page of results, most of which seem to revolve around genealogy, are passing mentions, or are part of an obituary for him. The formula mentioned in the article appears to have greater notability than the subject himself, though I found no evidence that it was this formula which allowed the crew of the Apollo 11 spacecraft to return to Earth as claimed. Does not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC and does not appear to have enough in-depth coverage to qualify per WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Promotional article altogether. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bohachevsky functions are somewhat known in optimization, and have been implemented throughout software packages (this is my field of expertise), but he has been little more than a bit player in the field. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He was working in pre mass-internet era. A lot of mentions in google books. --Alex Blokha (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of works in google scolar. --Alex Blokha (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I have cleaned up the article but I fear it may be wasted effort. One (but only one) of his papers is heavily cited, in the soft computing literature, not so much for any methodological work but instead apparently because it happened to define some simple test functions for optimization algorithms that were picked up in collections of test functions and re-used by many other similar papers. He has two best-paper awards, one for that paper; both were with the same two other coauthors. I don't think it's enough for WP:PROF#C1 or WP:PROF#C2. The other possible pathway to keeping the article is that we have an in-depth story about him, in Ukrainian, on some random web site. I don't think the "American Men & Women of Science" source counts towards WP:GNG, but if this Ukrainian web site can be verified to be a reliable source and we can find another source of as good reliability and depth, there might be a case for GNG-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: There's an in-depth newspaper story about him from 1961 here (page 3 left). So that's one. Still unsure whether the other web site counts as a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article. This page was also included in the wikiproject Ukraine page. 666hopedieslast (talk) 13:18, 13 July 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!} 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melonie Tasher[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than confirming she played at some level, I find no other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 4 July 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!} 23:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idania Ramírez[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the sourcing required to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 01:01, 8 July 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!} 23:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Codd[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sources to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 4 July 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!} 23:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ermine Ferguson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Aloali'i Mitchell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV --IdiotSavant (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oloa Tofaeono[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ieti Taulealo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 4 July 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!} 23:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Taga'i[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - North America - I think if you're going to relist an AFD with two delete !votes (three including the nom.) and no opposes there should be some explanation. I get that AFD is stacked with cases and there is a lot of work to do here, but surely the consensus here is already clear? What more are people supposed to say other than that they failed to find any sources? FOARP (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: For more information and context, see here and here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: WP:SOFTDELETION would still have been appropriate: the fact remains that nobody wants to keep it, and the page would have been deleted if it had been prodded. Avilich (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "drive-by" or not, the above comments say all that needs to be said in the case of this young man. Only databases and wiki-clones here. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics publications (D–E). Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doomwar[edit]

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

Uncited fancruft article, deprodded with the justification of “numerous incoming links”(?!) Dronebogus (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IGN actually had full, legit reviews on most of the individual issues of the storyline (see here, here, here, here, and here). For the purposes of establishing notability, I'm going to say these would be all grouped together as a single source, per the WP:GNG, so not enough on its own, but its a start. The current article is definitely problematic, though, and even if further coverage in reliable sources is found, that massive, overly detailed synopsis needs to be drastically cut down to a brief summary. Rorshacma (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to make use of those references as well as referencing the different parts, go right ahead. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. Regarding the latter, if more sources are found, this could be notable, but in the current version we have a pile of unreferenced plot summary facruft. This is not encyclopedic material. Readers are better off using fanwikis for that, where such content is welcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics publications (D–E) if no improvements can be found by the time the discussion closes. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics publications (D–E) as preferred WP:ATD ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 8 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of deities in Marvel Comics[edit]

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

Deprodded without meaningful improvement. Still purely in-universe info with no evidence of notability. Dronebogus (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same case as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gods (DC Comics). Comic list fancruft. Fails WP:LISTN outside "Top Most Whatever Marvel Gods" listicles that might just as well be made by an AI these days. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not a single reliable, secondary source being used in this list currently, and very few of the entries here are actually notable. Most of the blue links here are either just to the article of the actual real-life mythological figures, or to other "Lists of Marvel characters". While there are a few groupings here that have multiple blue-linked entries, each of these already have their own dedicated articles that list them (see Olympians (Marvel Comics), Heliopolitans and Asgard (comics). Rorshacma (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- huge sprawling wall of cruft. Wikipedia should not be a comic book index. I also agree that linking fictional deities to actually notable mythological figures is misleading and makes this worse than useless as a navigational aid. Reyk _YO! 03:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same case as other recent Marvel related AfDs. Shankargb (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails LISTN. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the organizations section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTN failure, per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:45, 9 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Outpost[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion in June 2020 by Mean as custard as Advert for unnotable emporium. An IP later contested the PROD at REFUND in November 2020 claiming WP:ITSIMPORTANT, but the article is still based almost exclusively on primary sources one and a half years later. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PROMO for a non-notable gallery. Fails wP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Netherzone (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources about the Beijing-based Oriental Outpost, which is an artwork and calligraphy gallery. I did not find significant coverage in my searches for sources about the subject. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article substantially created by a probably connected contributor, describing the online sales history of a small business without indication of notability. Searches find no evidence of attained WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When Love Comes Around the Bend[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Extensive WP:BEFORE in Newspapers.com (specific focus on The Tennesseean), AllMusic, World Radio History, and Billboard found no sources about the song. Redirect and prod both declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NSONG #3, as it was also recorded by Dan Seals on album Walking the Wire (album) (The Tennessean (Nashville, Tennessee)01 Aug 1992, Page 29)(Chicago Tribune (Chicago, Illinois)27 Aug 1992, Page 78), and many others. In fact it may be Seals' version which is more reviewed. Also recorded by Sweethearts of the Rodeo Beautiful Lies (Sweethearts of the Rodeo album) (Argus-Leader (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)03 Oct 1996, Page 45). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG per 78.26's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per same argument, but also note that it has also been recorded by Anita Perras, as well as non-notables Ruby Rendall and Harold Hill. Between Dan Seals, Sweethearts of the Rodeo and Anita Perras, this certainly meets WP:NSONG #3. Jacona (talk) 23:58, 8 July 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.