Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 8 (Wed) May 7 (Tue) May 6 (Mon) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< September 29	October 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Legoktm (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pat the Baker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS Refs are PR, routine coverage profile and event listings. scope_creep^Talk 08:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ireland. Madeline (part of me) 12:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As part of a WP:BEFORE I found and added some additional supporting refs. And verified the existing ones to confirm that they verified the text. While I haven't added to the article (as they are less than authoritative "listicle" type stuff) some coverage of the company's more notable advertising campaigns ("Iconic Irish TV ads" "9 best Irish TV adverts"). While much of this wouldn't add-up to a "keep" on its own, I note that the Dictionary of Irish Biography has an entry on the company's founder (which contains substantial, independent, non-trivial coverage on the company). While this coverage likely meets WP:ANYBIO ("person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary"), to the extent that the company's founder could sustain a standalone biographical article, this wouldn't seem to be the best course. In short, it seems to me that the article should be kept. Or, failing that, much of the moved (and a redirect left) to an article on the founder (who seems to meet WP:ANYBIO). Guliolopez (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez: I think your a bit confused. Your right, Pat the baker himself is automatically notable as he has a entry into the "Dictionary of Irish Biography". But this is a company article however, not a WP:BLP. It is a completely different animal and still fails WP:NCORP. It is brochure, article advertising this company on Wikipedia and it breaks the Terms of USE. It is a classic advert, that fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And thanks for the ping. To confirm, however, I am not confused. I have been contributing to the project for 17 years and understand the difference between a BIO and a CORP article. I know what I am proposing. And why. If I didn't perhaps articulate my reasoning fully, I will now. My point is that, while there is possibly an argument for deleting the CORP article ("Pat the Baker") on NCORP grounds, and creating a separate BIO article on the founder ("Pat Higgins (baker)") on WP:ANYBIO grounds, that would seem an unnecessarily awkward solution. As (1) the CORP title would likely be quickly recreated as a redirect to the BIO article and (2) the BIO article would deal substantively with the CORP topic anyway. As does the source. I would also note that (a) the Dictionary of Irish Biography article is a reliable/independent source that covers the company (just as it does its founder), and hence contributes to CORPDEPTH, (b) the article is no longer "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" to the extent that WP:DEL#4 applies (deletion is not cleanup), and (c) if an editor breaches the terms of use, then the action is taken against the editor. Not the article. ("The author is an ass" is not a WP:DEL-REASON. Much as I sometimes wish it was....). Mine remains a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. I think possibly you've not spent a lot of time at Afd. BLP article and business articles are seperate. They're is no consensus that states because he is notable, that he is allowed to advertise his business on Wikipedia. Notibilty is not inherited. There is zero consensus for that. Being mentioned in the Dictionary of Irish Biography, which fails WP:SIRS for the business, doesn't warrant advertising either. Any biographical entry will mention a persons working life history. That doesn't make it notable either. You may find it a awkward solution but that what happens in this case. I never stated the author was an ass. I don't know where that comes from. scope_creep^Talk 17:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lets looks at the references:

Ref 1 'Unprecedented' demand for bread, according to Pat the Baker The managing director of Pat the Baker has said the demand for bread is unprecedented Fails WP:ORGIND

Ref 2 Pat Higgins, the original 'Pat the Baker', dies aged 84 This is an obit. Passing mention.

Ref 3 [1] The DIB entry on Pat himself.

Ref 4 Our Story. WP:SPS source that fails WP:SIRS.

Ref 5 Obit]. Another Obit for pat.

Ref 6 https://www.farmersjournal.ie/pat-the-baker-buys-irish-pride-187111 Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS

Ref 7 Majority of Irish Pride sold to Pat the Baker Press-release.

Ref 8 Competition and Consumer Protection Commission Fails WP:ORGIND

Ref 9 Report shows that bakery Irish Pride could have been saved On the sale of Irish Pride. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Ref 10 Pat The Baker has big bread beast Brennans in its sights Merger news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

Ref 11 Irish Pride ‘sold’ to Pat the Baker Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business

Ref 12 Pat the Baker Longford Marathon is the ‘friendliest marathon in the country’ Press-release.

Its is more of the same. While Pat himself is notable, the business is not. It is all routine coverage. scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company and the founder are both notable. Spleodrach (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a household name throughout Ireland, and clearly notable - Alison ^talk 23:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raw keep votes are often ignored by the closing administrator when they don't discuss policy. Where is your evidence that the business is notable? Currently its products, its locations, its operations are all advertised and all is explicity forbidden by WP:NCORP. Why is the business notable, in light of the crap references that have been described above. scope_creep^Talk 08:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of what I can see online regarding the company is 1. About the founder, or 2. A press release or other publicity. Routine press releases are trivial coverage, and just because the founder is notable doesn't mean the company is. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guliolopez. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So three Irish folk who have completely ignored policy. scope_creep^Talk 12:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I have not yet had an opportunity to dig up more references but this book ^[1] has a case study on marketing at the company. There are a number of case studies from PhD students too - some editors allow these for notability, I'd prefer to find something else. Damien Mulley has a scathing analysis of a marketing campaign by the company on Bebo here. The company was also involved in a strike/lock-out in 1993 which (indirectly) led to the law on union rights in Ireland being changed in 1998. There's also a detailed case study in a publication produced by Skillnets entitled "Measuring the Impact of Training and Development in the Workplace" (page 76) here. Overall, I think this one sneaks it. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rogan, Donal (2011). Marketing : an introduction for students in Ireland. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-7171-4981-0. OCLC 746477030.

That might do it. A couple of reports would do it. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NCORP per HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 7 October 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 result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Francés Blanc[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. As a scholar, WP:PROF does not appear met. As a writer, WP:NBOOK is not met (see also ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisei (novel)). WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, France, and Spain. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it is the place to discuss it, but let me try. Are Google and English language the only valid criteria here? There are also some references in Jstor, but it seems your check was not that deep (eg. in The Year's Work in Modern Language Studies Vol. 60 (1998). Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25833085 p. 191). As I am used to bureaucratic arbitrariness, I will take it easy anyway. Best regards. --— J. F. B. (me´n parlar) 16:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the right place as AfD is common in en.Wiki at least. But the work you cited just covers for one page, how long is it and is it significant coverage? VickKiang 22:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to judge what is significant or not. A quick search using wikimedia library and I found other articles in Jstor, but in Muse, too. I have added the references to the Occitan language version of Wikipedia. Best regards. --— J. F. B. (me´n parlar) 20:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of those wishing to keep the article to PROVE that WP:SIGCOV is met, so that others participating in this discussion can judge whether they are significant or not. The page you've linked to does not appear to be about the subject. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the current refs appear to be trivial mentions or non-independent and are far from meeting WP:SIGCOV. WP:GNG is failed, with his other work being AfDed, this fails WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NBIO. VickKiang 01:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His work's been cited a few times by others, but nowhere near enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR #1. They don't appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO, and the coverage is all either trivial of non-independent so the subject fails WP:GNG as well. - Aoidh (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harjit Kaur Talwandi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prior AfD was closed NC with NPASR. Fails WP:GNG, as though many sources that mention her appear to exist, they are only the briefest of passing mentions. Also fails WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Punjab. Curbon7 (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from one line that I added to her fathers article. I dont see anything more encyclopedic here. WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO criteria is not met. Venkat TL (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. To address the comment in the previous AfD, per WP:INHERITED it does not matter who her father is, she must demonstrate notability on her own, and this article's subject does not appear to do that. Being involved in a political party does not show notability, and "a well recognised face in Punjab" is an WP:IKNOWIT argument; such a claim is not reflected in the sources. - Aoidh (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was draftify. Legoktm (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colourblocks[edit]

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

Not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. PROD removed but no additional sources offered to sufficiently assert notability. Newly broadcast show, while searching proves the show exists yet coverage is limited to news articles about it being a new show. No evidence of needed WP:SIGCOV. At best, WP:TOOSOON. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Education. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there any particular policy for deciding the notability of such topics? I could only find an essay for television series. Haueirlan (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closest is probably WP:NMEDIA, which is possibly the essay you refer to. I cannot find an explicit policy relating to television shows, hence there is no mention beyond the general criteria which encompasses all subjects. An article's subject matter still needs to assert notability beyond simply existing. This may come in time for this series, but I don't think it can be considered notable at this time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the series has already started airing, doesn't WP:NFTV imply that it's notable enough?

In the case of animated series, reliable sources must confirm that the series is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. Edderiofer (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although as noted, this relates to an essay as opposed to a policy, the section above that paragraph on the specified page also notes about general principles and the need for a subject to be notable (and that the section WP:NFTV is "Additional criteria for the evaluation of television-related articles are outlined in the sections below"). I see you haven't actually !voted as such, so unsure if you're believing it should be kept because it exists, or just playing devil's advocate? Either way, in the absence of a clear explicit community-vetted policy saying otherwise, we would have to rely on WP:GNG. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that WP:NFTV is an essay and not a guideline. In that case, I vote to draftify the article until such time as it receives more coverage from secondary sources beyond just "it's a new show". It's a show airing on as large a television channel as BBC, I think it's very likely that more coverage of it will appear in time. (My "official" vote is below the relist.) Edderiofer (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV at present. However, it may be too early for significant coverage to be published, so draftify is a viable option.4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as above. Edderiofer (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus to delete, and a reasonable argument that the article has improved substantially to be kept per WP:HEY. BD2412 T 03:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chữ Hán[edit]

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

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

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

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

The page is a dictionary entry for a Vietnamese term for 'Chinese characters' that is not used in English. Any content is already covered by Chinese characters, Literary Chinese in Vietnam and History of writing in Vietnam (to which this was formerly a redirect). Recommend restoring the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanguole (talk • contribs) 11:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, China, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. I'm not sure whether this should be kept or merged/redirected, but it's a reasonable search term and the topic is discussed at History of writing in Vietnam, so it shouldn't be deleted. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of writing in Vietnam#Chữ Hán, where the system can be succinctly described and is the most relevant target. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. I think chữ Hán is a reasonable article to have as its usage in Vietnamese is different from Chinese enough to warrant its own article, just like how Japanese has it's Kanji article and Korean it's Hanja article. I added sections on character readings, types of characters, simplification of characters, and symbols to the article which are not present in History of writing in Vietnam nor is it present in Literary Chinese in Vietnam. Lachy70 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Literary Chinese in Vietnam is already specifically about the usage of Classical Chinese in writing from Vietnam. If there is material about Classical Chinese in Vietnam that you feels is not covered, you can add/merge material there. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know that Chữ Hán and Văn ngôn (classical Chinese as Vietnamese call it) are two different terms, right? From your point of view kanji shouldn't have a separate article because kanbun already mentioned it Taolabomay (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The types of characters part is just Chinese character classification with Sino-Vietnamese readings, which is not surprising, as these characters were all created in China and used unchanged in Vietnam. There's a bit borrowed from Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary, but most of the rest is not about Chữ Hán at all, being about Chinese loans to Vietnamese in the last few centuries or the Chữ Nôm writing system for Vietnamese. Kanguole 20:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The types of characters part is just Chinese character classification with Sino-Vietnamese readings, which is not surprising, as these characters were all created in China and used unchanged in Vietnam." Of course, these characters are Chinese characters, that is why they are called chữ Hán (Hán = Chinese) in Vietnamese. The Kanji article also mentions this classification. The sections about Chinese loans are relevant since they are talking about readings for Chinese characters. There are multiple readings for characters, so it is necessary to talk about it. The usage of Chinese characters in Vietnam is not identical when compared to Chinese. It is not like Chinese where there is usually only one reading for a character and that reading does not change the meaning. Chữ Hán typically has Hán and Nôm readings, this can be compared to Kun'yomi, On'yomi, and Ateji readings in Japanese. Some chữ Hán characters were simplified into characters that are used for the Nôm readings, so I think it was relevant to talk about some simplification of characters. Since it involved chữ Hán, some mentions chữ Nôm is relevant since the two scripts were used together to write Vietnamese. Lachy70 (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Literary Chinese in Vietnam (second alternative would be Redirect to History of writing in Vietnam#Chữ Hán). The article Literary Chinese in Vietnam already covers the scope that this article describes; the only distinction being made here is that this article is specifically about the characters while Literary Chinese in Vietnam is about both the characters and the writing. But Literary Chinese in Vietnam isn't a very long article, so any material about the characters can easily be placed there. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Literary Chinese in Vietnam.4meter4 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Just because you don't use the term Chữ Hán in English doesn't mean there are no users, according to your point, Chữ Nôm shouldn't have a separate article either because there's no one called Chữ Nôm in English, most of them are called Nom script. Chữ Hán is one of the oldest writing systems in Vietnam, so there must be a separate article on this term. Please do not delete Taolabomay (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)— Taolabomay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't delete. This term should have a separate article Choixong di (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTDICT. Kanguole 20:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a term that needs its own article, you know? The information you want to show me doesn't seem very relevant Choixong di (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per MarkH21. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Firstly, Chữ Hán is the localized version of the Chinese character in Vietnam similar to Hanja of Korea and Kanji of Japan, of course all localized versions will have differences in usage compared to Chinese characters original. Secondly, Literary Chinese in Vietnam is an article about the Vietnamese version of Classical Chinese (Văn ngôn), the fact that they are related does not mean that they are the same, if you consider they are the same then Kanji should be combined with Kanbun, not divided into two articles because all the content is available in the Kanbun. Third, the History of writing in Vietnam is just an article that summarizes the writing systems that have been used in Vietnam from the past to the present, that article only gives a brief introduction to the different types of characters writing is used in Vietnam, without going into the terminology. So please don't delete Chữ Hán articles.

Suoperidol (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article originally was little more than a dicdef, but it has been improved significantly (kudos to Lachy70) and this assertion no longer applies. The other offered reasons for deletion are not convincing; the topic is an encyclopedic one as shown by the present sourcing, and I would expect it could continue to develop beyond the scope of History of writing in Vietnam similar to Hanja and Kanji as cited previously. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article appears to have been vastly improved, with content that indicates that it merits its own article. While undoubtedly it is a set of Chinese characters, it is also sufficiently different in its usage in Vietnam for it to warrant its own separate article (the character for Chữ (𡨸) itself very much indicates the usage difference from standard Chinese). It can stand alongside articles like Hanja and Kanji that describe the use of Chinese characters in other East Asian countries. Hzh (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okami-san[edit]

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

I wanted to improve the article and looked for more sources, but the series doesn't seem to have enough coverage. It won a Shogakukan Manga Award and had a sequel in 2011, [2] but I don't think that is enough to warrant notability. --Xexerss (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this article is only a stub on this Wikipedia, there is a very large article about it on the Japanese Wikipedia. That fact, along with the manga winning one of Japan's major manga awards, suggests to me it meets notability requirements. Note that the award alone proves notability, per our guidelines. That said, it'd be great to bring over content from the Japanese Wikipedia article and to provide citations.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the article on the Japanese Wikipedia lacks secondary or tertiary sources. At most it has some notes referencing the own manga. Xexerss (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But as I mentioned, per Wikipedia guidelines a work receiving a major award, which the Shogakukan Manga Award definitely counts as, is all the proof we need that said work is notable. That notability exists no matter the lack of citations. Yes, the citation issues still needs to be addressed but that isn't a reason to delete an article on a notable topic.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for the clarification. Still, I emphasize again that is was very hard to find coverage on the web, but I will try again to find something if it's decided to keep the article. Xexerss (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per assertion that it won a major award. Perhaps some information could be translated from the JP article? Blue Edits (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Shogakukan Manga Award meets WP:BKCRIT #2. I tried finding sources via Google in Japanese but it's almost all shops selling the manga or databases listing it with no elaboration. On Google Books I found it in a bunch of anthologies and "national author" listings and such, but again nothing that would help. I did find [https://www.seiryo-u.ac.jp/u/new/2022/column/1001.html this which is a post from Kanazawa Seiryo University's president I guess reminiscing about among other things reading it when he was younger; it's just weird because it was written and came out today and if I had looked yesterday I wouldn't have found it. But I bring it up because it mentions that this manga was published in Weekly Shōnen Magazine (週刊少年マガジン) in the 1970s, which this article doesn't mention and might be a plausible route to find references with. - Aoidh (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Alfahdawy[edit]

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

There is no indication that this young Iraqi cosmetic dentist is notable. The article is sourced to a listing that claims he offers veneers; an article in which he's asked to comment on the cost of dentistry materials; a link to his own clinic; and a dead link. An online "before" search reveals his posts on social media, but nothing substantial in the way of SIGCOV in independent sources about him. Perhaps it is TOOSOON, but nevertheless, he clearly does not meet WP criteria for GNG. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and Iraq. Netherzone (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I do not speak Arabic but I attempted to search for both the Englishized name and the Arabic name and found nothing at all that would even attempt to claim WP:N. Skynxnex (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also say writing the article entirely in two days in June 2020, not touching it all since then, and then moving to mainspace today is something I don't think I've seen before. Skynxnex (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything establishing notability. No claims in the article to investigate either. I did find the subject's YouTube channel, which garners maybe a couple hundred views per video. Not notable. Blue Edits (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even worthy to be include in Wikipedia because I haven't see anything about this article. Again, no any reliable reference from this article, it needs speedy deletion than exhausting time for discussion.Ashavawani (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per criterion G7 FASTILY 06:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SurgePays[edit]

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

A for-profit company so it must meet WP:NCORP. The sources in the article, and the ones I found while doing a WP:BEFORE, all fail WP:ORGIND as they are not "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject", but rather repeat information given by the company. Non-notable company failing the guideline. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was G7 speedied...but shortly before the deletion was made, a likely duplicate was re-created in draftspace as Draft:SurgePays. As much as I'd like to AGF, this is clear evasion of the AfD process. Please explain, @ES Desramaut:, and declare all conflicts. Because of this, the discussion should remain open. Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Fastily. I've watchlisted the page anyway so in case it's moved back I'll know. ~Styyx^Talk? 09:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burj News[edit]

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

A company launched less than 2 months ago. Lacks significant coverage with independent content (i.e. "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject") from reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable that the site is referenced as a reliable source in other national and international news media as mentioned , the main thing is Already verified on Muck rack , Muck Rack's Public Relations (PR) software—which includes media database, media monitoring and PR analytics , so this article should not be deleted , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsadnanhere (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Pakistan. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way WP:TOOSOON and no real claims to notability (what does "the first website in the world whose account was hacked before it was published" mean and why does it even matter?). Blue Edits (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first website in the world whose account was hacked etc mean this is the first website from my research that account where hacked before it was published publicley , so ever only this words i think this article should not be deleted , if something went wrong in the details and refrences , you can simple tell me as i am your student , Thanks Itsadnanhere (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be cruel to delete an article just because the company was registered 2 months ago. Itsadnanhere (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all the articles on the web about the subject is press release/paid articles, mostly bought from sites like fiverr to publish their fake news. The article clearly fails WP:NCORP. They are publishing fake news, for example - the outlook's article says the subject is registered in New York.^[1], and here in some sources it says it's registered in UK. I wouldn't trust any articles about the subject. everything looks fabricated, just to get an article on Wikipedia. - Rahulagnikotri (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No , it is also regesterd in US , here is the company Information Proof . https://newyork-company.com/co/burj-news-limited Itsadnanhere (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Burj News – Levels Up The Game In The World Of International And Local News". www.outlookindia.com/. 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-10-01.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devin O'Malley[edit]

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

I don't believe "Press Secretary to the Vice President" is an office that confers any kind of notability. BD2412 T 21:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 21:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the multiple part of the secondary sources in WP:NBIO. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable position and without SIGCOV. Lightburst (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Schulte (football manager)[edit]

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

Contested PROD (rationale was "managed fully pro German teams and was assistant at FC Bayern, Germanys most successful team. Having played and managed in the 20th century, there is definitely a lot of offline coverage"). No sources have been exhibited. Not great to have BLPs sourced only to databases. Ovinus (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while searching is complicated by the fact that a prominent German trade unionist by the name of Dieter Schulte recently died, I do not believe this person passes WP:GNG. A search under "Dieter Schulte Fußballer" only brought up coverage for a Dieter Schulte-Ladbeck, who seems to be an entirely different soccer player from Recklinghausen. While an assistant manager at Bayern would definitely be notable nowadays, back in 1973 when sports as a whole were a lot more amateur it's certainly possible there just wasn't coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deejahn[edit]

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

The script appears to have broken, and I'd rather not retype my whole rationale, but basically I'm not seeing any independent coverage here. The sources are all fluffy and many of them simply republish words from the subject in first person. If better sources are found we'll need to be careful to ensure independence, given this aggressive self-promotion. Ovinus (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The self-promotion is strong with this one. Ugandan sources are not my specialty, but most look non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything for this guy. Next Radio (https://nextradio.co.ug/) appears to be a licensed radio station originating its own programming in Kampala, Uganda and could potentially have an article if someone with knowledge of Ugandan media wanted to create one, but there's no mention of Deejahn as a presenter or staff member on its website at a glance. Flip Format (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 23:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Manghnani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and also WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search didn't find any in-depth reviews or other sorts of coverage, and the award she won isn't in my view significant enough to outweigh the lack of sourcing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fereidoun Hassanpour[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Written like a resume. More a listing of works than an encyclopedia article. Poorly sourced. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What are now, imdb? A list in bullet points of films he's made with one source from over 10 yrs ago? Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. Skynxnex (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a possibility that some of his films are notable, but a lack of sources makes this fail WP:NBIO. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Legoktm (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Kopf[edit]

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

WP:BLP. Refs are interviews, profiles and PR. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Not a single secondary source amongst the lot. scope_creep^Talk 18:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment almost there, most of the sources are interviews or about her wining the 30 under 30 award. I find the exact same ones used in the article, so I don't think GNG has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep Refs 3 & 5 get it over GNG for me. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are interviews. The rest of the refs are much lower quality to below non-rs standard e.g. forbes x of y ref, in ref 1. Interviews are great if they're is WP:SECONDARY refs to back up it, but there is nothing. The profiles have been written by her and the rest are about the company or the non-notable trade award. There is nothing of significance present in those references that are independent of the subject. scope_creep^Talk 19:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I wish there were more coverage, given Wikipedia's paucity of women CEO biographies, but interviews are kind of an awkward spot for establishing notability. Maybe if they have substantial oversight and independent commentary, but I'm not seeing that with either source 3 or 5. I don't think her 30 Under 30 award carries too much weight either. Ovinus (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP: SIGCOV. The in-depth coverage in evidence are all interviews which lack independence from the subject. We need three independent sources with significant coverage to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two. Two is "multiple". GNG has always required two. St Anselm (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. I am a regular AFD patroller. The rule of three is widely used as the measuring stick in AFD discussions; unless we have two very exceptional sources (which is not the case here).4meter4 (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be a lot more coverage on the article subject than what's currently in the article. Here's some examples I found:

Reuter, Dominick (March 8, 2021). "3 leadership lessons all first-time founders should know but are rarely told, from a 30-year-old entrepreneur who raised $8 million for her cannabis-focused tech platform". Business Insider. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
Smith, Heather (February 3, 2016). "Will climate change move agriculture indoors? And will that be a good thing?". Grist. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
Taylor, Harriet (September 24, 2015). "What won the day at Tech Crunch Disrupt? Agriculture". CNBC. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
Schubarth, Cromwell (September 23, 2015). "San Jose, Brooklyn ag tech startups win top awards at TechCrunch Disrupt". Silicon Valley Business Journal. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
Neiden, Cassie (January 25, 2017). "Women in CEA startups: Allison Kopf, Founder & CEO, Agrilyst". Produce Grower. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
Manning, Chris (January 2, 2019). "Agrilyst's Allison Kopf named to Forbes 30 under 30 list". Produce Grower. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
den Hertog, Jobke (May 30, 2019). ""A full view of your farm all on one platform"". HortiDaily. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
Avirgan, Jody (January 7, 2016). "Can You Taste The Algorithm In This Arugula?". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
"Most Innovative Companies 2016: Agrilyst". Fast Company. February 19, 2016. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
Kortum, Grace (April 29, 2019). "Interview with Allison Kopf, Founder and CEO of Agrilyst". Business Today. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
Marston, Jennifer (March 29, 2022). "Q&A: Scaling CEA's future farms with IUNU's Allison Kopf". AFN. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

The Grist article is especially strong, as it has a lot of biographical details. Silver seren^C 02:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at these above in turn:
Smith, Heather (February 3, 2016). "Will climate change move agriculture indoors? And will that be a good thing?". Grist. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

It is more about the business and than it is her.

Taylor, Harriet (September 24, 2015). "What won the day at Tech Crunch Disrupt? Agriculture". CNBC. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

This is the company winning a trade award. A routine annoucement.

Schubarth, Cromwell (September 23, 2015). "San Jose, Brooklyn ag tech startups win top awards at TechCrunch Disrupt". Silicon Valley Business Journal. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

This is the company winning a trade award. A routine annoucement. It is the same gig. It is not independent.

Neiden, Cassie (January 25, 2017). "Women in CEA startups: Allison Kopf, Founder & CEO, Agrilyst". Produce Grower. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

This is a trade magazine and its another interview. It is not independent coverage.

Manning, Chris (January 2, 2019). "Agrilyst's Allison Kopf named to Forbes 30 under 30 list". Produce Grower. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

This is a Non-RS as a x of y article. Why are you even listing it?????

den Hertog, Jobke (May 30, 2019). ""A full view of your farm all on one platform"". HortiDaily. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

This is a press-release. It is not Independent and is non-rs.

Avirgan, Jody (January 7, 2016). "Can You Taste The Algorithm In This Arugula?". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

This is primary. It another interview.

"Most Innovative Companies 2016: Agrilyst". Fast Company. February 19, 2016. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

It is a company listing block. It is not independent.

Kortum, Grace (April 29, 2019). "Interview with Allison Kopf, Founder and CEO of Agrilyst". Business Today. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

Another interview. It is not independent.

Marston, Jennifer (March 29, 2022). "Q&A: Scaling CEA's future farms with IUNU's Allison Kopf". AFN. Retrieved September 30, 2022.

Another interview. It is not independent.

Not a single one of these are worth even looking at. They are all routine coverage of a women promoting her business. scope_creep^Talk 09:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It is more about the business and than it is her."

This alone on the Grist article tells me that you're being purposefully disingenuous in your "review" there of the sources. For everyone else, have some quotes:

It’s this indoor farming future that Allison Kopf, founder and CEO of the agricultural technology startup Agrilyst, is curious about. In an indoor farm, water doesn’t inconveniently evaporate. LED lights can lengthen the hours of sunlight so plants can grow faster. CO2 levels can be tweaked. Even as the weather outside goes haywire, plants farmed indoors can live out an optimized version of the weather that they coevolved with — the weather of the past. The best weather of the past. Or, as Kopf calls it, a “weather-independent environment.”

Kopf’s journey to greenhouse tech was an unexpected one. She majored in physics and in 2009 became the project manager for Team California in the solar decathlon, a biannual competition held by the U.S. Department of Energy. Team California designed and built a house that took advantage of the local climate, but also had a control system, built from scratch, that could monitor the house’s energy and water consumption, along with other vitals, from an iPhone app.

...

Team California placed a perfectly respectable third. Kopf was looking forward to a future in solar tech. But just as her work with the decathlon ended in 2010, the solar industry hit the skids — a casualty of a trade war between the U.S. and China.

Then she met Paul Lightfoot, a Wall Street lawyer turned restaurant reservation software magnate (his startup, Foodline, tanked in 2001) turned CEO of AL Systems (a retail supply chain software company). Lightfoot had just had a midlife crisis and decided that he wanted to “combine his career in supply chain management with his passion for bringing food to people that tastes better, is healthier, and is better for the environment.”

...

Five years ago, says Kopf, “the industry wasn’t as sexy as it is now.” She spent her four years at BrightFarms wrangling real estate and government regulations — working on local zoning and tax exemptions, trying to get some love for indoor farming and non-commodity crops into the farm bill, and generally working against the tide of decades of agricultural policy: “Our country is built on commodity crops,” she says, “It heavily incentivizes production of crops that aren’t used to feed humans.”

Kopf also noticed something else. She couldn’t understand why BrightFarms and other farms like it were so operationally inefficient, considering the technology that she knew was available. Readouts from high-tech sensors were taken down by hand, written into notebooks and rarely looked at again. Problems, when they developed, were farmed out to consultants. There were only a few types of sensors used in the greenhouse industry, and while it wouldn’t exactly be a walk in the park to develop software that could pull data from them all and analyze it in a centralized location, Kopf knew that it could be done. The recent surge of research into the “internet of things” also made things possible that had been impossible a decade ago.

Hell, she didn’t have to stop with sensors. Energy bills for greenhouses ran into the thousands of dollars — but what if they had access to software that helped them buy electricity at off-peak hours, when it was cheaper? What if everything — the fans, the vents, lighting or shade, the water — could be crunched together with the data from the networked sensors, and then controlled and monitored from a central location? What if the data, anonymously aggregated, could be used to design new greenhouses?

Kopf went to Lightfoot, and told him that she was leaving to start a greenhouse software company — or, as she put it, “Hey. I’m going to do this. You should be our first customer.” She found a programmer and cofounder, a Google engineer named Jason Camp, through a family friend. Agrilyst launched in spring of 2015. By autumn of 2015, the duo had beat out 1,000 other companies and were standing onstage as one of 25 finalists at the TechCrunch Disrupt startup competition in San Francisco. Much to their surprise, they won.

And that's just from one source. Silver seren^C 17:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Grist article certainly counts for significant coverage in an independent reliable source. I note the interviews, too, are all in high quality sources. And the very fact that she is being interviewed by Forbes, Business Today, and FiveThirtyEight indicates that she is not a run-of-the-mill business owner. St Anselm (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and insufficient support for WP:BASIC notability that is not dependent on the article subject, including the interviews. Source #5 (Business Today Online Journal) appears to be more of a press release written interview-style in a non-RS. The 2016 Grist article also seems dependent on her statements, and questionable as to whether there is independent fact-checking from an outlet that offers "storytelling" - to a limited extent, the writer's commentary on arugula is WP:SECONDARY content about the business, which I think in general can be relevant to a businessperson's BLP, particularly when it is connected to what the BLP subject has accomplished and can help develop the article. There also do not appear to be notable awards, and bizjournals.com content tends to be heavily promotional, e.g. instead of editorial policies, the ACBJ About page states "ACBJ offers business leaders many avenues for making connections and gives them a competitive edge locally, regionally and nationally." She was also interviewed in a 2016 538 podcast, but based on the partial transcript, it is not particularly in-depth. I think more independent, reliable, secondary coverage is needed to support notability than what is currently available. Beccaynr (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grist is one of the most prominent agricultural and climate focused magazines. Are you actually questioning its RS and journalism status because it uses the word "storytelling" on its About page? Silverseren^C 21:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have questioned the independence of the Grist article, because it appears to be told from the perspective of Kopf and her business partner, and dependent on their statements to tell the story, before the writer opines about indoor agriculture generally, including, "it is not so much about feeding the world as it is about bringing salad to people who feel that they deserve it in the dead of winter, but feel guilty about having it trucked to them all the way from California." I have not found evidence that Grist is one of the most prominent agricultural and climate focused magazines, but I think we can assess the source based on how it presents itself and how the article is written. If this source helps support notability, there appears to be more independent, reliable, secondary coverage still needed to support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I think this may be WP:TOOSOON. All the sources are industry/interview. Created by a new editor who seems to be having trouble getting a handle on neutrally written articles or what constitutes a press release. They keep plugging away, so rather than delete, put back into draft form. This article was moved without the editor submitting it, again, another reason for putting back into draft. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its not as though a WP:BEFORE was not done on it. scope_creep^Talk 02:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of amok cases in Australia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of amok cases in Australia

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

This list is mostly original research and the references do not suggest that they had amok syndrome at all. per WP:NLIST: I could not find reliable sources around the general idea of amok cases in Australia, therefore this is not notable. 0xDeadbeef 17:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Australia. 0xDeadbeef 17:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the need to have every case since the 19th Century drawn up in a table format, perhaps listing a few notable ones in the main amok syndrome article. Learning that xyz person had it in 1925 (and wasn't notable otherwise), doesn't seem to serve a purpose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Chapple[edit]

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

All sources seems to be affiliated, bare mentions, etc. There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage in unaffiliated sources. Fails GNG. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing used is largely from the Food & Wine magazine, with podcasts and other media appearances used as well for sourcing. Could likely be a promotional attempt, but an editor-at-large wouldn't need promotion as far as I know. Oaktree b (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Jacob[edit]

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

Struggling to find any significant coverage of this footballer. I've searched in Google News, ProQuest, Google Images and DDG and not found anything better than passing mentions in match reports for Gateshead and some brief loan announcements. Best thing I can find is We Are Hull City which is not WP:RS and fails to count towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is WP:TOOSOON for Matty Jacob. If you search Hull Daily Mail (not to be confused with another publication with a similar name), you can find ~70 articles mentioning Matty Jacob and his every move with Hull City and Gateshead, but at the moment nothing approaching SIGCOV. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Barter[edit]

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

Nominating for procedural reasons, I know the article is well sourced but I am not sure it meets WIKI:GNG or WIKI:BIO.--IMR2000 (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. My main concern here is WP:BLP1E: Barter seems to be an otherwise-low-profile person who's been in the news solely because of his involvement in a fairly minor controversy, which is exactly the situation in which BLP1E kicks in. I suppose restructuring this as an article about the event is a possible alternative to deletion, but since even the event's notability is uncertain (per WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:NOTNEWS, etc.) my instinct would be to delete outright. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E. If Kenneth J. Harvey's documentary film gets over WP:NFILM when it comes out, then a bit of information about Barter would naturally be includable as part of that, but this isn't really claiming any credible reason why Barter would pass the ten year test for enduring international significance as a person. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Legoktm (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lugansk People's Republic (Russia)[edit]

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

Same reasons as Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) and Kherson Oblast (Russia). Unnecessary fork with an inherent likelihood of turning into a POV fork, and makes maintenance difficult. Best to keep it within existing articles. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Skynxnex (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Vgaiyfi (talk · contribs · block log)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Delete. Actually, this is not the same as Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) and Kherson Oblast (Russia), as claimed by the filer. This is because in the case of Lugansk, we have even three articles: Luhansk Oblast, Luhansk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic (Russia). The last two cover exactly the same topic, and so this one should be deleted. Luhansk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic (Russia) are exactly the same subjects. No need for those two separate articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. Glide08 (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Delete. I am a bit new to the discussion, however I think like with Carpatho-Ukraine (where it's the same page as a region that was given more autonomy by Czechoslovakia and the region once it was independent) it should just be the same page. Jaylein. (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)— Jaylein. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep the article describes an entity that has literally been global news. Whether it is recognized internationally, or whatever the prevailing opinion on it's legitimacy, this remains a fact. We must be careful not to conflate Keep with 'supports Russia' and Delete with 'supports Ukraine'. FederalTank (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But we already have an article about it since April 2014: Donetsk People's Republic. —Michael Z. 05:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the WP policy that supports deleting X because there is an article about the DPR. 89.14.70.34 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFORK supports deleting an article about the subject X when there is already an article about the subject X. —Michael Z. 18:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I was doing this article, my idea was to divide the LPR and DPR into articles about historical semi-recognized quasi-states and regions of Russia. If the consensus is that these articles should be merged, then I will agree with the consensus opinion. PLATEL (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And we also have Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast... Overkill of nearly identical articles on the same or very closely related subjects is not beneficial to anyone and risks violating WP:POVFORK. Fram (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles Luhansk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic (Russia) don't cover the same topic. The first one is about the independent country that existed from 2014 to 2022. The second one is about this the new federal subject within the Russian Federation. Vgaiyfi (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Even if a separate article for the LPR as a Russian subject were necessary, the annexation has not even entered effect yet. The Duma and Federation Council must first approve the treaties signed, before sending them to Putin to approve them again. These are rubber-stamp actions sure, but they are future rubber-stamp actions. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article will be constantly recreated. It doesn't matter if it doesn't look that notable today, with each passing hour since the annexation more sources will appear and if we start deleting and recreating articles, now that will make maintenance difficult. Super Ψ Dro 16:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can it be locked so only experienced/verified editors can change it? Semi-protected I think is the word I'm looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge, but I'm not sure there is much content to merge), per nom. This is too new to justify a separate spin-off or sub-article. Levivich (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Best solution would probably be to draftify this along with the other three, especially as Russia hasn't even completed its sham procedures yet. Once we know more about the borders Russia is claiming since the existing ones don't match their actual control, and whether Luhansk and Donetsk will remain "republics" as opposed to a regular oblasts, and all the other relevant particulars, then we can move them back to mainspace and have a situation parallel to Autonomous Republic of Crimea/Republic of Crimea. At that point the "Russian occupation of _____" and old LPR/DPR articles can probably be merged in. PrimaPrime (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a government entity which is taking action with government power. I think caution is warranted about overlap of content with several other articles on related concepts, but having Wikipedia articles for major government entities is a norm. This is a major government entity which the world is watching and for which there are sources describing its activities. There seems to be no other Wikipedia article for this concept. That it is competing and disputed with an overlapping entity claiming the same authority is irrelevant for Wikipedia's documentation and general reference purposes. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a different entity, and in the coming days we'll surely hear more information related to the recent annexation. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Luhansk People's Republic. These are the same entity, to the point that I, personally speaking, didn't even expect the psot-annexation DPR and LPR to have new articles. Glide08 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should keep this page because it is a different political entity from the ukraine oblasts.Zyxrq (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it is all a bit quick. ~~I would expect articles Annexation of.... describing the process in the first instance (the process is not yet completed)~~ I see now Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine and perhaps even Legal/Political status of.... It was done for Crimea so there is a precedent. Selfstudier (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete/merge It's the same entity as the Luhansk People's Republic we already have an article for. And that article has a sourcing deficit already, the last thing we need to be doing is timeline-forking it. It just opens the door to even more POV issues. Tartan357 (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the same entity. The LPR has been an independent country with limited recognition from 2014 to 2022. That is one thing. This new federal subject of the Russian Federation is not an independent country. They are different things. Vgaiyfi (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Joining the Russian Federation did not cause it to cease being the same entity. Please acquaint yourself with the concept of federalism. Tartan357 (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okey, let's leave aside politics and POVs. It's a matter of encyclopedic coverage of history. The LPR was a country that exited for 8 years (which was recognized by three countries members of the United Nations). It should have its own article. Now, the situation is about something different, it is a federal subject of the Russian Federation. It makes no sense to merge the articles when there is even a separate article to cover its annexation to Russia. It is as if we were to join the articles of the Republic of Texas and Texas. Vgaiyfi (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nothing I said was political or POV. You are injecting a lot of original thought into this discussion. The fact of the matter is RS consider them the same topic, and that is all that matters at AfD. We don't get to decide that the LPR is more important or historically significant than RS think it is. Tartan357 (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While they are the same entity, it is an article to discuss a new phase in the existence of the LPR. We have articles for Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Taliban, and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) despite these all being the same entity. However, this should be renamed to the main LPR article, with the one about the non-federal subject LPR having (2014–2022) added to it. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 02:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - All of these POV forks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:POVFORK. The subject of the article has been around since 2014 and the article about it is Luhansk People's Republic. Some editors have tried to rename that article Luhansk → Lugansk a number of times, and this is just a lame attempt to route around the consensus title. —Michael Z. 05:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the discussion with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia). PLATEL (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This case is different then the case of Kherson Oblast (Russia). Here, we have three article about the same oblast, while in the case of Kherson, there are two. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I think the point is not how many articles there are but whether the Russian entities are distinct. Even if the physical attributes (land, population) are the same, the legal entity is not the same (I am not saying that the creation of the new entity is legal outside of Russia, that's a different issue). Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Pause and keep. it is likely Lugansk will become an Oblast and be called Lugansk Oblast within Russia so we should wait, there are Republics but no people Republics in Russia. We should wait for more details. We should keep the page though if it is indeed in the unlikely event to remain the lugansk People's Republic although previous LNR articles could be merged within a big page. Dashing24 (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  https://tass.com/politics/1516023 "Republic" 89.14.70.34 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now, it is not even known the official name of this "subject" – administrative division of Russia and names of administrative units are decribed in the constitution. So far, the constitution has not been changed, so it cannot be argued that there is such an administrative unit in Russia (eg the Russian constitution does not provide for the existence of "people's republics"). Aotearoa (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://tass.com/politics/1516023 accession documents signed, this is more than Jefferson (proposed Pacific state) achieved so far. 89.14.70.34 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something was signed. It is not known what exactly, it is not known when it comes into force (if it is an international agreement, it requires ratification). The subjects of the federation are listed in the constitution, and this has not been changed yet. As of today, there are no sources to confirm that there is an administrative unit with such a name (assuming the annexation of these areas to Russia). Aotearoa (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like all the other ridiculous POV FORKS created to push Putinist POV in last few days. Volunteer Marek 20:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The (illegal) existence of such a republic in Russia is a fact, the existence of such a page does not legitimize it in any way, so deletion is absolutely unnecessarily. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all other (claimed or legal) regions under Russia have their own page, including the others annexed by Russia, no need to delete this. See Crimea, Zaporozhye, Kherson, Donetsk.Yeoutie (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's a POV fork (not to mention propaganda). Hobit (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
XDDDDDDDDDDDDD LMFAO Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A fine response. It is both a POV fork and propaganda, so yeah, if that's all you've got... Hobit (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Perhaps we should delete Propaganda in Nazi Germany. You know, it's POV and propaganda... Super Ψ Dro 13:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine; as this article in reality talks almost entirely about the annexation itself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an active RM about the name of the article: Requested move. --Anas1712 (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the other deletion pages concerning the other four regions that Russia annexed that I have commented on. Within two to three days all these territories will be officially annexed and ratified by the Russian parliament. There is tons of articles on Wikipedia whose regions have two different pages concerning the same subject. BigRed606 (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like all the other ridiculous FORKS with Putinist irredentist propaganda.Just Alabama (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as a POV fork of something that doesn't really exist. ansh.666 01:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my vote on the Donetsk deletion page. Great Mercian (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia). This isn't a POV fork, it's an article on a subnational governmental entity. Sure, it lacks international recognition, but that does not mean it does not exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK. There is already an article on this region. There is little or no sourcing here that is not repeated from the Russian Government, and nowhere even remotely close to WP:SIGCOV. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, the fact that it is not internationally recognised does not mean it does not exist, if it did not exist then a lot of recent geopolitical drama would be very confusing indeed, wouldn't it? Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree international recognition isn't required for an article, but this doesn't address the issues of it being a POV fork. Nor do I think any recent geopolitical drama would be more confusing if we didn't have this article--if anything it makes things more confusing. Hobit (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; POV fork of Luhansk People's Republic. Sceptre (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Taktak[edit]

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

Delete per WP:ANYBIO and general notability guidelines. Dark Juliorik (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Turkey. Skynxnex (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw this please. Gazozlu (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm not going to say much, but I agree with the comment above. ~Styyx^Talk? 16:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His work is in the İstanbul Modern. I edited the article a bit. The basic bio is poorly source and should probably be removed unless non -primary source is found. Perhaps paraphrase info on https://www.istanbulmodern.org/en/collection/collection/5?t=3&id=1267 Hoping someone who reads Turkish can edit the article or assess the footnotes. However, I believe Taktak passes notability guidelines for an artist.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our notability guideline. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Tronko[edit]

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

Unclear why he is notable. Written in poor English without proper references. Rathfelder (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ukraine. Rathfelder (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a poor translation of something. I can't see why he's notable and I get zero sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search including “Олег Тронько” turns up nothing significant and the rambling personal narrative in this article contains no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Neither his conversion to Catholicism nor his repentance from a dissolute lifestyle nor anything else in the article is sufficient to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find the sources alluded to in the article, but from context it doesn't appear that they offer much, one appears to have been written by the subject and the other one I was hoping I could find on archive.org but it's not there and given the context of the article's subject I suspect "Truth and the Life" is a translation and not the actual title. But a mention in a single magazine, even if it were significant coverage, is insufficient for WP:GNG that requires multiple reliable sources, so even if we assume the best scenario for that mystery source, it still wouldn't establish notability without at least two more good sources. Of the external links one is not a reliable source in any way and other while dead is interesting but the independence of the source is tenuous and I don't think it shows notability that a religious group published an obituary of one of their converts. There's not even a claim to notability in the article, converting to another faith is not prima facie notable and that's really all there is here. - Aoidh (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Those supporting deletion primarily cited WP:POVFORK and WP:CRYSTALBALL issues. These arguments were also cited by the people supporting a merge or redirection. Those supporting keeping the article primarily argued that there is a separate legal entity (described as "de jure" by some) and situations/disputes like Taiwan have (at least) two distinct articles. This was refuted by noting this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as well as the fact that the dispute around Taiwan is decades-old, while the situation in Ukraine/Russia is changing every day. Legoktm (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kherson Oblast (Russia)[edit]

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

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Vgaiyfi (talk · contribs · block log · spi · lta)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

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

I don't think it is a good idea to have two articles about the same region, one for each country which claims the territory. Have one article which describes the situation, in this case Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast, instead of two. WP:FORK issues.

Also nominated for the same reasons: Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) Fram (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Fram (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the de-jure federal subject of Russia. Delete the Republic of Crimea in the same case in which you delete these two articles. PLATEL (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Kherson Oblast is legally distinct from Ukrainian whether that's de-facto or de-jure. Not to mention the actual border definition of Russian Kherson Oblast is distinct from Ukrainian by the addition of Snigurovka Raion from Nikolaev Oblast. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, this is a distinct new federal subject, strongly disagree with these being deleted. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Distinct from what? The claims that the borders aren't 100% identical is so far not supported in any article here, and I can't immediately find any reliable sources that make that claim either[3]. Having two articles for the same current region only makes it harder to keep things straight and to avoid partisan editing of one or the other. Fram (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does not appear true. Saldo announced that part of Nikolaev is a part of the Russian Kherson oblast, so this does have a distinct definition for its borders from the Ukrainian counterpart. I’ll try to find a proper source for this shortly and link it here Serafart (talk) (contributions) 21:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, I haven’t really been able to find many reliable sources on this, so if they exist, they likely won’t until proper transcriptions of the annexation documents and of the ratification by the State Duma are released. Regardless, I believe this article should be kept distinct from the article on Kherson as a part of Ukraine, as it is an article on the legal entity that is Kherson Oblast, of which the Ukrainian entity and the Russian entity are separate. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the removal of the articles. Kherson / Zaporizhia Oblast according to of this article is an administrative unit of the Russian Federation, not of Ukraine. Moreover, due to the nature of the case and the lack of international recognition for the annexation of the oblasts to Russia, I would call for the addition of another article on the occupation of the Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts with this article. JanPawel2025 (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this page be deleted? It is now a federal subject of Russia, no matter the legality. Norge17maii (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because most countries don't recognise it as a federal subject of Russia, it is not even completely occupied by Russia. Wikipedia doesn't create WP:POVFORKS to show what one country or what another country claims, it creates one article for a subject and describes the current situation, claims, ... Not a "Kherson is Ukrainian" article and a "Kherson is Russian" article, but an article about Kherson Oblast describing both claims. Fram (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say describing both claims, but the language on those pages at present do not represent that. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that this article should be kept. If the areas integrated into the Russian Federation, under Russian control, do not correspond with the entire Oblast; then it is more appropriate that there is this article for this new federal subject of Russia. Apart from that, this new Russian federal subject has its own flag and coat of arms distinct from those of the Ukrainian Kherson Oblast. Vgaiyfi (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC) blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the area Russia claims is, as far as sources seem to say, exactly identical to the Ukrainian oblasts. They are however claiming to have held a referendum and annexed areas they don't even control, but that doesn't make the subject of these articles any different to the subject of the existing articles. That the different claimants use different flags and coats of arms is of extremely minor importance in the whole situation, and can easily be integrated in the existing article as well. Note that we also have Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and so on, which describes the situation in more detail. Fram (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has no backing. On wikipedia, we occasionally create articles about the same place. (ex. Taiwan, Donetsk & Luhansk People's Republics vs. the Ukrainian Oblasts, Crimea, the list goes on.) Norge17maii (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also opposed to deletion – as federal subjects of Russia they are legally distinct from the Ukrainian originals. For now there is not much information about them, but they are definitely notable enough and distinct enough to have their own articles. Jacoby531 (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By whose laws? It's Ukrainian territory, and Ukrainian law does not allow for them to be legally part of Russia. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 15:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Crimea. PLATEL (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Ukrainian law continues to recognize only the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. However, there is an article called "Republic of Crimea" (federal subject within the Russian Federation). Vgaiyfi (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the fact that Ukrainian law does not recognize these entities does not preclude them from being notable enough to have their own articles. The standard suggested above, if consistently applied, would require the deletion of articles about many disputed territories. I assume all of us here support Ukraine, but that does not mean that the articles we create have to reflect the Ukrainian POV when it contradicts the facts on the ground. Jacoby531 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not arguing that the existing article should "reflect the Ukrainian POV", it is not Kherson Oblast (Ukraine); an article on Kherson Oblast should describe reality on the ground and both claims. Fram (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And by international law there is no such thing as the Republic of China (Taiwan). Shall we go delete the page for Taiwan? RadomirZinovyev (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, thanks for making my point. We have one article for Taiwan, not one for Taiwan (part of China) and one for Taiwan (independent). Fram (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China LOL PLATEL (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Still is quite different when the situation existed for 70+ years instead of 1 day, and is stable instead of fluctuating every day. Fram (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a matter of fluctation. Even if Russia did hypothetically lose this land, it remains in the Russian constitution which forbids successionism or giving away land. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? They can be added to the constitution (it hasn't even happened yet), they can be removed from the constitution, Russia could even cease to exist as a result of this "special operation", Putin could face a coup with the new leaders more than willing to go back to the old situation... Speculating that this brand new thing is now somehow enshrined forever is not really convincing. Fram (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.startribune.com/ukraines-president-no-talks-with-putin-if-its-land-annexed/600210760/, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-territory-idUSKBN20Q1DE Norge17maii (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If such things happen, then it can be discussed in seriousness. But it has not happened.

All in all, this is not a compelling reason these pages shouldn't exist RadomirZinovyev (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately whether something is legal or not doesn't affect the de facto situation on the ground. There are many cases where countries, rightly or wrongly, make legal claims on the territory of another country. JackWilfred (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the need to separate the de jure, internationally recognized oblasts of Ukraine and the Russian, de facto occupied administrative divisions is pretty obvious. They are of historical significance regardless. Bedivere (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious fork. There is one region, so one article. Taiwan was brought up: that's a good example. We only have on article about Taiwan. We only have one article about Crimea. Only one about Jerusalem. Etc. etc. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two pages for Taiwan, did you use your eyes?

Taiwan

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China RadomirZinovyev (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that second article shouldn't exist. Neither should the second article about Crimea. Those are both forks. Levivich (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, okay then, go have a conversation with the people who made the page, get it deleted and then come back here if that's the entirety of your case. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province,_People%27s_Republic_of_China

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan,_China

Not one, not two, but three pages about taiwan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Crimea

Same for Crimea. What is your point? Norge17maii (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this page about the modern day ROC definition of Taiwan province:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Province

So arguably 4 pages about the same plot of land but the differing definitions and concepts for it.

Besides Taiwan and Crimea there is also the examples of at least 4 pages covering Israeli occupied territory seized from Jordan during the Six Day War:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_and_Samaria_Area

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank

to which one could add a fifth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_Areas_in_the_Oslo_II_Accord as it links back to the first 3 of the previous articles and has some amount of overlap with them.

A related example is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_the_United_Arab_Republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Palestine_Government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

There is also the example of Western Sahara:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Provinces

There is also the example of Kuwait:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Kuwait (and this for an entity that lasted less than a month)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Governorate and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddamiyat_al-Mitla%27_District

Beyond that there are countless examples of territories that transitioned from rule by one country or another and then to independence and there are separate pages for each. For example Cyprus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Cyprus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Cyprus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus

Based on the arguments presented so far for deletion then pages like Ottoman Cyprus and British Cyprus should be deleted and subsumed into the Cyprus page. The same with the examples for Kuwait, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Western Sahara and Taiwan.

67.230.48.183 (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Taiwan, there is Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. The article you linked for Crimea is one of three; there is also Autonomous Republic of Crimea (claimed by Ukraine) and Republic of Crimea (claimed by Russia). For Jerusalem, there are separate articles on East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem reflecting different historic and political claims. One region one article is not a standard on Wikipedia, nor should it be. Jacoby531 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So where are all you new editors coming from? :-) Levivich (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Russia. I am a relatively new editor (editing since 2020). I created these articles not because I am a Putinist, a rashist and a victim of propaganda, but because I believe that Wikipedia needs articles about the official regions of the Russian Federation, even if they are not recognized by the international community. PLATEL (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very kind insinuation. You are welcome to look at my contributions; I edit articles related to international affairs very frequently. Jacoby531 (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've voted in hundreds of AFDs over the past few years, including some really, really high-profile ones (Fox News once quoted one of my AFD !votes)... Before I could edit my own !vote to fix my mistake, I've got three separate users (with 300, 77, and 800 edits respectively), all replying with the same talking point... within four minutes of my post. I've never had that happen before. I mean, the AFD has only been open for 20 minutes. Apparently a lot of new users are online right now and watchlisting... more than any other AFD I've ever participated in. That really sticks out to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. You jumped off the topic of deleting the article after bringing worthy arguments against your position. It's inappropriate. PLATEL (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article related to a very current event, so of course a lot of people are watching it. And regarding three people responding to your comment, I think that is because the claims you made about Crimea and Taiwan have already been addressed earlier in the discussion. Jacoby531 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not buying "a lot of people are watching it". The article was created today at 13:26. It was WP:BLARed at 14:14. At 14:15, Radomir (~300 edits), who hadn't edited for 8 hours prior, reverted it. That's lightning-fast; that's someone who is online and has the article watchlisted. I guess it's a coincidence that they happened to log on at this particular time, find this article that was less than an hour old, and make the revert only one minute after it was BLARed. OK, let's assume that was just coincidence.

Then, this AFD was posted at 14:20. At 14:40, Thief-River-Faller (~800 edits) commented here strongly disagreeing with deletion. OK, fine, they were online and editing at the time, I don't know how they knew this article even existed only one hour after it was created, but it could be another coincidence.

Then at 14:46, Norge (78 edits), who hadn't edited in over a month, posts here objecting to deletion.

At the same time (14:46), JanPawel (98 edits), who hadn't edited in 4 days prior, posts here opposing deletion.

At 14:58, you (Jacoby), who hadn't edited in over 24 hours prior, posted here objecting to deletion.

At 15:04, Vgaiyfi (62 edits), posted here objecting to deletion.

All these people, showing up within the first half hour of the AFD, on an article that was an hour and a half old? And this is everyone's either first, second, or third AFD? All of these editors, who aren't typically online 24/7, just happened to pop online at the same time, find this brand-new article, and vote the same way at the AFD? Nope, not buying that. The compressed timing is a tell-tale sign that somebody posted something about this somewhere off-wiki, and that's what prompted some editors to come here and !vote. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PLATEL (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it looks suspicious, and it is necessary to demand investigations.

But still, the opinions voiced by me and not only by me are supported by sufficient arguments to save this article. PLATEL (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PLATEL: Just to avoid any confusion, you are not a new editor (2 years, 10k edits, is "experienced" in my book), and I haven't named you above. I don't think there is anything suspicious or inappropriate about you creating these articles (I might think they should be deleted or merged, but that doesn't mean you did anything wrong by creating them), and I'm not implying that you have anything to do at all with the canvassing that I suspect has happened. Indeed, canvassing is pretty common and not exactly a super-nefarious thing: all it takes is one person posting "OMG they're trying to delete this article on Wikipedia!" on social media... it happens often. But I'm not suggesting you were the person who did it (or anyone else in particular, I have no idea). That said, I still think this annexation is too new to justify a separate WP:SPINOUT or WP:SPINOFF article (unlike Taiwan or even Crimea). Levivich (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for others, but I came across this article because the annexation happened earlier today and I wanted to see if the four occupied regions had been added to Federal subjects of Russia. The article 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine has been on my watchlist basically since it was created.

What is your reason for pointing out that I hadn't edited in the last 24 hours? All that shows is that I edit quite regularly. I check my watchlist every few hours to review new edits on pages I am interested in, including several on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ultimately I think it is unhelpful to jump into a discussion and immediately assume bad faith and WP:BITE people with fewer edits than you. Jacoby531 (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just one person who happened to check within a half hour of this AFD's creation, I wouldn't bat an eye. But six different editors? Nope. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious POV fork. There is one Kherson oblast, part of which is occupied by a hostile force which claims the whole of it. We have an article about the oblast, and we have an article about the occupation. We do not need to repeat the oblast article a second time from the POV of the occupier. Cut it down; it shall not stand.

As an aside, I've noticed more than one Russian editor pre-emptively denying being a 'rashist', a term I am unfamiliar with. Can anyone provide a definition or explanation, please? Thanks. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashism. PLATEL (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People have already presented precedents of what you're arguing against. Your proposition goes against the standard, not affirms. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast per above as fork. The oblast isn't internationally recognized as part of Russia, so the title should reflect that. Brandmeister^talk 16:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of Crimea is also internationally unrecognized. The Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic are also not internationally recognized. Merge these articles into articles about the Russian occupation of these regions? PLATEL (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we have both Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Kherson Oblast (Russia) essentially covering the same topic. Evidently one is redundant per WP:OVERLAP. Brandmeister^talk 16:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have described my argument in a discussion with Wikisaurus. PLATEL (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the name for the merged article would be Kherson Oblast (Russia) since it is now a Russian legal entity (federal subject) rather than just a military administration. eduardog3000 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each region should have a separate article. Crimea has a geographic, Ukrainian and Russian article. Dashing24 (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Even if a separate article for Kherson the Russian subject were necessary, the annexation has not even entered effect yet. The Duma and Federation Council must first approve the treaties signed, before sending them to Putin to approve them again. These are rubber-stamp actions sure, but they are *future* rubber-stamp actions. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion nomination also applies to Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) for the exact same reasons I listed above. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The President of Russia has already signed agreements on the entry of these territories into Russia. Legal registration is a worthy argument, but the same legal documents have already been signed personally by Putin on camera source (source) PLATEL (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC) PLATEL (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He signed the treaties, yes. But this Reuters article notes that "the head of Russia's lower chamber of parliament said on Friday that President Vladimir Putin had notified the house about plans to admit four regions of Ukraine into Russia - a technical step towards Russia's annexation of the territories." According to the Russian constitution, the legislature MUST approve all treaties first, and this was done during Crimea as well. I understand that the Russian government doesn't have a great track record on constitutionality but there is every indication that Putin will go through the required procedures first. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's be honest everyone knows what will happen. At best this is a case to delay the publishing of this article rather than justification for removing it totally. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I'll keep my vote but I won't push back if it isn't. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The precedent for having multiple pages for disputed territories already exists as evidenced in Taiwan. The new Russian Oblasts employ different symbols from the Ukrainian and revert the administrative boundaries prior to the Ukrainian administrative reforms of 2020. To avoid confusion / presenting multiple sets of unrelated data, they should be kept distinct from each other. RadomirZinovyev (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (didn't notice that my position was not framed) I created this article to introduce the legal region of Russia. This article is written in the most unbiased way by me and not only by me. There is a FACT-that Russia has annexed the territory of Ukraine. LEGALLY AND ACTUALLY we have two regions with the same name. In order not to confuse two different official regions of different UN member countries, I created this article. This article is not about the military occupation by Russia, but about the federal subject of Russia. This article is not about the future, because with the signing of the agreement by the PRESIDENT PERSONALLY, the region became part of Russia. The fact that the accession of the occupied territories to Russia is not internationally recognized: a) is reflected in the article, and quite a strong emphasis is placed on this. b) does not affect the actual existence of this region within Russia. It's still an internationally recognized part of Ukraine, but the article is about a Russian-controlled region that Russia claims to be its own and has formalized that. PLATEL (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, as it is a clear fork of it. Wikisaurus (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about military occupation, but about the official region of Russia. These are, however, different things. Compare with German occupation of Byelorussia during World War II and Generalbezirk Weissruthenien. PLATEL (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just it: the official region in Russia doesn't officially exist yet. The actual article is entirely about the occupation. The "History" section begins today. :-) There isn't even any WP:RS about this new Oblast. All of the RS are about the occupation (the annexation, the referendum, both are parts of the occupation). The only source that's actually about this Oblast is the Russian gov't page, which says the oblast was created in 1944, lol :-D What makes it a WP:FORK is that there is no (reliably-sourced) content on the new page that isn't on the old page. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I may be wrong: see Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, which is purely hypothetical, but still the article exists. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. It has not been officially established.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the purpose of WP:Draft. Cf Jefferson (proposed Pacific state) 77.191.226.214 (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is something that needs to be clarified. This article is about a new federal subject of the Russian Federation. Apart from that, it is not possible to merge it with the article “Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast”, since that article is about the ongoing military occupation. They are different topics.

In addition, the article “Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast” is not about the administering authority (the Kherson military-civilian administration), even though the article talks about it.

The article titled "Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast" corresponds to Wikidata item Q111686059 (which is about the military occupation).

There is another Wikidata item, Q113580097 , which lacks an article in the English-language Wikipedia, which is about the administering authority (the Kherson military-civilian administration).

For that reason, it would be wrong to merge these articles, and it could complicate the situation a lot.

This new article, whose Wikidata item is Q114331288, corresponds to a new federal subject of the Russian Federation, and I believe it is convenient to keep it. Vgaiyfi (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC) User has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to cite code numbers from a publicly-editable site in reference to these topics does not mean that they are actually meaningfully distinct from each other. This is basic stuff - you're hiding behind technobabble, but the basic fact is that the Russian government declaring that a dog's tail is a leg does not actually make it so. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a new federal subject of the Russian Federation (...) “Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast” article is about the ongoing military occupation. They are different topics. No. These are PRECISELY the same topic. This is a classic WP:POVFORK. Volunteer Marek 18:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. I also don't think it's a personal attack to suggest that a lot of the people voting 'Keep' here seem very personally invested in the creation of a representation of the alleged legitimacy of this illegal pretence at rulership. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren’t. We have separate articles on the occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk than their respective republics. This is an article about the legal entity that is Kherson oblast as a federal subject of the Russian Federation. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such "legal entity" according to international law. This is a fiction invented by Russian nationalists and now some editors are trying to push it on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 23:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you, @Volunteer Marek. Going by your logics, General Government should be merged into World War II. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not a good analogy at all. Volunteer Marek 23:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: It's a very good analogy – an article about an armed conflict and an article about an occupier-established administrative unit. You argue for merging such cases, right? — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a crap analogy for the simple reason that these oblasts don't actually exist. GG was established by a Nazi decree. Here? There's no law which establishes them. No definition of what they are. What their borders are. How they are governed. Who governs them. Etc. Nothing. This whole thing is made up by a Wikipedia editor. Volunteer Marek 12:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So...The General Government was a legal entity according to international law then?67.230.48.183 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious you have some unrealistic ideas about what international law is. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Realise it might not have been clear, @Kashmiri , but I was supporting your point in asking Volunteer Marek if the General Government was a legal entity according to international law since if he is claiming it is not a good analogy then logically either the General Government was entirely legitimate according to international law and these oblasts are not, OR the General Government was illegitimate but these oblasts are legitimate. Any other permutation would mean that both the General Government and the oblasts were legitimate legal entities under international law - something which he would not seem to be arguing since he is saying the oblasts are not legal entities under international law - or that both the General Government and these oblasts are illegitimate.) 67.230.48.183 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just let me state this: (public) international law is a body of international treaties and customs adhered to in relations between states. Unlike national law, it has no mechanism to determine that an entity is "legitimate" or "illegitimate". If Government 1 decides to establish diplomatic relations with Government 2, then this act of diplomatic recognition legitimises Government 2 for Government 1 – but usually not for any other government.

Consequently, if, say, DNR or LNR were recognised by Russia or Syria, then they were independent states in international law as applied by Russia / Syria.

However, State 1 cannot "recognise" an administrative division in State 2, simply because administrative divisions are not subjects of international law. Only states (governments) are. And, needless to say, states are free to administratively divide the territory under their control as they deem fit.

This whole discussion about administrative divisions being "legitimate / illegitimate in international law" is thus misinformed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 05:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. This is a not-so-subtle attempt to push Russia's nationalist and irredentism claims and pretend these regions are now "de facto Russia" (sic). It's a sly attempt to legitimize illegal seizure of territory, step by step. Volunteer Marek 18:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would take a lot more than a couple of Wikipedia pages to legitimize this land grab. Norge17maii (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. 77.191.226.214 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right. An IP account with 7 edits (which are all attempts to relabel Ukrainian villages as "Russia") is complaining about NPA and linking to a Wikipedia policy with an acronym a brand new account wouldn't be aware of. But hey, at least this clarifies what the true POV purpose of these POVFORKs is. Volunteer Marek 23:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vgaiyfi. Glide08 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Vgaiyfi has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Illegality and condemnation should be (and is) made clear, but illegal or not, there is both a Russian claim over and Russian administration of the occupied territories, and Wikipedia should reflect reality. Zellfire999 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia should reflect reality" is a common misconception. Please familiarize yourself with WP:VERIFY (similarly, WP:TRUTH), a core policy of this encyclopedia PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRUTH doesn’t say Wikipedia shouldn’t reflect reality, though. The reality here is that Kherson oblast exists as a federal subject of Russia, which is verifiable. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen enough reliable sources reporting the existence of an official Russian administration of this oblast to call its existence verifiable, at this juncture. Do you have any to provide? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These administrative entities are currently listed in the official statutes of the Russian Federation, a fact reported by countless reliable sources. The only issue is that the sources can be considered too recent. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep different entity. Taiwan, Crimea as precedents have been mentioned. Re the fact that they are not part of Russia yet, legal procedure is ongoing, see another type of precedent at Category:Proposed states and territories of the United States, e.g. Jefferson (proposed Pacific state), several articles about proposed entities exist. 77.191.226.214 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA with 7 edits. Volunteer Marek 23:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second reminder of WP:NPA 89.14.70.34 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop abusing multiple accounts. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep this page because it is a different political entity.Zyxrq (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article focused on "the governing body of Kherson assigned by Russia" is not needed due to current lack of attestation by WP:RS, and lack of WP:NOTABILITY. Also, this article, as it currently stands, is mostly a WP:CONTENTFORK of Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. Plainly, this article doesn't need to exist until a handful of reliable sources are published detailing the dealings or administration of this oblast by Russian officials. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious case. We already have both Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Kherson Oblast. This is a blatant propaganda push to (ab)use Wikipedia to fake some recognition for an obviously illegal claim. If I claimed to be Czar of Russia and created an article about me, it would be deleted pretty damn quickly. International borders are not changed simply by a declaration, and there is no such thing as a Russian oblast called Kherson. There is a Kherson oblast, and that article exist. There is also a Russian occupation of parts of that oblast, and that article also exists. This article, however, serves no other purpose than to use Wikipedia to push propaganda. Jeppiz (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Depends~~. Regardless of international recognition, a country is allowed to declare whatever it wants, and such things are notable. If Russia has declared that an oblast exists over the region that was the Kherson Oblast of Ukraine, then we need an article on that new oblast. However, I'm not 100% sure if that's the case. The sources are in Russian, so I beg forgiveness, but do we have any source that says an official oblast named Kherson [etc.] has actually been formed? If not, then this article is indeed premature and just a fork of the occupation article. If it has, then please link that. I see sources about the annexation, but none about the establishment of a new oblast. The two are different concepts, and the former is not sufficient enough for a new article. --Golbez (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but the Russian-installed authorities have official websites: https://khogov.ru/ for Kherson and https://zapgov.ru/ for Zaporizhia. They are a continuation of the military authorities established after the invasion, but they refer to the two regions as "oblasts" in Russia. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the article actually say, "The region's borders are not defined", then I must vote Delete. The article has hamstrung its own reason for existence. --Golbez (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and rename to just Kherson Oblast Aoe 2947284 (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Note to the closing admin: this user has done little to no edits outside of this subject. Account blocked for being used for vandalism only (see talk page) - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this would be a good idea, because the Ukrainian Kherson Oblast still very much exists both de jure and de facto (it still controls some territory). Jacoby531 (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna point out that all of this user's edits revolve around pushing a pro-Russia agenda. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA 89.14.70.34 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above IP's edits revolve around this discussion and Kherson in general. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no international recognition for the Russian annexing of the there area.Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the WP policy that would make what you claim a reason for deletion. 89.14.70.34 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or stubify until better sources emerge, since current sourcing is way too WP:RECENT and unreliable for a quality encyclopaedic article. Keep, ample evidence of reliable sources has been presented on this page. As a matter of principle, Wikipedia contains many articles dedicated to unrecognised entities, and normally strives to have separate articles representing all the conflicting claims (thus we have both Kosovo and Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija; Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir (state); Northern Cyprus and Republic of Cyprus). — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious POV fork. Now, the comparison with Lugansk People's Republic is completely off the mark: Wikipedia is a tertiary source which reflects secondary sources. We don't create reality, we passively reflect reliable sources. LNR/DNR have been widely treated in RS, so that's why we have these entries. Right now there is no room at all for separate entries on new entities that Russia claims to have created and annexed. The topic should still be "Territories occupied by the Russian Federation", that is, we have Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast because this is the legitimate topic. Right now an article with the title proposed is a clear POV attempt to hastily legitimize/push Russian leadership's POV.Knižnik (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an obvious Russian governmental propaganda fork. Literally nobody recognizes the annexation. If Russia successfully holds Kherson, then Kherson Oblast should simply be updated with that fact. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From now on Kherson is a new federal subject of the Russian Federation. there is a large percentage of territorial control. This new federal subject will have its own codes, telephone prefixes, has its own flag and coat of arms; and Russia, a UN member country, considers it an integral part of its territory. It is true that this new federal subject of Russia is not internationally recognized; but neither is the Republic of Crimea. What should we do? Shall we delete that article too? Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So. What? I gave my dog his own coat of arms. And yeah, probably should merge Republic of Crimea to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Unfortunately after 2014 people stopped paying attention to Ukraine related articles and Putinistas ran wild turning everything into "de facto Russia" (sic). That shit needs to stop and lots of it needs to be undone. Volunteer Marek 23:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying that a federal subject of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Crimea, whose territory is 100% controlled by Russia, should not have its own article?? Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marek, it does appear that you are emotionally invested in these articles. However, that doesn't mean that you are correct. "de facto" means according to fact, and the factual situation is that Crimea is administered by the Republic of Crimea, and not the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which exists only as a government in Exile. They are two separate administrations, and as such should have two different articles. The same should apply here. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serafart, first, please kindly keep your opinions about my emotions to yourself. Neither I nor anyone else here cares. And yes I know what "de facto" means. What is bizarre however that this terminology has been universally adopted by all the users/accounts which wish to... let's say "represent the Russian side" in these arguments, especially given that this terminology is completely absent from reliable sources (which just call these territories "occupied by Russia"). Volunteer Marek 23:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no representation of "x sides" on wikipedia. I could give you dozens of examples of Azerbaijan/Karabakh, Georgia/Abkhazia, Cyprus/North Cyprus regarding administrative units. Beshogur (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third reminder of WP:NPA ("represent the Russian side") 89.14.70.34 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a PA, and you need to stick to using a single account (I see you hopped onto this one just today). Volunteer Marek 20:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm annexing Ontario. It's now a part of Ohio. Claims don't make reality. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can do that, and I can do that too. But we are 2 guys, and Russia, on the other hand, is a sovereign state member of the United Nations. And apart from that, Russia does have territorial control. So, it's not just a claim. Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC) blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I would also like to add that there is very little on that "new" page that isn't covered on Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. Same goes for the page on "Zaporozhye", and the two "people's republics"! SleepTrain456 (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been active in this area for awhile and one thing which is just plain eerie is how ALL of the accounts that support this irredentist Russian nationalist nonsense keep referencing "de jeure vs de facto" status of these territories. The weird thing is that there is virtually *no sources* out there which use this terminology to refer to them (most sources just call these areas "occupied") yet there are a dozen accounts which use the same strange idiosyncratic nomenklature, like it's some official talking point or something. Volunteer Marek 23:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The territories are occupied for a long time. The difference is that it is no longer just a military occupation, now those territories have been formally annexed; Russia considers them part of its territory (until September 29 this was not the case), and considers them federal subjects within the Russian Federation. All federal objects of Russia should have their own article, as well as all states or counties of the United States. Vgaiyfi (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)blocked indefinitely sock-puppet - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that too. I thought it was some good faith thing at first (even self-reverting a revert of such), but quickly realized how sus everything was when I saw other similar edits. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between de jure and de facto is not strange idiosyncratic nomenclature at all. These terms are very commonly used when discussing disputed claims between countries. And please don't call opposing the deletion of this article "irredentist Russian nationalist nonsense". I oppose Russia's illegal invasion just as much as you do. This is just a disagreement about whether the oblast administrations set up by Russia in the occupied territories should have their own articles. I and others think that they should, based on precedent and other factors, but that does not mean that we somehow support Putin and his invasion. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are very commonly used when discussing disputed claims between countries. If that was actually true then people would have no problem producing sources which actually use these terms. But they can't. Which means it's not true. It's some weird Russian talking point which took off in some corners of social media or something. Volunteer Marek 23:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you try to argue that the term "de facto" is not used for de facto situations in the real world. Looking up the term on google news should have provided you with a plethora of sources using the term to describe regions whose actual control does not correspond with the general legal agreement.

See these articles using the term "de facto" to describe various regions, including these ones:

https://thedispatch.com/p/what-south-ossetia-can-teach-us-about

https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/what-russias-failed-coercion-of-transnistria-means-for-the-annexation-of-occupied-territory-in-ukraine

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-forces-in-push-to-join-up-with-moldovan-separatists-jdtr6vcql

https://www.rferl.org/a/south-ossetia-joining-russia/31779469.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-is-crimea-different-from-scotland-or-kosovo/25296187.html

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/russia-ukraine-illegitimate-results-of-sham-referenda-must-not-enable-illegal-annexation-of-occupied-areas/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/russia-ukraine-war-latest-what-we-know-on-day-218-of-the-invasion

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/19/russia-annexation-ukraine-john-kirby/ Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omg, you literally just gave me a bunch of sources which are NOT ABOUT UKRAINE. Then the few that are, let's see, the rferl source is talking about Crimea being "de facto independent" not "de facto Russia". The Amnesty source (ugh) is talking about "de facto authorities" not, again, "de facto Russia". It's like you googled "de facto + Russia" and and didn't even read your own sources. Volunteer Marek 23:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about precedence for all similar situations. If you read the guardian article that I linked, you would also see that it uses de facto for these specific regions. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few others which use the terms de facto or de jure in the context of Russia's occupation and annexation. These are not pro-Russian sources by any definition:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/28/zelenskiy-vows-to-defend-ukrainians-in-occupied-regions-as-referendum-results-announced

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/28/fake-referendums-in-ukraine-pave-the-way-for-annexation-and-escalation.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/explosions-russia-authorities-kherson-luhansk/32036899.html

And regarding the general use of these terms in international politics, Zelenskyy today said that Ukraine is a de facto participant in NATO and is seeking to become a de jure:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/30/zelenzkyy-ukraine-nato-putin-annexations-00059782

“We trust each other, we help each other and we protect each other. This is what the alliance is. De facto. Today, Ukraine is applying to make it de jure,” Zelenskyy said. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That politico piece actually perfectly illustrates the point! Zelenskyy says that Ukraine is "de facto" in NATO but not "de jeure". Does this mean that we need to run over to the NATO article and add "Ukraine (de facto)" to the membership list? Of course not! Same thing here. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a similar situation at all. Does NATO act as though Ukraine were a member? No, it doesn't. They don't take part in NATO votes or anything or the sort. However, does Russia act as though these regions are now a part of Russia? Yes, they do, and they administer them as such. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 00:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Does Ukraine act as though these regions were part of Russia? No, it doesn't. Just ask all the Russian soldiers that just fled from Lyman (those that could anyway). So yeah, it's similar. Volunteer Marek 20:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense at all. It doesn't matter what Ukraine thinks in this situation, because Ukraine isn't claiming that Kherson is a part of the Russian federation. Russia is claiming that, and they have established a government to substantiate their claims. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though it is all a bit quick. ~~I would expect articles Annexation of.... describing the process in the first instance (the process is not yet completed)~~ I see now Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine and perhaps even Legal/Political status of... as well. It was done for Crimea so there is a precedent. Jerusalem was mentioned which is not directly comparable (no claim recognized from either side) and East Jerusalem (the annexed part) and Israeli occupation of the West Bank (which includes East Jerusalem). Selfstudier (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A new political entity. Our job is to describe it, not navel gaze about its legitimacy and so forth. --Killuminator (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are few if any English language RS's that really describe Kherson Oblast as a federal subject of the Russian Federation. What some gentlemen have been trying to do tonight is creating fait accomplits here. This is not OK. Knižnik (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these articles correspond to federal subjects of the Russian federation, which wile they claim the same territory as their Ukrainian counterparts, are not the same legal entities. As to opposition to the term "de facto" on claims that reliable sources do not back it up, I find those rather laughable, as many sources use the term "de facto" to describe various regions, including these regions:

https://thedispatch.com/p/what-south-ossetia-can-teach-us-about

https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/what-russias-failed-coercion-of-transnistria-means-for-the-annexation-of-occupied-territory-in-ukraine

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-forces-in-push-to-join-up-with-moldovan-separatists-jdtr6vcql

https://www.rferl.org/a/south-ossetia-joining-russia/31779469.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-is-crimea-different-from-scotland-or-kosovo/25296187.html

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/russia-ukraine-illegitimate-results-of-sham-referenda-must-not-enable-illegal-annexation-of-occupied-areas/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/russia-ukraine-war-latest-what-we-know-on-day-218-of-the-invasion (mentions newly annexed regions)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/19/russia-annexation-ukraine-john-kirby/

additionally, even if not used, terms such as "unrecognized" or "partially recognized" (if recognized by other states) could and probably should be used if a consensus develops against "de facto" despite it's use in sources. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, sources such as National Geographic. while not necessarily a news organization, have recognized places such as crimea as de facto Russian: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/29/russia-accuses-google-maps-of-topographical-cretinism/

Some other sources describing Crimea as de facto Russian:

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/28/6075377/nato-is-using-this-map-to-troll-russia-on-twitter

https://thehill.com/policy/international/205673-putin-pays-visit-to-crimea/ Serafart (talk) (contributions) 00:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources for this use for these newly annexed regions:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/even-putin-knows-he-is-losing

https://fpif.org/is-putin-in-a-corner/ <- this source uses de facto to describe the situation even before their annexation. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 00:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world do sources about South Ossetia or Transnitria have to do with anything here? These sources do NOT actually use the term in this way. Volunteer Marek 00:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a POV fork. Hobit (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is properly sourced, being a claimed administrative division a country.Beshogur (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't create articles as if claims were truth. Hobit (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hobit: See dozens of other articles based on de facto situations or claims. Beshogur (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, and Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast covers the claim just fine. If, in a few months or so, Russia holds the thing, we'll need to revisit. But for now, this is a POV fork. Hobit (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a remark: There are three discussion about the 4 new territories created post--annexion. Why not merge these discussion? --Anas1712 (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is talking about the administrative unit within the Russian Federation. it's listed as Kherson Oblast (russia). it's a perfectly fine article. Kappakar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an article titled Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, which reflects the true nature of events on the ground. No need to have a fork just because of the recent show staged in the capital of the occupying power. --Kober^Talk 04:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and IAR salt Existing articles can cover the political and terroritorial realities without a POVFORK. The fact other POV forks exist is an indication they should also be removed. We are here for the READERS, which are best served by a single article covering all facets of the region. Slywriter (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these WP:REDUNDANTFORKs and WP:POVFORKs. We already have at least two articles on each of these places: the geographic regions and political subdivisions in Ukraine Kherson Oblast, and Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Zaporizhzhia (region), and the illegal occupation administrations Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Rename the existing articles if it’s appropriate. —Michael Z. 04:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if we gonna talking about Western politics, remember, Wikipedia is just a detail, and it's not afflicted of any propagandas including Western propagandas. - Jjpachano (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (my opinion is stated above). After reading almost all the arguments, and in particular the arguments for deletion, I came to the conclusion that there is no discussion on Wikipedia as such. But there are political accusations (for example, like here, ME in nationalism and propaganda), demagoguery and emotionality.

I REPEAT FOR THE TRILLION TIME: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE OCCUPATION (there is already an article about the occupation), NOT ABOUT THE SUBJECT REGULATED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE (there is already an article about it), NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE OCCUPATIONAL MILITARY-CIVIL ADMINISTRATION (there is no article about this, but there is , for example, in the Russian Wikipedia), NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY AND LEGALITY OF THE ACCESSION OF KHERSON AND OTHER REGIONS TO RUSSIA, and so on.

THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

Do you think that this subject is illegitimate? I agree with you, but this does not stop him from being a legal entity of Russia.

Please, in case of deleting four articles about the SUBJECTS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, also delete the article about the Republic of Crimea and replace it with an article about the Russian occupation of Crimea. Also delete an article like Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (rename to Serbian occupation of Kosovo). Also remove Northern Cyprus (rename to Turkish occupation of Cyprus).

I could say a lot more, but seeing how nothing was answered to my argument, these will be empty words.

Your dear RUSSIAN NATIONALIST - VICTIM OF PUTIN'S PROPAGANDA. PLATEL (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down and stop S H O U T I N G. I also found this interesting guideline: WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Federation Council hasn't even formally accepted these 4 new subjects of the Russian Federation! Even according to Russian law (more like lawlessness) these subjects don't exist yet. Knižnik (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The presidential decree on the accession of the Kherson Oblast to Russia was signed personally by the president and the "head" of the region, Saldo, and needs only ratification, which will take place in the near future. This is not even a crystal ball, this is an official scheduled event, like the future elections in the countries. This is not a reason to delete the page. PLATEL (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and with that post you basically admitted that my point (CRYSTALBALL) was valid: Putin has signed a decree, but the rubber stamp parliament hasn't voted yet. Even from the Russian Federation's POV the decision to start separate articles was premature. Secondly, none of you ever addressed the fact that there simply aren't ANY English language RS that would treat the oblasts as de facto Russian federal subjects. For the umpteenth time, North Cyprus and Taiwan have been there for decades, of course we have Wikipedia entries. Why I'm advocating a deletion of your stubs is only based on our policies, not on any political views.Knižnik (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to comment here as this is not what the policy says; "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable (...) Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. " By RS this annexation has already occured on Friday, (1, 2, 3 ,4), the rubber stamping of said decision is by no means speculation but a reality and would not be covered under CRYSTALBALL. Tweedle (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The military-civil administration is covered as part of the subject of Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. If it needs a separate article, then a split request is in order, not a content fork.

Isn’t that administration about to be designated a Russian federal subject by Russia? Requires an update and maybe renaming, not a content fork. —Michael Z. 21:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast 2600:8800:2C00:BC00:C11E:5BE8:9E:B414 (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above by many other editors, there is plenty of other articles that have two articles about areas who regions are claim to be controlled by two different states, example: Twain, Cypress, Crimea etc… BigRed606 (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Western Kinburn Peninsula such as d:Q4104252 became Kherson Oblast, Russia. Sharouser (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This pattern of trying to use wikidata references to give an appearance of authority to partisan claims looks familiar. Again, this is a fork article pushing a single point of view, and should be deleted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Kherson Oblast (Russian: Херсонская область, romanized: Khersonskaya oblast'), also known as Khersonshchina (Russian and Ukrainian: Херсо́нщина) is a federal subject of the Russian Federation (an oblast) although this status is disputed between the Russian Federation and Ukraine and most of the international community, recognise Kherson Oblast as Ukrainian Sovereign Territory which is illegally occupied by the Russia.". The fact that the Kherson region is indicated as a subject of Russia is not a pro-Russian point of view (it would be before September 30). At the very beginning of the article, international condemnation of annexation is demonstrated. If people came into this discussion, even if they read the beginning of the article, and not just its title, it would remove half the opinions for deletion. Why is the article "Republic of Crimea" not considered a POV fork, but Kherson Oblast (Russia) is, although both articles are written in the most neutral way? PLATEL (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, I would rather straight Delete this, per WP:FORK. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't put my opinion on this until now (as I had to think about it for a little bit), but I'll also go with delete per WP:FORK. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Clear and distinct difference between the military occupation of an area and the adminstrative unit/area of an occupied area. To take an example, German occupation of Norway details the occupation of Norway during WW2 while Reichskommissariat Norwegen details the adminstrative authority of the occupation. Votes on the basis of CRYSTALBALL can be ignored because the annexation of these regions is set in stone and not a 'possible event/predicition' by any means and votes on the basis that the occupation/claim is not internationally recognised therefore we should delete can also be ignored because that's a completely irrelevant matter entirely. Tweedle (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral I don't agree that this is a breach of WP:CFORK, as these are two clearly separate entities, and I struggle to see how a merger would work in practice (which I imagine is why Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China exists). If the Russian oblasts are short-lived I suppose they would become a historical footnote on the Ukrainian oblasts' articles, but for now they are very real things. JackWilfred (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a POV fork of Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast yes? Hobit (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep By that logic Kosovo and Taiwan should be deleted as they lack UN recognition. We have a precedent from Crimea as well. You can find it illegitimate but according to Russian law it is recognised as such so there should be such article regarding the Russian subject, same as Crimea. This article is about the Russian Federal Subject. Dashing24 (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Moreover many other countries/regions have long multiple articles during different occupations and sovereignty. Dashing24 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's clearly representative of a different POV (the occupation and the de facto Russian political entity being separate things that can have fair NPOV articles), but I do agree that those articles could be merged for now. Switched from 'Keep' to 'Neutral'. JackWilfred (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see reliable sources that establish the existence of Kherson as a Russian Oblast as a truly distinct entity. Instead, the reliable sources (at least the English-language ones; I can't read the Russian-language ones, though I argue that Russian government-controlled sources would not count as independent sources that support notability) establish its existence as essentially a propaganda tool as part of the Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. So merge any distinct content and keep one or the other. My strong vote would be to keep "Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast"; we can always move that later if and when reliable sources establish that the Russian Kherson Oblast is truly established as an independent entity.

(Note that there are lots of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about Taiwan and Crimea. Other stuff exists arguments are never compelling on their own, but in those cases there are clear sources that establish the two as independent entities. Especially as the situation is rapidly evolving, I think readers are better served by one article on Kherson Oblast and maybe one on the occupation rather than splitting content into yet another article discussing a legal entity that I don't see reliable sources discussing beyond the statements that its purported existence is roundly and universally condemned by the international community.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially an Occupation and Oblast one could be merged but it should still have the title of Kherson Oblast (Russia). Wikipedia must be neutral and can't solely rely on English-language sources. Dashing24 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it a Russian oblast is very much not neutral; it is explicitly Russian propaganda, according to the reliable sources. As I said, it's not the fact that the sources are Russian language that is the problem. I am going only on the sources I can read, but I don't see anything in the sources I can read that establish the notability of the Russian oblast, distinct from the occupation. And it is an occupation that the reliable sources call it, not an oblast, so I think occupation is the correct title (but I also think that matters very, very little: Kherson Oblast (Russia) should redirect to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast or vice versa). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[4] here the reliable source Meduza calls the Kherson Oblast the Kherson Oblast, and not the Russian occupation of the Kherson Oblast (with the correct caveat that the head of this region was appointed by Russia contrary to the constitution of Ukraine and, in principle, to the world community). Meduza is indeed not the only Russian-language reliable source, and I would be grateful if even more examples of neutral sources would be given to confirm my words. [5] In this source, the Kherson Oblast is called the "occupation administration of the Kherson Oblast." Which refers not to the military occupation, but to the occupation administration. I recently suggested that the articles on military occupations and their administrations be severed here. I suggested not from scratch and not because of the influence of Russian propaganda, but because it is correct to separate governments, territories and occupations. I can cite many articles as an example where there is this division. [6] This source says that "...Immediately after the annexation by Russia of the Zaporozhye and Kherson Oblasts of Ukraine...", which, as it were, confirms that we are talking about the Oblast, and not about military occupation. PLATEL (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OH god, come on. These sources are referring to the Kherson and Zaporozhia Oblasts of Ukraine. This article is about the fake "oblasts" of Russia. Nice try at a switcheroo though. Volunteer Marek 20:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem extremely fixated on exposing such things as "fake" such as these Oblasts being entities which exist as Federal Subjects of Russia, or the DPR and LPR, or Russian control over Crimea. But that doesn't matter. They exist and they have sources which can attest to their existence. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS seems to in part what you are trying to accomplish here, rather than making an actual argument based off of policy for these articles to not exist. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of discussion. I don't understand why in the English Wikipedia there is such an element of Russian propaganda as the Republic of Crimea? Please start a vote to remove this piece of Russian propaganda. PLATEL (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources cited in the Republic of Crimea article that establish the notability of the Republic as a separate entity and discuss its government and related things. Maybe there will be in Kherson, but maybe not. Either way, there's no rush to establish the separate entity on day 1 before there are sources that support the separate article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This means that it is quite possible not to delete these four articles, but, for example, to make it a stub about a region of Russia, controlled by an administration that controls most of the declared territory, and is in the process of de jure formalization in the Russian Constitution. PLATEL (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE /I don't see reliable sources that establish the existence of Kherson as a Russian Oblast as a truly distinct entity./ - Did you try at https://khogov.ru/ https://tass.ru/ ? 89.14.70.34 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are remotely independent. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using multiple accounts to comment here 89.14. Volunteer Marek 20:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is indeed a separate administrative identity. It's de facto official. There is also the possibility that the territory would remain under Russian rule for years to come just as Crimea, so it would be a bit strange not to have an article of such Oblast. Wikipedia already has lots of articles of very short-lived territories and states throughout history, and that's even assuming if this Russian oblast would be short-lived to begin with. --WR 21:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an "administrative entity". It hasn't been created yet. They can't even agree what the borders are.

DELETE it’s a pro-russian POV fork. Having an entire article about it is giving it undue weight. This page should be changed to a redirect to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. I have seen people say that the occupation and the entity should be in separate articles, bit I think that in this case the entity can be written as a section in the article about the occupation. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 21:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Generalbezirk Weissruthenien a pro-Nazi fork of the article German occupation of Byelorussia during World War II? English Wikipedia expresses the interests of the Nazis and neo-Nazis? PLATEL (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pathetic straw man. Illegal/unrecognized entities really deserve their own articles. In case there are sources treating them as a topic of their own. This is not the case with your concoctions which have 0% additional information to the real articles that have been created months ago.Knižnik (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yay, a series of AfDs on a currently developing military situation! The results of this will be invalid in about a week, but let's not focus on that, and instead let's have a forum where amateur military adminstrators alternately call each other "Russian nationalists" and "Western propagandists"! What joy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Best comment so far Tweedle (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Pov fork of Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. --Yakudza (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above citing the Taiwanese and Crimean precedents. The page existing does not inherently mean any inherent endorsement of any side of the conflict, but a simple documentation of what is going on. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These two "precedents" exist because there's plethora of RS's for either of these. "Kherson Oblast in the Russian Federation" does not exist as a topic of its own right yet. I suggest we stop exercises in faits accomplits.Knižnik (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Russia occupation" articles should be merge into "Regions/Oblast" instead of delete because our oblast are now officialy divided after Kherson, Donetsk PR, Lugnask PR and Zaporizhzhia joined Russia and it's diffrent from the Ukraine oblast despite the international dosen't recoginze. Jjpachano (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON (very too soon). TH1980 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the Chinese and Taiwanese precedents. Demoxica (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep de facto or de jure, it is a reality that there is a Kherson Oblast that Russia claims as part of its territory.—SantanaZ (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such oblast. There is a "treaty" which says such an oblast will be created. As of right now no such oblast exists. This whole thing is one big piece of original research. Volunteer Marek 11:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the Taiwan example 73.170.116.64 (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia already includes pages for all sorts of legal entities, like the Spanish Republican government in exile and the previously-mentioned Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, regardless of whether they have widespread recognition. This page, like that of the other Russian puppet entities in occupied Ukraine, is the best place to put information about how Russia is administering the parts of Kherson Oblast which they hold, now that they have (illegitimately) formally annexed those regions (which is why the article on the "military-civilian administration" is separate). Spacemarine10 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an article for an entity all over the news, so quite notable with or without international recognition. extra999 (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a lot of people (largely but not exclusively new accounts) vote keep by comparing to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, can I point out that there are several important differences rendering that claim moot. First, Taiwan is not recognized as an indepedent country and does not itself claim to be separate from China. Ukraine is an independent country, separate from Russia. Second, the tone of voice is markedly different, with the article on the claimed Chinese province making it clear from the first sentence that this is a claim, while the articles on the claimed Russian oblasts are based on the structure of existing Russian oblasts, hence masquerading as legitimate oblasts. This format is in stark contrast to all reliable sources. In short, most keep votes appear to be based on arguments that simply don't apply here. Jeppiz (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article about Russian occupation, recreate later. There is an unusually heated discussion about the regions. I think nobody here argues that the land grab was in any way fair or legitimate. We should, however, distinguish different situations that are invoked as precedent.
- Taiwan vs. Taiwan Province, PRC isn't as much a matter of separatism but of legitimacy of two Chinese governments, one of which arose victorious in the civil war and the other (the Taiwanese one) was defeated. The Taiwan province article is needed to show mainland Chinese non-recognition of the other govt, and what would happen to Taiwan if China was to overtake the area.
- Autonomous Republic of Crimea vs Republic of Crimea, as well as DPR and LPR vs Donetsk and Luhansk Oblast, West Sahara/Southern Provinces, Kosovo/Autonomous Republic of Kosovo and Metokhia - the subjects are all notable because they were exercising their control over their respective areas for a sufficient amount of time so we can describe each of these independent of the other (i.e. there are sources that describe how de facto control was happening in the area.

Is this the case with newly annexed entities? I don't think so. I agree that they might become notable when coverage of the administration is there, but there isn't any because independence was claimed on 29th Sep and annexation happened on the 30th, so that's a case of WP:TOOSOON. The treaty was formally not ratified by the Federation Council, and though we are sure it will do that, officially it hasn't happened yet.

For now, keep it as a redirect, but when sufficient information exists, we can recreate it. Symbols are not enough, and we can create an info box in the occupation article.

Also, wtf is happening to short descriptions? Republic of Crimea says it is a "first-level administrative division of Russia, annexed territory of Ukraine", which is OK. Why is Zaporozhye/Kherson Oblast "Oblast of southern Russia"? I mean, it's not like Moscow Oblast, is it? Stop copying the general Russian entity template for these articles and quit with that pro-annexation bullshit, whoever adds it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the subjects are all notable because they were exercising their control over their respective areas for a sufficient amount of time"- How long does an entity need to be into existence for it to warrant an article on its own? The DNR article was created the day it was declared into existence. Tweedle (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, but there's no one-size-fits-all answer. WP:GEOLAND, which is controlling for this discussion, says that the notability of disputed regions is "case-by-case". While this normally applies to BLPs only, I'd argue the WP:1EVENT rule to also aid this particular discussion. For now, the only thing that is notable about the new entity is its annexation to Russia, but this is already covered here. Outside of this, there is basically no new event that would establish notability independent of the annexation.

As for DPR article being created at the date of proclamation, let's remember that DPR at the date of creation was Russian-backed+a bit of Russian militia fighting the Ukrainian govt. Basically in that case, we are speaking more of local rebels were rallying for and recruiting soldiers rather than an annexation administration (look up Bougainville and its Republic of the North Solomons). Same for Novorossiya as a confederation of anti-Ukrainian militias. So, we are speaking of different cases. The rebellion was notable at the time, but Kherson Oblast or Zaporozhye as an "independent" country by itself is not, nor are by themselves these regions as Russian federal subjects (yet). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A point of clarification: Russia has formally completed its process of annexation, and, by extension, the amendment of the constitution, but my point stands. There is no notability to be established outside the annexation. That said, I believe that the article will clearly have outside notability once the government starts doing its normal business and when it is covered in RS. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable entity, widely discussed in many sources, regardless of whether it ever actually functions. Analogous to articles like Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia. Furius (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely discussed in many sources"? Really? which sources? Name me at least some. The Russian occupation is widely discussed in sources, hence we have this article: Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. A discussion of to-be-created entities does not exist yet. Szmenderowiecki made valid points: once these entities have acquired certain notability (let's say, like Russian-annexed Crimea), then relevant articles can be created.Knižnik (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have 2 articles for Crimea/Crimea, Taiwan/Taiwan, Kosovo/Kosovo and Metohija etc. so why not Durranistan (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consistency with Wikipedia coverage re Crimea, Kosovo, and Taiwan artices as listed above. – Olympian ^loquere 12:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:POVFORK. --Mindaur (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The (illegal) existence of such a republic in Russia is a fact, the existence of such a page does not legitimize it in any way, so deletion is absolutely unnecessarily. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Really not. If I declare control of the state of Indiana and rename it Hobitland, even if many reliable sources cover that declaration, we don't need to have an article called "Hobitland". We can cover it in other ways. Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast is the right way here. We can mention the claim there. Hobit (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Please don't put nonsense things. See dozens of other related de facto/occupation administrative divisions. This is not something new, and being illegal, doesn't mean shouldn't allowed here. Beshogur (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hobit Really YES. Wikipedia documents events. This is an event. A historical one. Is should be here. You have comprehension problems. As I said, the existence of such an article does just that - documents an important event, it doesn't legitimize Russia's claims in any way lmfao. It's the same as the articles about Nazi Germany's administrative divisions post 1939, its Reichkommissariats etc. It's hilarious that I even have to explain that to you. Please, keep it serious. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is an event. The event is documented at Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. If all you have is personal attacks and name calling, I think you are conceding the point. Hobit (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hobit: Obviously we have such articles. We even have articles about administrative units that never existed – see e.g. Saraikistan. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Can you explain why Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast isn't a good place for this information? Hobit (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Two different things? Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all other (claimed or legal) regions under Russia have their own page, including the others annexed by Russia, no need to delete this. See Crimea, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, Luhansk. These pages do not endorse nor support Putin's annexation, rather provide a page for the administration of the region while it is officially (according to Russia) a region of its country.Yeoutie (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I would point to the recent sources that have come out over the last few days as proof thus us not something someone on Wikipedia is just making up. I would also note that this article deals with the political entity that now exists under Russia's claim, regardless of its breaking of international law, and not the Ukrainian oblast or the military occupation, which are of course all detailed in separate articles. Also, if the Luhansk and Donetsk republics are now historical entities, that means they have been annexed as subjects of Russia, so why wouldn't these two oblasts have the same treatment?Yeoutie (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a claimed or legal region of Russia. No such oblast exists. There isn't a single source in the article which actually documents its existence, even putting aside the legality question. This is something a Wikipedia user invented. Volunteer Marek 11:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be precise:

Zaporozhye Oblast (Russia) is being considered for deletion;

You link two 'republics' allegedly annexed, the articles are historical

Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere; the "geography" and "Administrative divisions" sections of each article are already covered by the non-(Russia) article, and the "history" content is already covered by Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast/Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast/Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine, leaving nothing left. The keep arguments are mostly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or otherwise don't address this redundancy issue. Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast is probably the bests target to rediret to, but I don't feel strongly about the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article repeating other information or otherwise being a stub isn't really proper rationale to delete the article though. An official top-level administrative division of a country should be considered inherently notable in itself, even without additional information or even non-trivial coverage, and there is precedent for this. As an example, every census designated place in the United States, the vast majority of which have no non-trivial coverage from multiple sources and no real information that isn't already stated elsewhere, has its own article, and they aren't even proper administrative divisions. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really apply when the other stuff existing has been discussed, and resulted in such things being regarded as inherently notable by the community. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the notability standard of geographical places, see WP:GEOLAND. Disputed places are not inherently notable, including not by other events or connections to prior administrative units. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fork. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is WP:POVFORK of pages Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. In addition, the subject is poorly defined. If this is about a territorial entity called "Kherson Oblast (Russia)", then does it cover the whole Ukrainian Kherson Oblast or only a part currently occupied by Russia? If the former, this is a misnomer: how can it be "a de facto federal subject of Russia" if a part of the territory is de facto controlled by Ukraine? If the latter, then the Ukrainian forces are taking it back right now as we speak. What territory are we talking about? My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every federal subject of Russia must have specified borders. However, Russian government say they do not knw it [7]

The Kremlin is still determining which areas of occupied Ukraine it has “annexed”, Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson has said, suggesting Russia does not know where its self-declared international borders are.

My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and other respective articles. Just as the "Military-Civilian Administrations" in Kharkiv, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Mykolayiv Oblasts are not separated from the articles on the basis of fulfilling the same purpose, so, too, does it fulfil the same purpose as this article; both this and the Russian occupation of Khersonshchyna detail parts of the latter. I agree with the position of @Szmenderowiecki in that if, in the future, the occupational administrations of the oblasts are worth differentiating from the articles about the occupation, they should be separated into their own articles.

Mupper-san (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is frankly one of the dumbest AFD discussions I’ve seen (it’s not propaganda to have an article about a government administration no matter how illegitimate and unrecognized it is guys come on). Deleting this would kinda be like deleting Committee for the Five Northern Korean Provinces, which isn’t a fork of North Korea. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's frankly "dumbest" is voting for this article to be kept when no such oblasts actually exist! Show me a single source in these article which says "such and such oblast is established", or even "such and such an oblast is going to be established". This is all invented. The Russians just said they're annexing these territories (and we already have an article for that Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine) but they haven't even established what the exact borders of the annexed territories are, much less how they will be organized politically! Volunteer Marek 11:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek Ok I’ll be honest your valid point that the oblast doesn’t exist (though the official website seems to imply it does exist de facto) was lost in your very aggressive conduct. I believed the actual best practice now is to administer a chill pill to those involved in this discussion, Marek and Platel especially MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will concur that it might be too soon for the article on account of a lack of sourcing though, I believe that this should resolve soon however. It’ll definitely be notable in the future though MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing your mind. It's genuinely appreciated. As for the "chill pill" the problem is that some dedicated accounts insist on restoring unsourced and false information and are now trying to spread it to other articles. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Who the hell knows what will happen in the future? Russian defensive lines are collapsing along multiple fronts so who knows how this will play out. Volunteer Marek 11:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Before Russia annexed Kherson, it's an military occupation. After Russia annexed this region, it become an administrative unit of Russia. Why we can't have two articles to explain the difference? BlackShadowG (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Administrative divisions are generally notable, even Nazi-era ones. In other words, all oblasts are notable enough to have an entry, regardless of how short-lived they may be, or how controversial they are, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thing is, I don't think these "administrative divisions" even actually exist. They may at some point but right not all that's happened is that Putin signed a piece of paper that says "we will annex Kherson and Zaporozhia". AFAICT there are no "oblasts" created. They haven't even decided what the borders of these things are supposed to be [8]! This whole thing is a stupid Wikipedia invention! The defenders of these articles are more irredentist than Putin himself. All ohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kherson_Oblast_(Russia)f this is just really really emberassing original research. Volunteer Marek 11:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any region/administrative division must have a specified territory. Russian government openly says they do not know what territory they are talking apout [9]. That's why I voted "delete". My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, that's a fair point and I'd like to see countearguments; if not, I'd be fine with redirecting this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the law (which is total BS, but still) here is fairly clear. Article 3 says that "the limits of the territory of Kherson Oblast are defined by the territory of Kherson Oblast at the time of joining the Russian Federation and the creation of the federal subject within the Russian Federation". The deputy governor says that all of Kherson Oblast and a few settlements in Mykolayiv Oblast (like Snihurivka) are under (Russian) Kherson Oblast administration, so it appears that the claimed territories are defined pretty well (Ukrainian Kherson Oblast + whatever parts of Mykolayiv Oblast they controlled militarily as of 30 Sep); those that they control, not so much. In other words, from the perspective of Russian law no one outside Russia or Syria is going to recognise, there are Ukrainian Armed Forces battalions operating on Russian soil without relevant authorisation and which are attacking the Russian Armed Forces. My crystal ball says that's a good pretext to introduce full-scale martial law due to the (artificially and deliberately created) threat to territorial integrity the Ukrainians pose, but maybe mine is broken. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subjects of the federation are listed in the constitution, and this has not been changed yet. As of today, there are no sources to confirm that there is an administrative unit in Russia with such a name (assuming the annexation of these areas to Russia). The media do not create administrative units, and, in this case, "news" are definitely not enough. Aotearoa (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to everyone voting keep. These oblasts don't actually exist. And I don't mean "they exist but are unrecognized". I mean they don't exist. The Russians haven't even decided yet what borders they're supposed to have! Please actually bother looking through the freakin' sources in the article. Not one, not a single source in these articles say that these oblasts have been created. This whole thing is completely invented by a Wikipedia user. Maybe at some future date these will exist. But they don't right now. There's no law or treaty or anything establishing them. This. Is. Made. Up. Please actually bother looking through the sources in the article - NONE of which support the claims made - before casting your POV driven votes. Volunteer Marek 11:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, JFC, look at the "flags" they stuck into the infobox. Are these official flags? No. Are they even unofficial flags? No. Have flags for these oblasts even been proposed? No, because these "oblasts" don't even exist!. But somebody picked out some flag from ... 1803 and 1869 and decided to make them flags for these imaginary oblasts. This is the kind of original research that you should get indef banned for. Volunteer Marek 11:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(out of discussion about the article)

what do we have here?

ban threats, emotionalism, political bias, an absolute lack of neutrality under the flag of neutrality.

~~you should stop editing the english wikipedia, better take care of the ukrainian wikipedia.~~

without you, the project will exist much better.

if you took this as an WP:NPA, then I'm sorry for the WP:NPA. PLATEL (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to deflect from the fact that you created an article entirely full of fake information. No such oblasts exist. I'll give you credit though, you did fool all the people here who voted "keep" but didn't bother to actually look at the sources. Volunteer Marek 12:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

iq 0

1) What do you think is the criterion for existence?

2) Please remove the article about Atlantis. This is a non-existent region.

3) If you consider government decrees and regulations irrelevant, delete the article about mobilization.

4) Above, I threw off Russian-language non-governmental sources, which speak of the de jure annexation of the de facto occupied territories under the names "Kherson Oblast", "Zaporozhye Oblast", "DPR" and "LPR". Today the State Duma officially ratified this. (official duma website) (BBC).

what else to say? HEIL PUTIN? PLATEL (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) An actual law exists which establishes such an oblasts

2) Atlantis isn't an oblast.

3) There is no freakin' government decree or regulation establishing such an oblast, that's the whole freakin point.

4) Yes, there was annexation. We have an article about that. There is NO establishment of any oblast.

Come on, the fact that you INVENTED a freakin' flag for this imaginary oblast kind of gives the whole game away. Volunteer Marek 13:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you will be surprised, but the regions that Russia even illegally annexed to itself become de jure regions of Russia.

I did not invent the flag, but the MCA of the region. The occupation authorities of the region used this flag at the ceremony of signing the accession treaties. Thanks to those who uploaded and vectorized this flag to wikimedia commons.

~~please leave the English Wikipedia for Ukrainian, you will be grateful.~~PLATEL (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is from 1803. You made up the fact that it was a flag for a non existent oblast. You repeatedly telling me to "leave English Wikipedia for Ukrainian" is a personal attack if not a threat, and it is yet another reason for why you need to be indef'd. Volunteer Marek 13:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what am I threatening or attacking? so that, you will be grateful?.

give me a source that this is a flag from 1803. The coat of arms is a tracing paper on the coat of arms of 1803, and the flag is the flag of the Ukrainian Kherson Oblast, but with a different coat of arms. PLATEL (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this is almost at WP:HOAX level but people here are voting "keep" because, I don't know, yeay Russia! or something. Volunteer Marek 12:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Duma law ratifies the annexation, it does not establish any oblasts. Besides, this is from today, you created this HOAX article a couple days ago. Volunteer Marek 13:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is convenient to write off the opponent's position for Russian propaganda. PLATEL (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This. Is. Fake. Info. No. Such. Oblasts. Exist. This has nothing to do with "propaganda". Volunteer Marek 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When Russia occupies regions, they disappear? PLATEL (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"yeay russia" so your saying that Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China and Autonomous Republic of Crimea pages should exist or Taiwan even cause if you go the "oh it isnt recognized" route then the taiwan page would also be like that Cyclonicpot (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ffs, no. The problem isn't even that it's "unrecognized". The problem is that no such oblast exist. Putin hasn't established any oblast. There is no oblast to be unrecognized. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. This stuff is just made up. It's like if I started an article on The US State of Puerto Rico. Volunteer Marek 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putin did not established the Kherson Oblast, but annexed it de jure. PLATEL (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. Give me a single source which says such an oblast exists. Volunteer Marek 13:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to give anything to the toxic person who called to ban me and other people.

The Russian state already considers the oblast to be its region: decrees of the President, the Constitutional Court, ratification by the State Duma and tomorrow's ratification by the Federation Council.

The Russian authorities did not create the oblast, but (illegally) annexed it.

Give me a single source which says such an oblast do not exists.PLATEL (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You created an article full of false information. Yes, you should be indefinetly banned per WP:NOTHERE and WP:HOAX. No, I don't have to give you a source which "says such an oblast do not exists". Enough. Volunteer Marek 13:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a stub article in which it was written that "The Russian-occupied part of Ukrainian Kherson Oblast was annexed on 30 September, along with Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic and Zaporizhzhia Oblast." An infobox was also added, where the head of the occupation administration of the region and the coat of arms used by the occupation administration were indicated.

I am not involved in anything else, but I am grateful that other Wikipedians developed this and other articles. And you should be banned forever, at least for inappropriate aggressive behavior. PLATEL (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Bullshit. Here is the article you created [10]. It says "Kherson Oblast (Russian: Херсонская область, romanized: Khersonskaya oblast') is a federal subject of Russia (an oblast). This is 100% fake. It was fake four days ago. It's still fake as of right now. You made it up. You know this can be easily checked, right? Why are you even bothering to BS people? Volunteer Marek 13:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if the region is annexed to Russia, then it becomes a region of Russia.

if a person is killed, then he is dead. PLATEL (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 13:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you reject logic? I do not understand. Russia considers the Kherson Oblast to be its region, Ukraine considers the Kherson Oblast to be its region. They have different symbols (see photo), they have different leaders (Saldo), they even have different territories (part of Mykolaiv Oblast). These are different oblasts but with similar names. PLATEL (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep de facto or de jure This region belongs to Russia. And we have multiples pages for disputed regions showings both sides perspective.Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It exists neither de facto nor de jure. Whoever you are. Volunteer Marek 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tass seems to think there are borders Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does that source mention any oblasts? No? Then why are you bring it here. At best this is talking about the borders of territory they want to annex. That doesn't make anything an oblast. We already have an article on Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. There. Is. No. Oblasts. Volunteer Marek 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that RM is needed for whenever they stop referring to them as regions, sure. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean precisely what I say. No such oblasts exists. No idea what RM is suppose to be. Volunteer Marek 13:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait until tomorrow.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL. When this article was created four days ago, no such oblasts existed. User:PLATEL made it all up, and a bunch of other accounts helped him "keep" this fake info. You can't use what might happen "tomorrow" to create and source article four days prior. Volunteer Marek 13:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a separate thing from the occupation because it is a province of Russia (whether it controls any land etc is irrelevant). We have many instances of separate articles for the occupation and then the actual province, i.e. Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Moldavian SSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThalassocraticEmperor (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One. More. Time. No. Such. Oblast. Exist. They haven't been created by Russia. And surprise, surpise, a brand new WP:SPA account created a few days ago, with beautiful infoboxes and userboxes on their user page. This whole AfD is turning into a complete circus. Volunteer Marek 13:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More info on the borders (and says they will continue to be called "regions") Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and even that Russia propaganda source calls these "entities" not "oblasts". No. Such. Oblasts. Exist. They certainly didn't four days ago when the article was created. Volunteer Marek 14:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

exist. article 2 PLATEL (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation Article 2 "From the date of admission to the Russian Federation of the Kherson region as part of the Russian Federation, a new subject is formed - the Kherson region."

Other docs here Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article 1: 1. The Kherson region is considered to be admitted to the Russian Federation from the date of signing this Treaty.

the same source says at the end that the treaty was signed on the same day, 30 September. There is a lot of news about the signing of the treaty, perhaps even in international sources. PLATEL (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also. "According to Article 2 of the Treaty under consideration, from the date of the admission of the Kherson Oblast to the Russian Federation, a new subject is formed as part of the Russian Federation - the Kherson Oblast" PLATEL (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also [11] [12] [13] PLATEL (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is literally no point in having a separate artcle for this Ukrainian territory. All that belongs here can be mentioned in the main article. BeŻet (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - clear POV fork. Can cover the Russian occupation in the Kherson Oblast article until third party reliable sources begin to discuss a Russian oblast of that name. nableezy - 15:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an article on a geographical location, this is a POV fork of Kherson Oblast. But with the formalization of a government structure, an article strictly focused on that structure, a la Judea and Samaria Area, then this could exist. But since the entirety of the contents of such an article would be a sub-article of Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, and as that article is not so large to merit splitting per WP:SIZE, this should be a sub-section of the occupation article. If that size gets too unwieldy then split it off, but in the meantime merge to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast nableezy - 17:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources call the Republic of Crimea as Russian-occupied Crimea. [14] [15] [16]. So why do we leave an article about the Republic of Crimea? PLATEL (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, a new region was formed within Russia. Documents and secondary sources confirm this. Don't go against the facts, please. [17] [18] I created an article not about the occupation, but about the de jure region within Russia. PLATEL (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there exists a structure of governance in Crimea that would overwhelm the article Crimea, and sources discuss that. Sources do not discsus a Russian oblast and its governance structure for Zaporizhzhia or Kherson. We already have an article on the oblast of Ukraine, and an article on the Russian occupation, and an article on the Russian annexation. But as there are not sources that support an article on a Russian oblast outside of those, this is a WP:POVFORK to present the same material in a POV manner. And that calls for deletion. If Russia holds these regions and it establishes government structures there then we can have an article on such an oblast, though it would still probably best be covered in Kherson Oblast with a subsection on the Russian occupation and annexation. nableezy - 15:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles about Ukrainian Crimea, Crimea as a region, Russian occupation of Crimea, Russian referendums in Crimea, and Russian Crimea.

Why shouldn't we have an article about the official subject of the Russian Federation "Kherson Oblast", the existence of which is confirmed by the sources that I threw off?

See also article 7 of the treaty. PLATEL (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give me three reliable third party secondary sources that discuss a Russian oblast called Kherson Oblast. Please review WP:RS before you do that to understand "reliable", "third party", and "secondary" please. nableezy - 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Western sources write about the Kherson Region (Russia) as an "Occupied Kherson Oblast [authorities]". It's the same with Occupied Crimea, but I don't see the "Republic of Crimea" article removed.

1) "Authorities of the Kherson Oblast" (Stremousov)

2) "Authorities of the Zaporozhye Oblast" (Rogov)

3) "Authorities of the Kherson Oblast" (Stremousov)

4) "Kherson Authorities" (Saldo)

"The authorities of the Russian Kherson Oblast" will write only explicitly Russian nationalist resources, which is understandable, as it were.

On September 29, Russia recognized the regions as independent states[19] , which means that we are talking about the authorities first of a nominally independent region, and then about the authorities of the region within Russia.

I will take a break in the dispute, because I am physically and mentally tired of defending my position. PLATEL (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I asked for third party reliable sources discussing a Russian oblast. Nearly all Russian media is unusable in this regard due to the laws criminalizing any criticism of the invasion. nableezy - 16:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like the media, you don't like the documents, you don't like the websites where these documents are published. Please provide examples of what you like. PLATEL (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has nothing to do with my like or dislike. Russian media cannot be seriously considered independent of the government with respect to Ukraine, see for example here for why. nableezy - 16:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You cut off the media of an entire nation just to defend your position. PLATEL (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cut off unreliable sources, and not to defend my position, but rather because it is what Wikipedia requires. nableezy - 16:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like all the other ridiculous FORKS with Putinist irredentist propaganda.Just Alabama (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out the propaganda in the article. PLATEL (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyrenia District and Girne District?? Sharouser (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of it. Government press releases are not reliable sources. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please. point. out. the. propaganda. in. the. article. PLATEL (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The propaganda in the article can be found here. In the article title, the lead, and the body. There is no separate Kherson Oblast in Russia. There is only one Kherson Oblast, and we need only one article to cover it. Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) is correct that the notional subject, as a separate entity to the existing article, simply does not exist. Full stops are not required between words in English. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The official documents of a member country of the UN Security Council, which decided that the region exists as a subject within a member country of the UN Security Council since 309 September 2022, nothing for you, but the opinion of one aggressive person is the base.

THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT DE JURE THE SUBJECT AS PART OF RUSSIA. NO ONE IN THIS DISCUSSION SUPPORTS RUSSIA IN ITS ANNEXATION. the article is written in an absolutely neutral way, your arguments are just the title of the article. PLATEL (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's time for you to read WP:PRIMARY; it's the article's existence, absurd on its face, which is at issue, not the rubbish content. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article "Kherson Oblast (Russian de jure region)" will suit you? PLATEL (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Kherson Oblast is perfectly sufficient. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Kherson Oblast (Ukraine)" is better. PLATEL (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title will now need to be changed, not sure to what, maybe something like Kherson (Russian region). Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TITLE: you'll note that we only use disambiguating parentheses where there are two article subjects with different articles which need to be differentiated. In this instance, there is one article subject - Kherson Oblast - and one article once this POVFORK has been deleted. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article already exists at Kherson Oblast. It's the same administrative unit or province, albeit ostensibly or actually governed from elsewhere. Duplicates of articles which already exist should be deleted per WP:POVFORK. If there is any material worth retaining, which seems unlikely, it should merge into the existing article. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are different regions. With different heads. with different territories. With the same names. Sources above. PLATEL (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geography

It has been created from the territory of Kherson Oblast". Are you saying that you or someone else has deliberately added false information into the article? If not, and this information is correct, the article needs to be deleted immediately. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add anything to this article other than the sources and the infobox. You can (oh horror) REMOVE information from unreliable sources if it looks like propaganda without deleting the article. PLATEL (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could but that would be a waste of time given the article needs to be deleted as it duplicates another article as a WP:POVFORK. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give me one example of duplication in this article. PLATEL (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article subject. Which is also the only example which is under discussion on this page. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The absence of any argument. Thank you. PLATEL (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. "Give me an example" – "No, not the only example that is relevant here!" Cambial — foliar❧ 17:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the documents of different states, now there are two Kherson Oblastss. By combining these two articles into one, or even better, by taking a non-neutral position, we will only do better and definitely not confuse ignorant people.PLATEL (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the documents of a far larger number of states, the ostensible subject of this article does not exist. And so according to the policies of this website the article will be deleted. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find the arguments by Volunteer Marek, et al. pretty convincing. The sourcing is very shaky, and we already have articles about this region and about its occupation and annexation, all of which explain the situation. It may be that we should have this article at some point, but it's just too soon. There's a common fight between WP:RAPID and WP:DELAY at AfD. When it concerns something innocuous, and we just haven't established whether it will have lasting significance, I can see the "take it to AfD later if need be" argument, but for an article that has the potential to mislead or cause harm, the way we should err is clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and my condolences to the closer that will have to wade through the Russian sock farm. This region does not exist, add a paragraph or two to the article of the region that does exist, regarding the sham annexation attempt. ValarianB (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This region de jure exists. PLATEL (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
De jure the region is Ukrainian territory partially occupied by Russia. Which is why we have an article on the Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. nableezy - 16:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete Reichskommissariat Ukraine. This article is a Nazi propaganda fork. Replace it with German occupation of Ukraine PLATEL (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It no more exist than if I stood in a corner of the White House lawn and declared it to be the Greater Principality of ValarianB. You have commented in this discusion more than is healthy, so kindly read WP:BLUDGEON and find something else to do. ValarianB (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not an internationally recognized government sitting on the UN Security Council with veto power. PLATEL (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? We have plenty of sourcing that a region has joined Russia; we have zero sourcing on what Russia thinks of it. Is it a single oblast? Is it an equal member of the Russian Federation? Did they pass a law describing it as such? If so, then we should be able to source that. From what I've seen, we can't. --Golbez (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i think Kherson Oblast renamed as Kherson Oblast (Ukrain) And Kherson Oblast (Russia) also there And in Kherson Oblast we have multiples options just like you search Punjab you find Multiple Options Punjab india and Punjab Pakistan. Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those arent the same place despite the same name. One is in India, one is in Pakistan. nableezy - 17:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork. We don't need two distinct articles on the same physical territory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on the reasoning, because if a country declares a particular division over an area that's identical to another one, it's still a distinct division and deserves an article. For example, if France declared that they owned Quebec, in its borders, then we would still need a "Quebec (French department)" or whatever. That said, that doesn't even seem to be the case here, as no sourcing has been given saying that Russia has declared any oblast in any region. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Russia hasn't declared any oblast, how is it not a POV fork to create an article describing one? If it isn't a fork, it is a hoax... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My disagreement was solely on your saying "we don't need two distinct articles on the same physical territory." We absolutely do if there are two provinces from different countries over the same region. That said, that is not yet proven to be the case here. But if there were sourcing then I would challenge your reasoning. --Golbez (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If were weren't discussing Wikipedia content, where the existence of sources is central to more or less any meaningful discussion, I might consider your challenge worth getting into a debate over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know sources are central. However, that has nothing to do with your challenge, which was purely "we don't need two articles over the same area." We do, if they're called for. This one isn't, yet; others are. You keep trying to bring it back to Kherson when I'm saying the premise of your challenge is flawed. I agree, this should be deleted, but not for the reason you gave. I'd love a debate. --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My assertion that the article is a POV fork is based on my assessment of that specific article. When I wrote 'we don't need two articles on the same territory', I was referring to the territory that forms the specific subject of this article. Not some hypothetical abstraction. If you want to debate abstractions, I suggest you find somewhere other than AfD discussions to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going by your reasoning, we'd need to delete Kraków District, Lublin District and District of Galicia. Same for General Government and Reichskommissariat Ukraine, right? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's making the point you're hoping to. You didn't give any examples of multiple articles covering identical areas. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they is no fixed information about them because of the state of war of both territories and the articles are redundant. Those articles should be deleted and any useful information moved to Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast & Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, later both deleted articles can be redirected there. --Serg!o (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kraków District, Lublin District and District of Galicia also existed only during a war. Should they be deleted? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. This article does not contain any information not already covered better by Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Kherson Oblast. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear POV fork that serves no useful purpose. Can be covered in Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast and Kherson Oblast as mentioned above. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These territories fall under de-facto Russian control and governance, since the Russian government officially annexed and incorporated them into the federation as federal subjects on 30 September 2022. So not under military occupation anymore. These territories are likely to be held under Russian control for decades to come just like Crimea. Stuntneare (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then surely you can find a source saying that Russia has proclaimed an oblast named Kherson over these specific borders? Because no one else has yet. --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, I am not seeing a source, both Russian and Western, that claims that the Russian government has proclaimed these territories as oblasts or republics. But the point is, they have been annexed as federal subjects. I think the process takes time, and surely they will be proclaimed. Just like Crimea was turned into a republic. They cannot just sit around as "regions". Stuntneare (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they have been annexed. But not as "Kherson Oblast," etc. So we can't make up a name that doesn't exist. Of course they can sit around as regions. Just because they've been annexed doesn't mean they've been integrated. --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I do not think this article is WP:FORK. For example, the article of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China exists. This entity is de facto a federal subject of Russia, but de jure a part of Ukraine (Kherson Oblast), so this "region" is a different political entity from the Ukrainian oblast. So an article explaining the situation on behalf of Russia should definitely exist, as reality cannot be ignored. I could've vouched for merging this article with Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, but the article still states that the region is under "military occupation", but the region is officially a part of the Russian Federation since 30 September, so not under military occupation anymore. As for the name part, I agree. Maybe not as "oblast", but as "region" or maybe just as Kherson, until the government officially categorizes it as one of its constitutional subdivisions? Either this, or the article for the occupation of the oblast should be modified? Stuntneare (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely they will be proclaimed"? Reliance on logic like that to argue that the Russian oblast exists is pretty clear evidence that it doesn't. If there are no reliable, third-party sources that establish that the Russian oblast exists, the purported oblast is not notable and the article should be deleted. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decades to come? On Monday, the Russian military acknowledged that Kyiv’s forces had broken through in the Kherson region. It said the Ukrainian army and its “superior tank units” had managed to “penetrate the depths of our defence” around the villages of Zoltaya Balka and Alexsandrovka. [20] I don't know where you got your crystal ball from, Stuntneare, but I'd send it back. Is it still under warrenty? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These areas do indeed fall within an ongoing warzone. Obviously the borders are going to change here and there. Since these territories are officially annexed by the Russian government and proclaimed as federal subjects, I believe any large attack over these areas will now be officially considered an "attack on Russian territory" by RF, which will lead to further escalation, and possible use of tactical nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil, which will most definitely pave the way for NATO and American intervention. Besides, administrative units are generally notable, no matter how controversial or short-lived they are, e.g. Reichskommissariat Moskowien. Stuntneare (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTFORUM. Your personal prognostications of doom are of no relevance to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be considered an attack on Russian territory. What is being questioned is that there is an official "Kherson oblast" as a member of the Russian Federation, and no sourcing has been given for that. Simple. Give me a source that says the Russian government has admitted a new oblast by this name, or this should be deleted. It has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the annexation, if anyone is making up shit (seriously, the absolute bullshit that is being flung around this AFD, "what if i name france after myself does it get an article" no, you dunces. you're arguing in bad faith and I will call you out on it.) or anything other than: Is. There. A. Source. That. Says. The. Russian. Government. Has. Created. An. Oblast. With. This. Name. In. These. Borders. Period. NOT DIFFICULT. All other arguments are utterly meaningless and just serve to make people get off to the sound of their own voice. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two major issues: Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast already exists (for some reason it's been edited to suggest the occupation is over because it was annexed, which I find incoherent), so this is a WP:POVFORK, and nobody has found a source for there being a Russian "Kherson Oblast" so it's also a WP:HOAX. Tartan357 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised to know the Russian occupation of Ukrainian Kherson Oblast documents... the Russian occupation of Ukrainian Kherson Blast, while the Russian Kherson Oblast article documents the administrative division of Russia. You say there is no source for a Russian Kherson Oblast yet the Russian puppet government dubs its VK account Kherson Oblast Administration (its short URL also says so: khersonoblast_adm). The official Kherson Oblast, Russian website calls it "Херсонской области" (Khersonskoi oblastyi, in my humble transliteration). So yes, there is a Russian Kherson Oblast, like it or not (I don't like it at all if you ask me). Bedivere (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what the puppet government says, I care what Moscow says, and no one has shown the federal government saying anything on this. But, meh. I'm tired. This is tiring. How do you people put up with this nonsense, day in, day out, years on end? --Golbez (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On another note the Russian puppet government pretends it is the "continuation" of the Soviet oblast established in 1944. There was a USSR Kherson oblast, fwiw. [21]

Same goes for the Zaporizhia Oblast, which the Russian puppet administration calls "Запорожской области" (Zaporoyskoy oblasti). This one isn't (doesn't pretend to be, at least) a "continuation" of a USSR oblast, though. [22] Bedivere (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article about an administrative division, or province, or oblast, is not about an abstract notion that exists only on paper but about a physical place, soil, populated by actual people. The physical place and the people resident in it already have an article, Kherson Oblast, and there is nothing to justify the creation of a duplicate article, like this one, to POVFORK its allegiance or governance. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. There is undoubtedly an administrative de jure division which exists both in Russia and in Ukraine. It's not our duty to judge their legitimacy. Bedivere (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How one opts to judge their legitimacy is not relevant in any way. Nothing in the comment you replied to suggests doing so. The Russian Kherson is the Ukrainian Kherson. They are the same space. We do not duplicate articles as POVFORKs, as in this case, so that they can be dressed up as something else. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know we could argue the same about many historical division articles which are "the same space" as current divisions. Bedivere (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions are internal to the state. Azad Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir and Kashmir conflict all relate to the same area. Yet Azad Kashmir is an administrative region of Pakistan with its own laws, government and language; Jammu and Kashmir is the same claimed region but within the structures of Indian administration; while the Kashmir conflict applies to - yes, you've guessed, an armed conflict. By the way, neither Pakistani nor Indian claims are accepted as permanent by the UN.

Conflating all the three Kashmir articles would be a misunderstanding. So why are you proposing the same here? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed nothing of the sort, and your exercising an apparently endless capacity for transparent and facile straw man arguments on this page does not advance your position. Control of the areas in the Kashmir dispute is widely recognised diplomatically, with significant diplomatic support on various sides. In this case practically the entire world, and the UN, sees it as an illegal occupation. Territorial disputes are not a matter of domestic law, they are governed by international law. So Russian "legal" proclamations do not establish a new entity on the territory of a foreign state. This article takes a dubious primary source and the servile Russian media which stenographered it, and repeats it as fact. That's a WP:POVFORK of the existing article. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems pretty obvious from everything above that this is a POV fork that is being supported by primarily a bunch of SPAs making claims that clearly represent a bias toward the Russian government. There isn't actually an administrative zone or governance in this region over this territory, which is the main issue with this article existing. Governments can make claims of territory however they want, but unless and until they have actual involvement in said territory, those claims should be represented in brief in the primary top level article on the region. Not in a POV fork of an article attempting to create legitimacy to said government's claims. Silver seren^C 23:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"actual involvement in said territory"? Wow, wow, wow, a new notability criteria in the making. Have you checked the many articles about contested regions listed on this page? Just scroll up. In all these cases, usually only one party has an "actual involvement in the said territory" and the other has only claims. Yet, we strive to represent both views. Not even mentioning that in the case of Kherson region, Russia is exerting actual control over much of the contested territory. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have and they are either fulfilling exactly what I'm referring to, such as Crimea having an actual administrative government connected to Russia, or are poorly titled for what they represent, such as the Taiwan Province article, which I think should be re-named. The latter is also just a pretty terribly constructed and laid out article anyways and I question its relevance and legitimacy as being separate from the general Politics of the Republic of China article. In fact, I think some additional AfDs and/or merge discussions are needed, because there is some blatant POV forking going on by having Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, Taiwan, China, and Free area of the Republic of China as separate articles. The lack of proper content organization in them and vague overall purpose exemplifies the issue. Silver seren^C 00:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above as a POV fork of something that doesn't really exist. ansh.666 01:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. It is premature to have an article WP:CRYSTALBALL as we don’t know whether this political designation will persist long enough to merit an article on its own. But people will search for the term. Redirect them to the proper place to see info about this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IMO, these articles are not POV forks, a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL or represent stuff that doesn't exist. These oblasts do exist, they have governments and land (even though the Russian leadership appears unsure exactly where the borders are supposed to be due to the rapid advance of the Ukrainian counteroffensives). To keep these articles is also not a POV statement. We have articles on other illegally annexed / civilian-military administrative areas as well, such as the Nazi German Reichsgau territories in WW2. As others pointed out above, there is also a distinction between the topics of the articles relating to the Russian occupation and the articles about the administrative areas. Applodion (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"they do exist, but no one can tell us where they are or what their name is" is not the most compelling argument. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: Historically speaking, "no one can tell us where they are or what their name is" has been the most common situation for state-like entities and administrations. When the United States were founded, no one knew where their western borders were either. In most ancient, medieval, and early modern states clearly defined borders were rather uncommon. Applodion (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still nobody knows where the borders, e.g., between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are. Or the borders between Israel and Palestine. Fortunately, nobody proposed to exclude either country from Wikipedia because of that. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did that strawman take effort, or is it just an innate skill of yours? If Wikipedia was around when the United States annexed Hawaii, we would have been incorrect to have an article titled "Hawaii Territory" because it had not been created yet. It is possible to be part of a country and not one of its units yet. We are in that situation here, at least as far as we can tell, because despite being given more than enough time you people haven't been able to supply a single source saying that the federal government of Russia has added a new unit. Show me an article that says that Russia has created/admitted a Kherson oblast and this all ends. Til then, you're crystal balling. If you don't understand this then I guess we're done here. I'd've thought someone who's been here so long would understand how words work instead of repeating same bullshit arguments. --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The specific borders don't even matter, because we don't even have a source saying there is a "Kherson oblast" in Russia as an equal member of the federation. People have tried to say "the locals have a website" as if that means anything. The fact that you can't answer this question because no one knows means everything to this AFD. Give us a link saying that the federal government has admitted/created a new oblast and this is all over. Til then, no article for you. --18:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC) Golbez (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it's official. The constitutional amendments are in force. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as legally the borders of these annexed territories are undefined which Russia has self-admitted to: [23], [24]. We already have 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine which aknowledges Russia's actions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete ~~and~~ or rename as Kherson military–civilian administration. If we remove those references that are primary sources, that is all we are left with. It is a very complicated subject that needs reliable, independent, published sources like these [25] [26] [27]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IntrepidContributor: I don't think sourcing is an issue here. The problem is border definitions and pointless duplication of content already found in other Wikipedia articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledgekid87 but sources are the issue here. The article uses the Kremlin, Russian government and Russian state media as sources when they are clearly not independent of the subject. How many independent reliable sources call this area an Oblast of the Russian Federation? IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be redundant to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. nableezy - 18:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this article is about the political administrative division, not the process of occupation of the area. Bedivere (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast is not about the "process of occupation of the area", it is about the time period that the oblast is held under Russian occupation, which continues regardless of any moves by Russia to claim the territory as its own. That act, annexation, also has its own article. nableezy - 23:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What administrative division? No source has been shown saying one exists. We have some sources from local officials but they don't matter for this question. --Golbez (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For instance this. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a source! From yesterday! Days after we started asking for one! Thanks finally! Jesus fucking christ what a waste. --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ok? Are you sure you don't need a stress-relieving therapy? The search took me around 45 seconds, and I only pasted one of the top results. Feel free to search for more, they are there, because the Interfax article mentions that the new oblasts are listed in the law of 30th September. And try to stay calm ;) — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is me -after- my therapy. Of course you were able to find one now, because it's new and didn't exist when we asked. Don't suddenly behave like you had this the whole time. --Golbez (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptive title for the two "regions" can be decided via an RM in due course but the Russian legal entities that have been created (see https://tass.com/politics/1517425) also exist and have a description even if it is not complete. Personally, I have no difficulty in maintaining this concept simultaneously with the idea that the physical space is occupied. The rush to create these articles was a bit unfortunate but so is the rush to delete them. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the article was premature and should have been deleted. That we finally have sources doesn't change that. "but so was the rush to delete them" incorrect. --Golbez (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or Support the renaming It's clearly specified in the title that it's of the terrorist's control. Same goes for the Kherson military-civilian administration. Same goes for all the other Oblasts. Dawsongfg (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok try again but this time make sense. --Golbez (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what the heck is wrong with that Dawsongfg (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POVFORK. We already have Kherson Oblast, Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast, and Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. That's plenty. This one has a POV title, which doesn't help. I am confused whether this is one discussion for both Kherson and Zaporozhye, or if there is a seperate Zaporozhye discussion somewhere. I think both should be deleted. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two so called regions are bundled here, then Luhansk and Donetsk are AfD separately. Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork. The arguments of some in this discussion about notability and such are misplaced, as this is not the basis for the nomination. The real issue here is an editorial one as to how to manage the information regarding the territories. We need to have NPOV information regarding their status, allowing for documentation of the Russian claims and the rejection of those claims by most of the world. We should not require our volunteer editors to divide their attention among multiple articles when the information can be effectively and concisely contained in the existing article. We can already see there is an appetite to get ahead of what the NPOV sourcing supports; we know from experience that forking makes this worse. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep offensive as it is, it is a thing exists, or at least a thing that a nationstate claims exists. This is article about the adminstrative division as claimed and put into existence by Russia. As Wikipedia shows in plenty of previous cases we have independent articles about the internal structures of countries, irregardless to territorial control, conflicting claims, or even reality. It's not our place to argue right, wrong, control, borders, or for how long. Wikipedia documents. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under this argument, we would be required to also create a new article titled "Kherson Oblast (independent state)", referring to the status that Kherson Oblast held on September 29, 2022, when it briefly existed as an (allegedly) independent state with Russian recognition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, this might as well be one of the biggest discussions on Wikipedia even though it probably isn't. Dawsongfg (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Flag of Kherson Oblast (Russia) was created while this AfD has been proceeding, and has been nominated for deletion. Tartan357 (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a subnational government which is obviously notable. We need to follow WP:NPOV here, we can mention that it's not internationally recognzied but not having the article at all would be taking too strong of a position on this issue. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going to elaborate on this a bit: when we look back on this in the future, regardless of if these are returned to Ukraine or become recognized as part of Russia, we'll have separate entities for the Ukrainian oblast and the Russian one. For example, we have Santa Fe de Nuevo México (Mexican state) and New Mexico (U.S. state). Both the Russian and Ukrainian oblast are separate things, with separate administration, even though they claim to administer the same territory. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The temporal element is crucial here. I'd argue that the status quo has not existed for long enough for us to take any kind of strong stance on the issue. And yes, recognising Russia's claim by creating a "Kherson Ob., Russia" article is a strong stance, contrary to what you've said above. So, indeed, the best option right now would be to quarantine (hide, but not delete) this article until a stable status quo arises. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The oblast has been formally created by Federal Constitutional Law No. 8-FKZ dated 04.10.2022 and Saldo is now the acting Governor [28]--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek @My very best wishes Per our short conversation above, wouldn't that address your objections? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. The subject of the page (Kherson_Oblast_(Russia)) must be something really existing and defined, rather than just a piece of paper. Two things need to happen: (a) Russia must define the territory of their alleged "districts" (so far they did not [29], same in CNN today), and (b) that territory must at least de facto belong to Russia (the title say "(Russia)"). Tha latter is clearly also not the case because the Ukrainian forces are continiing to make advances on all four territories every day. My very best wishes (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that theory, all the occupation articles need to be deleted because the occupied territories are not defined either. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We discuss this page. This is allegedly NOT an "occupied territory", but a Federal district of Russia or another "oblast"' of Russia: Kherson Oblast is an entity which Russia considers to be one of its federal subjects, an oblast..., as this page says. All Federal districts of Russia so far had well dedined territories and de facto belonged to Russia. Third problem is that the "districts", however defined (they are not defined and de facto do not belong to Russia) also do not belong to Russia de juro, i.e. according to the international law. My very best wishes (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page does not say it is an occupied territory, one is a mirror of the other. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does not. It says Kherson Oblast is an entity which Russia considers to be one of its federal subjects, an oblast... (read my comment above). My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I still believe this page is a POV fork of Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two different situations with two different descriptions, not a fork. Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One is about the actual occupation, another is fiction on paper that does not deserve a page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say tomato...:) Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judea and Samaria Area <- fiction on paper that still has an article. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have to create a separate page about every fantasy claim by Russian government. We should simply mention such claims on other relevant pages, such as Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. If it really existed as a federel subject of Russia with defined borders, then it would be different. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference between us is that you see the physical reality more whereas I see it as merely a legal construct. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The example with Judea and Samaria Area only proves my point: it has defined borders and it is "internationally recognized" as our page says.My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per my previous comment, it says the area is internationally recognized not the administrative district itself, which isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Judea and Samaria Area is an internationally recognized area with stable and defined borders, but "Kherson Oblast (Russia)" is a "district" of Russia on paper with no stable and no defined borders. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See here. The claimed borders are defined. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not, at least according to Peskov, an official representative of Russian government [30] (this is CNN today). In addition, #2 (that must be de facto a part of Russia) remains. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judea and Samaria Area is an internationally recognized area with stable and defined borders Nope. JS Area is merely a legal entity. Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed borders are defined Yes, that's it, key word "claimed". Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true that Russia does not control the entire region, but we should follows the facts on the ground, which is that the region exists, even if only on documents.--Sakiv (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sakiv, this is contradictory. The lack of control is "the facts on the ground", and an "existence" in documents, whatever that may mean, is thus directly at odds with "facts on the ground". Drmies (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although it does not control territory, there is an article for the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. There are many other examples. There is no contradiction. Here Russia captured a large part of the land. The problem with this article is finding the sources. Sakiv (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apples and oranges. It does control territory, of course, at least partially, whereas China controls no territory in Taiwan, but that's another matter. Yes, there is a contradiction, because you cannot claim the "existence" of the region on documents if there is no real-life control. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Drmies, first, all countries have rights and duties, and Russia, when it claims the existence of the Kherson Oblast, has its reasons, and one of the reasons is its control over a significant part of the region. Secondly, the absence of recognition of the Russian annexation does not mean a unanimous international rejection of it. On the contrary, there is no contradiction in my words, and I only expressed my support for such articles when there is absence of any authority controlling a region and at the same time there is an administration that claims to exercise authority over it, such as the Taiwan Administration of the PRC or Abkhazia of the Tbilisi government. Sakiv (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sakiv - Russia doesn't need to designate Kherson as a province (oblast) of Russia. Russia could have just as easily held indefinite control of Kherson as an occupied territory, which it had been doing for seven months prior to officially annexing the territory. The previous Russian occupation of Kherson was described as the "Kherson military–civilian administration". | In another example, Israel has been occupying the Palestinian Territories for decades, but it has only officially annexed East Jerusalem (also the Golan Heights, annexed from Syria). Israel describes the West Bank as the "Judea and Samaria Area", but Israel has not officially annexed this territory yet. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Certain political entities that are "divided" (e.g. Kashmir, Fujian, Jerusalem, and Nicosia) have multiple articles, but the distinction is that most of these are the continuations of relatively old status quos. The Russian-Ukrainian division over regions like Kherson Ob. and Zaporizhzhia Ob. is relatively new, and it is also probably not even going to be permanent. Russia officially annexed these territories, which it had occupied for months, in order to cement its claim to the region. However, that doesn't change the facts on the ground. On the ground, Russia has been losing control of pieces of their newly-annexed territories here and there. Just within the past few days, Russia has lost significant chunks of Kherson Ob. and Donetsk Ob. on the battlefield. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a reference point, Russia instated an "independent Republic of Crimea" and "independent Kherson Oblast + independent Zaporizhzhia Oblast" during the process by which these regions "seceded" from Ukraine and acceded to Russia. The independent Crimean Republic last for only around four days, whereas the independent Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts lasted for only one day. We don't have distinctive Wikipedia articles about these three independent republics because they simply didn't last long enough to be of any meaningful significance, even though they technically were recognised as fully sovereign independent nations by Russia during their brief existences. Theoretically, if were going to be absolutely stringent, we would be required to create independent articles for these three short-lived "independent" sovereign states. However, that would be an obvious content-fork, not to mention a general POV issue. And, at the same time, this logic can be applied to the current status of the "Kherson Oblast (Russia)" article and its brethren. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For all intents and purposes, I regard Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia as "divided" regions, much like Kashmir, Fujian, Jerusalem, and Nicosia, because both Russia and Ukraine claim + control territories that possess the exact same names (bar spelling differences) and personalities. Russia does not claim that "Kherson Ob., Russia" is a separate polity from Ukraine's "Kherson Ob., Ukraine", and likewise vice versa. Russia is effectively claiming absolute authority over the pre-existing Ukrainian entity, and hence we are not dealing with two wholly separate entities here but rather one single entity that is divided between two governments. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but (in theory at least) they have different governments, administrative structure, laws, budgets, official languages, and so on. Articles are about administrative entities, not really about the geographic region. Compare: Jammu and Kashmir (state) (old Indian administration) vs Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) (current Indian administration) vs Azad Kashmir (Pakistani administration) vs Kashmir (geographical region) vs Kashmir conflict (armed conflict). — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri - In the case of Crimea, we have an article about the geographic peninsula of Crimea as well as articles about the Russian claimed+controlled entity -- Republic of Crimea -- and the Ukrainian claimed entity -- Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Indeed, we actually can define areas as both geographic and administrative areas. It's just that Kherson and Zaporizhzhia aren't compelling as geographic areas in the same way that Crimea is. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are effectively just small chunks of the larger Eurasian Steppe, whereas Crimea is a distinctive geographical feature. This is similar to how Taiwan is an island, so it can be easily defined in terms of both geography and political administrations (ROC vs PRC). | Note: We actually have an article called "Donbas", which covers Donetsk and Luhansk together as a "historical region". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of opinions, there is a real-world administration which is/will be (I'm unsure of the chronology here) a federal subject of the Russian Federation. As such it's a valid article. --Soman (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the precedent of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. Indeed, this is a more clear-cut example than that because Russia at least controls some of this territory currently. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is the problem. What territory? My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a comparison, I just searched up "Islas Malvinas", and I was redirected to the article about the Falkland Islands. The former is claimed by Argentina, whereas the latter is administered by the United Kingdom. So, it seems that it's not necessarily a universal practice to create articles about territories that are claimed but not controlled. "Taiwan Province, PRC" is one of the more prominent examples, but I think it exists due to the higher level of controversy surrounding the matter. Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations, and the UN usually describes Taiwan as "Taiwan Province, China". On the other hand, the vast majority of the international community, including the UN, recognises the four Russian-annexed regions as part of Ukraine. So, China has a lot more international support in its territorial claim to Taiwan than Russia has in its territorial claim to parts of Ukraine, objectively speaking. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Falkland Islands don't have their own subnational entity in Argentina, but claimed as part of Tierra del Fuego Province, Argentina. If they were their own province, then that would merit an article. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli - That's not correct. A country has first-tier subdivisions, such as provinces and regions. But countries also have second-tier, third-tier, etc. subdivisions. Islas Malvinas would be classified as a second-tier subdivision underneath Argentine Tierra del Fuego, so it is still an official subdivision of Argentina, just not a first-tier subdivision. On Wikipedia, we have plenty of articles about second-tier subdivisions of various countries. | On Spanish Wikipedia, the article named "Islas Malvinas [es]" covers the Falkland Islands. Meanwhile, Spanish Wikipedia has an article titled "Departamento Islas del Atlántico Sur [es]" (South Atlantic Islands Department), which covers the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands + S. Georgia and S. Sandwich Islands as one of the second-tier subdivisions underneath Argentine Tierra del Fuego. On English Wikipedia, there is no such article, although the claim is mentioned in the Argentine Tierra del Fuego page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second-tier subdivisions are different from first-tier subdivisions though. Particularly, in many countries, including Argentina and Russia, first-level administrative divisions are federated states that in effect are made up of all their constituents. Second level administrative divisions (for example, in the US, counties) don't have nearly that same level of importance and are generally created by a federated state for administrative purposes. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've pointed out above, Spanish Wikipedia actually has an article about the Falklands + S. Sandwich and S. Georgia as a second-tier subdivision. English Wikipedia doesn't have an article covering this topic, but it theoretically could. Indeed, on the topic of federated nations, the People's Republic of China is a unitary state, and yet there's an article about Taiwan Province, PRC. So, clearly, there is no consistency with this issue. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure, but that doesn't contradict what I've said. I think it's pretty clear we should have an article on every first-tier subdivision claimed by any country (except if a country would do something silly, like create hundreds of first-level subdivisions claiming random things with no justification or action). Second-level subdivisions simply matter much less. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just go ahead and create them. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider doing so if not for the impression of WP:POINT (might create them after this AfD, when that would no longer apply). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is something very unique and interesting in such context (I did not know). I think it misrepresents the government of Taiwan as belonging to PRC, which is done by PRC on purpose and seems to be sourced. But unlike the "Kherson Oblast (Russia)", it has defined and stable borders, not a subject of active warfare (yet). My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Austim[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. And I don't think the author is clear on what this page is for. First, they created it as a redirect to Austin. Then they changed it to a redirect to Autism. Then they changed it into a soft redirect to the non-existent Wiktionary entry wikt:Austim. Then the article was speedy-deleted as a test page, I'm supposing based on the factors I just covered. Now the page reappears, as a sort of anagram/misspelling disambiguation page that, if this is justified, justifies a redirect or disambiguation page for just about every misspelling and anagram of any word anybody can think of. Even if we have "R from typo" redirect pages (and that isn't for the purpose of making up typos to redirect from, it's for when the original title of a page was a typo and the page was then moved), I don't think we have disambiguation pages based on arbitrary non-existent key words. Largoplazo (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dab. I think this is a much more likely misspelling of Autism than Austin, so I am OK with redirecting to Autism also. MB 14:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete we don't need disambiguation links to every possible mistyped word, it's pointless. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with Oaktree b, this disambiguation page seems pointless. They seem like rare typos to me, compared to something like "Auston" or "Autisim". Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Autism would be the best solution for this one. TH1980 (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's an Australian Industrial and Mining Corporation mentioned in Haw Par Corporation as using "Austim", and a basketball team in Zamal Nixon, but neither looks notable! Have fixed a couple of typos in references which included "austim" for "autism". PamD 07:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 (User:Mdelnegro12) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Championship v1.0[edit]

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

I redirected this one to the season article, but was reverted. The sources for it are all primary, the actual article title yields zero hits, and even turning it into two terms only gives a press release[31]. An immense amount of statistics (an endless series of "Records established" for a first game ever), and all of this for the final game of a 4-team competition. Fram (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like the idea of this article, it's a unique league and the "fan-controlled" aspect is quite interesting and groundbreaking. Some might say silly... but that's not a reason to delete. However, as written the sources just aren't independent. An enthusiastic editor (not me) may desire to userfy this article and prep it with proper independent third-party sourcing should any be found. Until then, as the guideline reliable sources states, "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Legoktm (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzhak Suknik[edit]

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

Semi-procedural nomination. The article has been deleted before (under a different name: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Koza_-_Yitzhak_Suknik), but comparing the current version and the one just after the AfD, I am not convinced WP:G4 applies. In particular, many references have been added and/or substantially improved in terms of formatting. Still, after an (admittedly quick) look at the ref list, there does not seem to be anything that rises to the level of WP:GNG. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, Judaism, and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can't confirm because I don't have access to all the sources and can't read Yiddish, but I suspect the referencing is now adequate to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can read Yiddish (but not Polish) and can confirm that citation #1 Hurbn includes a 2 page biography of the subject on page 219 of the PDF (which corresponds to the actual page citation of 533-4 given in the article). Coverage in the other sources is more fleeting, but given that I wasn't even able to access half of them online I'm relatively comfortable !voting keep on the basis of the strength of the sources I could read. There's OR-ish content where citations to sources describing general conditions or events in the ghetto are tied to claims specifically about Suknik himself, which should be cleaned up, but that's not cause for deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep Article may need a little love and some work on the references but the guy does appear to be notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I see a rough consensus to delete this article which I have to honor...but this outcome seems surprising considering the previous AFD held two weeks ago which showed a great deal more support for this article. But Delete it is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have since found out that the most ardent article Keep supporter in the previous AFD was a paid editor who was compensated for writing this article. So, them being blocked had a clear effect on the outcome of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calin Ile[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Not one reference in the first two blocks. They are all WP:SPS or interviews . scope_creep^Talk 08:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Romania. Madeline (part of me) 12:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons stated during the first AfD. A morass of puffery about a small-time businessman does not make for any kind of notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've come back to this nomination a few times, I'll go with a deletion !vote here. Agree with what's said above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of November 2019 protests in Iran[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of non-notable people. Fails WP:NOT. No justification for the existence of such a list. T v x1 10:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The names of these non-notable victims are meaningless to almost all readers. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a mess! 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. This is just a long list of mostly non-notable people. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE a list of non notable person.Saturnrises (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Agletarang (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Match wagon (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A disambiguation page is not required (WP:ONEOTHER). The primary topic redirect Match wagon points to an article Barrier vehicle which has a hatnote to the only other use at Flatcar. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DAB has been tagged for ((one other topic)) for over 2 months with no new additions. Disambiguate with existing hatnotes instead, per nom. Hoof Hearted (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MB 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peter Horn User talk 16:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. It's fairly clear this AfD has attracted the ethno-nationalist bickering that makes discretionary sanctions necessary in this area. What arguments are based in policy and evidence are evenly divided. It's worth noting that fringe theories and movements can still have articles about them on Wikipedia; but conversely, that intellectually independent coverage is needed for such an article to exist. There is no consensus as to whether such coverage exists here. This discussion is in desperate need of outsider input, but this AfD has gotten long enough that it's unlikely to be forthcoming. No prejudice against renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian irredentism[edit]

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

It is UNDUE and likely based on POV. It lacks strong sources, while three included refed books lack any specific attribution to passage(s), chapter(s) or page number(s), and searching through it never revealed a discuss about "Bosnian irredentism" as established, recognized phenomenon in political discourse, social studies, history studies, etc. As such it appears like a conspiracy theory, rather than real thing (and it was created just recently, which in itself signals undue and pov; being under Balkan scope where so many articles on this topic is created and squabbled upon, it would need a true miracle this one to escape creation for so long). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Politics. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia. • Gene93k (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The concept seems to be discussed [32], I get many links like that in GNews. I can't open the Times (paywall), but this one might have legs. Oaktree b (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm rather unfamiliar with this topic at large, and don't have time to read into it in detail, but I'm seeing rather a lot of sources from google scholar for the querys greater bosnia and bosnian irredentism, e.g.
- Robinson, Guy M., Sten Engelstoft, and Alma Pobric. "Remaking Sarajevo: Bosnian nationalism after the Dayton accord." Political Geography 20.8 (2001): 957-980.
- Reksc, Magdalena. "Post-Yugoslav collective memory between national and transnational myths." Polish Pol. Sci. YB 45 (2016): 73.
- Robinson, Guy M., and Alma Pobrić. "Nationalism And Identity In Post‐Dayton Accords: Bosnia‐Hercegovina." Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 97.3 (2006): 237-252.
- Ambrosio, Thomas. Irredentism: ethnic conflict and international politics. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001.
- Waterbury, Myra A. "From irredentism to diaspora politics: States and transborder ethnic groups in Eastern Europe." Global Migration and Transnational Politics 11 (2009).

-Ljleppan (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These blind Google search by phrase "Bosnian irredentism" could mean many things and still miss the target completely, because Bosnia was ravaged by nationalistic and irredentist claims left and right, or should I say east and west. This article is attempting to create impression of existence of very specific pro-Bosnian ambitions to expend its territory at the expense of neighboring countries. That needs sources which will be strong enough to establish firm ground for claim of existence of such a phenomenon, and I am not seeing any so far.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, above claim how Google Scholar offer "a lot of sources" on query greater bosnia is to say the least bogus - it does not offer any, let alone "a lot".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno what you are searching, but I'm seeing About 334 000 results here. Ljleppan (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you either do not know or don't want to know what exactly means a "clear and specific attribution to passage(s), chapter(s) or page number(s)", not just simply I have million Google hits on a query.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why my good faith attempt to help this discussion along means such a response of accusing me of lying is appropriate, so maybe calm down a bit. I was both quite clear that this is far from my domain of expertise, and I also only left my comment as, well, a comment rather than as a !vote.

Since you want more detailed quotes, here's Sadkovich summarising How Bosnia Armed by Marko Attila Hoare (I don't have access to the book itself): For example, he concludes that rather than promote peace, the Vance-Owen Plan of January 1993 “undoubtedly encouraged both Bosnian Croatian irredentism and Muslim separatism,” in a The Journal of Military History review [33]. Hoare also talks about how Western diplomacy catalyzed both Bosnian-Croat irredentism and Zagreb's partitionism in The Croatian project to partition Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1990-1994. Robinson and Pobric, on the other hand, discuss how e.g. There are mixed messages within this appeal to a ‘greater’ Bosnia. It hints at a single ‘Bosnian’ identity devoid of the current ethno-nationalist categories of ‘Croat’, ‘Serb’ or ‘Muslim’, but it also confers a distinction upon Bosnian Muslims as having historic differences with their neighbours through their conversion to Islam, while possibly introducing the notion of Muslim Bosnia with wider territorial boundaries. in Nationalism And Identity In Post‐Dayton Accords: Bosnia‐Hercegovina. Ljleppan (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, for pete's sake, your top hit is a title: The need for greater regional protection for the human rights of women: The cases of rape in Bosnia and Guatemala, so yeah it has both "greater" and "Bosnia" in it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not question your good faith, I reiterated what you said yourself. Anyhow, you really think that article on topic controversial such as this can be built on couple of sidenotes in otherwise comprehensive works on topic more or less related to it, if at all? In your first quote Marko Hoare mentions "Muslim separatism" - yes, in what context, and how is "separatism" equal to "irredentism"? Your second quote talks about something completely different - it talks about Bosnian-Croats irredentism, meaning irredentism by Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not (pro)Bosnian, and your own quote can't be clearer: "diplomacy catalyzed both [one (1)] Bosnian-Croat irredentism and [two (2)] Zagreb's partitionism”. Quote from Pobrić is completely out of context and has nothing with ideology or politically expressed and recognized ambition on the part of pro-Bosnian socio-political forces, not to mention it comprise of two disjointed sentences out of 16 and 24 pages two paper (actually, it's one and a same paper, just extended and re-titled), which, by the way talk about historically registered "greater Bosnia" which really existed 6 hundred years ago.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If my reading of those texts was wrong, then I have no problem accepting that. Again, I've been extremely clear about my (lack of) expertise here. Ljleppan (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, I'd appreciate an apology for the incredibly hostile tone in your earlier replies. Ljleppan (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which part in my replies offended you? If I was not particularly polite, it doesn't necessarily mean that I was hostile or offending, nor that I perceived your posting as bad faith inputs - I believe that I am usually very careful not to offend people in these discussions. That being said, I am not sure one of your own replies was that much more subtle. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In quote you introduced, from shorter paper, it talks about neighbors as people living next to them within Bosnia, and about wider borders of Muslim state within Bosnia but after Serbian and Croatian chunks of Bosnian territory are joined to Greater Croatia and Greater Serbia - in those two sentences it does not talks about extension of the Bosnia and Herzegovina territory at the expense of neighboring countries. And that's a context in which two sentences sit. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are not an expert, but neither am I, however I can say that I know enough to say that the article is based on POV and it is UNDUE because it lack strong sources, which can clearly describe phenomenon - this means, even if your reading is so-so, not completely or not at all wrong, this is still long way from sufficiently describing, explaining and attesting phenomenon called Bosnian irredentism. We have article on Bosniak nationalism, which makes sense, but claim of Bosnian irredentism is really undue (not to mention it faces the same problem as former article called Bosnian nationalism.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the nominator's listed arguments to defend this AfD are pretty strange. I don't see how WP:UNDUE is ever relevant to the existence itself of an article, it focuses on whether a portion of the content in one article deserves being on it. "likely based on POV" I am not sure if you're accusing me, the creator of the article, of being a Bosnian irredentist, which is funny; or if you believe that this type of articles are inherently biased or something, which they clearly are not. This seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as I fail to see a real rationale behind this. The claim that this is a conspiracy theory is particularly strange for me.

Anyway, there's a lot of sources talking about Bosnian irredentism over the region of Sandžak. "a senior Sandzak Muslim leader warned that the region might attach itself to Bosnia if Serbia did not grant it autonomy" [34] (p. 613), "criticized the fact that Muslim nationalism "recently has jointed to its idea about the Muslims as the sole bearers of the statehood of Bosnia and Hercegovina a unitaristic thesis about annexing Sandzak to such a Muslim state"". [35], p. 192, "With the purpose of drawing the attention of the public, on 25.09.2010 in Senica they organized a column of a dozen of cars waving the mujahedeen flag and shouting "We love Bosnia" and "Sandzak is Bosnia"" [36], p. 13, "According to Zulfikarpašić, Milošević agreed to this plan, which also would have given 60 percent of Sandzak to Bosnia and autonomy to the rest of the region" [37], I don't know the page, "in the Sandžak region between Montenegro and Serbia, a regional Muslim autonomy movement would be happy to unify with coreligionists to the north and create a Greater Bosnia", [38]. Note that Sandžak has an autonomist/seccessionist movement [39] (p. 288), [40], p. 473, which could be followed by integration into Bosnia [41], p. 641. Also note that this article receives a decent traffic of views; 657 in the last 30 days.

It is clear that there's a movement for Sandžak becoming part of Bosnia. The real question that should be asked here is if there's irredentist claims for any other land (there probably are, but are fringe and were made only by single individuals). If not, we could change the scope of this article strictly to Bosnian irredentism over Sandžak, or Sandžak autonomist or secessionist movements. But the combination of modern Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region of Sandžak is often referred to as "Greater Bosnia" [42]. So maybe nothing at all should be changed. By the way, there's a few more links that I could've cited here, but I was lazy. But there's more literature talking about Bosnian irredentism over Sandžak. And all this is only talking about English-language sources, not Bosnian/Croatian/Montenegrin/Serbian ones that could probably give a deeper insight... Super Ψ Dro 07:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I just added the pages for the three cited sources in the article. Super Ψ Dro 07:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As if I wasn't aware that anyone can dig out few sentences here and there if one gives enough effort digging across the Internet? However, not one of the cited sources in above post mention let alone delve on and explain "Bosnian irredentism" It is, also, likely creator does not even have a clear picture of what Bosnia and Herzegovina is: a multi-national state, whose three ethnic groups squabble over partitioning, secession politics, and identity politics for the last 30 years. Nothing in Bosnia and Herzegovina politics and ideology is Bosnian in nature. To establish ground for article on such a controversial topic, creator citing Serbian Muslim leader statement found in a few sentences in otherwise completely different topic research, in which cited "leader" makes threat of succeeding and joining Bosnia and Herzegovina, is both hardly Bosnian irredentism, and hardly sufficient sourcing to establish existence of the phenomenon as such. Same applies to other cited sources in above post - not one is on topic of "Bosnian irredentism", not one even mention "Bosnian irredentism" as a phenomenon, and not once we read "Bosnian irredentism" let alone find any explanations about it - we are presented only with few sentences of some people making statements, or how Milošević wanted to partition territory of failing Yugoslavia to reach his own goals. Then, citing mechanical engineer (Peter Sandys) and his irrelevant book is hardly relevant for our article - but even if the one quote taken out of what is otherwise book on broad topic of "Western challenges" is true, it is still sidenote mention, and nowhere we find any mention let alone explanation of "Bosnian irredentism". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used UNDUE and POV simply because I had no basis to claim that this was Original Research and Synthesis because you simply didn't offer any sources. However, now that you have offered a few sentences in which Sandzak's separatism and Milosevic's political calculations are mentioned literally in passing, I can claim that you have created this article based on OR and Synth. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established editors would say that this is how should real RS look like if one want to establish firm ground for creation of an article on such a controversial topic, in this example article on Serbian Irredentism (which, by the way, apparently redirect to Greater Serbia): The Policy of Serbian Expansionism, with Specific Reference to Albanians in the Decade Preceding the Balkan Wars: The International History Review: Vol 41, No 1

Or how would look like real RS on Romanian Irredentism (although weak because it is an older work, it establishes reasonable contention that such phenomenon exists or at least existed in recent history, so established editor would try to search and find more suitable ones by date and scope): Romanian expansionism beyond the Dniester--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited a big number of sources that shows that the covered subject does exists. The aim that I had when creating this article was never to write an exhaustive research work but to set the ground so that other editors in the future that may be interested in the topic can gradually expand the article if they wish to. It is true that the three cited sources are not ideal, again my aim was only to make the page exist. The solution to this is expanding the article, not deleting it.

It is, also, likely creator does not even have a clear picture of what Bosnia and Herzegovina is: a multi-national state... you might be surprised to know that your assumption is wrong, perhaps you could have realized this by reading the first paragraph of this article that I wrote which explains the national desires of Bosnia's different peoples.

I can claim that you have created this article based on OR and Synth sure, if you wish to. Let's see if other editors agree.

As for the creation of alleged "Sandžak autonomist movement" or something under even more problematic title like "Sandžak secessionist movement", you should first check if something like that already exists, if not, you really need to establish that something like that exists by finding proper RS well, I did find this article [43]. These also seem relevant [44] [45] (page 48: "The SDA leaders were usually using the word "reunification", highlighting the fact that Sandzak was once part of Bosnia under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.87 Consequently, the referendum question left as possibility future convergence with Bosnia and Herzegovina"). And I guess that 1991 Sandžak autonomy referendum proves the existence of a Sandžak autonomy movement, which as you can see on the quote I just left here, may devolve into integration into Bosnia and Herzegovina (therefore, one may argue that the Sandžak autonomy movement could be covered here as well, adding to notability of this article). Super Ψ Dro 09:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you claim that you know that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a nation state, and in extension probably know that "Bosnia" is just a regional name and not geo-political entity, that makes your creation of this article even more problematic. I really don't know what Sandžak's alleged striving for autonomy has to do with "Bosnian irredentism", but your new papers do not say anything about "Bosnian irredentism" or "Greater Bosnia". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, you can propose to rename this article to "Bosniak irredentism" instead, I am not opposed. It currently exists as a redirect which I created after writing this page. your new papers do not say anything about "Bosnian irredentism" or "Greater Bosnia" but they talk about a movement for accessing a Bosniak-populated area into Bosnia and Herzegovina, or at least giving it autonomy. Super Ψ Dro 10:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but I'll pass. Hopefully, we will have more participants in the next day or two, and, also hopefully, more senior editors who know something about the Balkans and ideology - also more neutral, besides two of us discussing as creator and nominator.

By the way, we have Bosniak nationalism article - I don't know of what quality, but I guess whatever is currently in that article does not and cannot undermine validity of that article nor the factuality of Bosniak nationalism as real, existent phenomenon. That article was also moved from Bosnian nationalism to Bosniak nationalism, which is appropriate take on that issue. I am absolutely sure that "Bosnian irredentism" simply does not exist, hence my resolute attitude in getting to the bottom of it, and zealous search through and thorough review of all of the subsequent sources offered here. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I now understand more your viewpoint and your rejection of using "Bosnian". It is true that "Bosnian" refers to the country as a whole and it's three ethnicities. Maybe using "Bosniak" is necessary. Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still doubt that even Bosniak Irredentism is a thing (not least because we use title Greater Foo) in compliance with the WP:Notability per General notability guide. However, Bosniak nationalism article could cover if there are any tendencies within mainstream political forces that could at least hint some kind of irredentist / greater Bosna program and coherent greater Bosnia ideology (I sincerely doubt it, tho') - as you must have noticed yourself in searching for sources, that all you found is mention in passing, sometimes not even mentioning phenomenon by name.

Don't be overly annoyed by my "problematic title" for "Sandžak secessionism" statement, because, although I believe "secessionism" is all too strong of a word, and one cannot equate real secessionism of Milorad Dodik kind with a kind of fringe Sandžak's one (which is really more of a demand for autonomy than genuine secessionism), I do think that demands for Sandžak autonomy are legitimate topic for the stand-alone article. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The subject is covered enough, though there's still work to be done. --Governor Sheng (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope you have something more substantial to use, not just "subject is covered enough" argument. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The editor who has brought this case on has not provided any evidence to back up their claim that this topic is a conspiracy theory, in addition to offending one of the contributors who made a comment in this discussion. This is possibly a case of WP:JDL. Given the multitude of available sources and the fact that this article is relatively new, it should be expanded rather than deleted. ElderZamzam (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you wiki-layering or offering something of a substance in argument - who is offended and how? Offer your argument if you have one, that is, try to provide sources and elaborate how exactly they prove existence of this phenomenon of "Bosnian Irredentism/Greater Bosnian ideology". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nominator's rationale. Pretty obscure topic, a laughable concept to anyone remotely aware of the situation in the country. The country has always been on verge of partitioning into two or three, where Bosniaks get the short end of the stick. How are they supposed to enlarge a country they share control of with nations they are supposed to take land from (according to this concept)? Bosniak nationalism certainly exist, but the concept of enlarging the whole BiH is WP:FRINGE. -Vipz (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion on internal Bosnian politics and whether they are laughable or plausible or not are irrelevant. I've presented evidence showing support among Bosniaks for integrating Sandžak into Bosnia and Herzegovina. I too believe this will very hardly ever happen. Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you did not present such evidence. You have found paper on another topic and cherrypicked one or two sentences where author mentioning in passing unnamed individual making a statement or threat - that's not significant coverage. Check the General notability guideline (see explanation on "significant coverage" with two contrasting examples) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - largely in agreement with previous comment. Bosnian irredentism/Greater Bosnia is a virtually non-existent political phenomenon. There are sizeable Bosniak minorities in Sandzak in Serbia and Montenegro, and in Kosovo*, but even the most ardent Bosniak nationalists do not propose unification of these territories. Bosniak nationalism tends to emphasise the indivisibility of BiH as an entity, with BiH being the nation-state of the Bosniaks, and expansion of BiH has (as far as I'm aware) never been brought up. LeoC12 (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And just as an aside, the articles mentioned above have no relevance to the topic the article attempts to discuss. The references to 'Greater Bosnia' are a mess, talking about anything from medieval Bosnian states (before national identities) existing, to Vuk Draskovic talking about an imminent Greater Bosnia. It would help if editors attempted to acquaint themselves with basics of national identity/the political situation in the Balkans before making largely baseless claims. LeoC12 (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but even the most ardent Bosniak nationalists do not propose unification of these territories this is contrary to the sources I've brought above. It would help if editors attempted to read discussions before participating in them. Super Ψ Dro 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, note that OP's statement doesn't actually address WP:NOTABILITY at all... Topic appears too satisfy WP:GNG Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? On what "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is this article suitable for a stand-alone articl? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, there appears to exist the required notability establishing sourcing for an article about the topic of Bosnian irredentism and the concept of "Greater Bosnia". Just because a view is fringe does not mean that it should not have an article, assuming the notability requirements are fulfilled (see WP:NFRINGE). Issues with article focus/content (WP:NPOV and WP:DUE) are not normally under the purview of AfD and should be discussed on the article talk page. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, I have asked above: on what grounds; on what "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is this article suitable for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, what you are saying is that if we can have article like Mars face, then we can have article on Greater Bosnian irredentism. Is that what you are arguing? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BLUDGEON and consider whether replying to every single comment on this AfD is necessary. You've made your stance clear above, and the closer (whoever that shall be) will give it due weight. Ljleppan (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - General notability guideline is quite clear on this - so, I am asking both Horse Eye's Back and Ljleppan to back up their argument with titles and/or quotes out of "reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so that we can see if that's factual enough.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as per Santasa99 and LeoC12 --Mhare (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify per WP:No original research. None of the sources currently in the article actually use the term "Bosnian irredentism"; and while the sources do talk about idelogies that would fall under that description, they do not present so definable a topic as given here. As such, the current text of the article is an original synthesis of the sources present, and would constitute as original research. Without sources that actually directly use the term Bosnian irrendentism and define it for us, I can't see how this can stay in main space. That said, it's possible a verified article could be built without SYNTH, so a move to draft would be an ok solution if editors wish to work out the OR issues and rewrite the entire article accordingly. 4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is about where I come down too. The article at present has the defects noted above, and while I generally feel that POV issues are a matter for editing, SYNTH from the inception often suggests that the article is fatally flawed. I do think these sources support an encyclopedic topic, but I'm unconvinced that the current article focus is it. I refrain from casting an official !vote due to my concern that this is a complicated field in which I lack expertise, but my layperson's view is that a different article is the way to go. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  We have an article, which is focused on the factual social phenomenon, titled Bosniak nationalism (note differentiation Bosnian / Bosniak). I don't know of what quality level, but it is the furthest one can go in researching and describing this specific ethnic exceptionalism or chauvinism, which lack this particular dimension we call Greater Foo Ideology or Irredentism because of the very peculiar geopolitical circumstances, some of which both Vipz and LeoC12 exposed to a point in their !vote posts and comments. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Munusamy Playground[edit]

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

Non notable local playground. PROD reverted by creator on the grounds that it is visited by 300 people a day. Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how this is notable, fails WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was draftify. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Anderson (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and California. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Currently there does not appear to be enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Send it to draft until he makes his NFL debut. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft Not enough to satisfy GNG, even the sources provided on the page appear to just be basic bios from various locations and not actual sources talking about him. If he gets elevated or signed to the active roster by another team, we may have something to work with in relation to GNG.--Rockchalk7 17 22:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify Lacks the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. I'm fine with draftifying it, but it should only be moved back to the mainspace when there is enough significant coverage for him to pass GNG. Debuting in the NFL without any additional coverage would not be enough. Alvaldi (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)Frank Anchor 19:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tay Martin[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the general notability guideline with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see the following articles that discuss Martin "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content,": this from Arizona Republic; this from The Spokesman-Review; this from Sports Illustrated; this from The Oklahoman; this from The Spokesman-Review; this from The Seattle Times; and numerous others you can find through a quick google search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. This seems to pass general notability guidelines. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 18:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG. Article needs expansion however. There should be enough information in the sources provided to expand.--Rockchalk7 17 22:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easy GNG pass. GNG is our criteria for notability, not the nominator's opinion of whether those sources "signify importance."Rlendog (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems clear at this point, but this is an easy keep. BeanieFan11's sources more than show notability per WP:GNG and the nom's rationale is no longer applicable due to these sources, so at this point there's no valid argument that I can see for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Berryhill[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the general notability guideline with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see the following articles that cover Berryhill "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content,": this very in-depth article from Arizona Republic; this from the Arizona Daily Star; this from the Daily Star; this from the Daily Star; this from Tuscon.com; and this from Tuscon.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11's sources. Think this one meets GNG pretty easily. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 20:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources to meet GNG. Notability depends on available sources, not just the sources in the article at the time of nomination. Rlendog (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm copying my rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tay Martin because it's an identical situation even down to the editor who provided the sources: This is an easy keep. BeanieFan11's sources more than show notability per WP:GNG and the nom's rationale is no longer applicable due to these sources, so at this point there's no valid argument that I can see for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- It may be snowing, even if it's a light flurry. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Mbaeteka[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Not currently notable, but it's not out of the question that Mbaeteka becomes notable in the coming months. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify Not notable as of now. They've yet to play an NFL game and they're only on the practice squad. The article mentions them having not played football in high school or college football either, as does this article by the NY Giants. While there is some coverage of him based off his story, it's more of a feel good story that will, frankly, be quickly forgotten if he never takes a snap in the NFL. As GPL93 said, he may still become notable in the coming months, but he'll have to make the roster first. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Beaniefan11 has changed my mind.Hey man im josh (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of these recent creations should probably be moved to draft. GPL93 (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Hey man im josh: @GPL93: Passes the general notability guideline with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see the following articles which discuss Mbaeteka "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content,": this full-page long article from Newsday; this from Daily News; this from NorthJersey.com; this from SB Nation; this from USA Today; this from the New York Daily News; and this from the New York Post. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SB Nation and the USA Today are from blogs (Giants wire is not standard USA Today), and event then all of the coverage is about his signing/training camp. I feel that this borders on coverage for one event so I personally just don't see notability standards being met. GPL93 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BeanieFan11 subject meets WP:GNG. There are multiple reliable (non-blog) sources. WP:BLP1E is for people who are "likely to remain, a low-profile individual". Joining an NFL team is very likely to generate additional coverage in the future regarding him. W 42 15:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify There are several sources of significant coverage but the timespan of them are only a few months. Alvaldi (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage to meet GNG and not a BLP1E issue. Rlendog (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. BeanieFan11's sources seem adequate. I'm a little convinced by both sides, given GPL's comment above, but I'm coming right in the middle to weak keep due to sources provided, and the likelihood of this subject signing with an NFL team. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 20:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Davis[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, see this, this, this, this, this, and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG with the significant sources provided by BeanieFan11. Alvaldi (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough coverage to pass GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT easily. I notice that as far as I can tell there's no American Football-specific guideline (I'm not familiar with American Football or its history on Wikipedia and I'm sure the lack of a football-specific guideline probably has to do with this RfC I'm not going to read through), but from the applicable guidelines that I'm aware of, the article's subject has notability as demonstrated by reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was draftify. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irvin Charles[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify. There is some coverage, such as this from the Indiana Gazette; this from USA Today; this from NJ; this from Fansided; this from Heavy; and this from "JetsXFactor" (reliable?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Even with the refs above I don't see a GNG pass. I believe Fansided and Heavy are not considered reliable and the Jets Wire is a team-specific blog published by USA Today. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify He hasn't played for the team yet and the sources cited are not the in-depth coverage required to meet the general notability standard. He might meet the criteria in the future, so keeping it in draft space makes sense.Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Hawkins (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes GNG, see this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per significant coverage posted by BeanieFan11. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Hey man im josh and BeanieFan11. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 18:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage provided by BeanieFan11. Alvaldi (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while some of BeanieFan's sources are blogs or non-independent (I think one was published by his college) there is still enough coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one was published by his college? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're referring to this one which was written by @UMAndrewB on "a Michigan Wolverines community" blog page hosted by SBNation. If that were the only source it might be argued that it's not independent, but it's clearly the outlier amongst the otherwise independent sources. - Aoidh (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough to pass WP:GNG. 142.126.241.149 (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm copying my rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tay Martin because it's an identical situation even down to the editor who provided the sources: This is an easy keep. BeanieFan11's sources more than show notability per WP:GNG and the nom's rationale is no longer applicable due to these sources, so at this point there's no valid argument that I can see for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have looked at Hawkins in the past and concluded he wasn't sufficiently notable to create a stand-alone article. He was a three-star recruit who won a regular spot in the lineup and was praised for his hard work, diligence, etc. That said, not every regular starter warrants a stand-alone article. In this case, Hawkins played parts of five years at Michigan, never won a national, conference, or team award of note. He did win a couple conference weekly honors and third-team All-Big Ten honors in one year. After college, he was undrafted by the NFL, tried out for a couple teams and did not make the cut. I'll concede that the Detroit Free Press articles are SIGCOV, but I'm less persuaded by the rest, including the piece from the Maize N Brew blog and the NJ coverage of his high school exploits. Given the coverage, I can't vote "delete", but I really don't think a microstub on a marginal player makes Wikipedia better. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks are due to User:Alvaldi for expanding the article a bit, so at least it's no longer a microstub. Cbl62 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was cut by the Patiots yesterday but I agree with the keeps above that he meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As expanded, the in-depth details of his collegiate accomplishments passes the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Perry II[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG, see this, this, and this. Alternatively, Draftify until he makes his NFL debut. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify. Does have some coverage stemming from his college career as shown by BeanieFan11. A NFL debut alone won't make his case stronger unless somebody significantly covers his debut. Alvaldi (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- passes GNG with the sources provided by Beaniefan. No need to draftify as he is already has received WP:SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 20:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are good sources to pass WP:GNG. I'd like to see more detail in the article, but that's all about editing and isn't a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 19:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Hoffman[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG, see this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with the sources provided by BeanieFan11. Alvaldi (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote, I added the above sources to the article and cleaned it up a little. Alvaldi (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm copying my rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tay Martin because it's an identical situation even down to the editor who provided the sources: This is an easy keep. BeanieFan11's sources more than show notability per WP:GNG and the nom's rationale is no longer applicable due to these sources, so at this point there's no valid argument that I can see for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly passess WP:GNG; add to it WP:BASIC and even WP:IMPACT if you like. I see multiple sources, not a "single source" as the nominator states.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I'm generally unwilling to draftify unless there's someone with the stated intent of working on the draft; and with only a single !vote to redirect, there's no consensus for it. If further evidence of notability is found, restoring the history is an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaire Mitchell-Paden[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (people) for sports. Relies on a single source of a signing, but this does not signify importance. Debartolo2917 (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until he makes his NFL debut. Not finding much SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now. This is a situation where WP:TOOSOON might apply. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cleveland Browns#Current roster so that the history is preserved and an article could be recreated when it's appropriate and viable to do so. My issue with draftification is that this is time limited with regards to how long a draft is expected to exist, and I can't see any solid evidence this player will warrant an article within the next six months (not to say that won't happen, but I think a redirect which is indefinite and at least serves a purpose is a better all-round solution in this case, compared to a draft). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. While this article covers him plenty, GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage which I was unable to find on Google and Newspapers.com. Alvaldi (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft or Delete take your pick. Article isn't ready for publication without more sourcing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, not yet notable and is a case of WP:TOOSOON.Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweater Whether[edit]

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

Sweater Whether

Non-notable unreleased film. The film's claim to fame is that it is India's first non-environmental film whose production was carbon-neutral. The only reference is in Digital Journal, which is a reliable source, and is an interview with the producer, and so is not independent or secondary. There is no mention of significant coverage of the green production of the film, or any aspect of the film. The article only says that the film will exist. We knew that. This article was created in article space, moved to draft space, and then moved back to article space with the edit summary

The Film has it’s own google knowledge panel

. Duh. That doesn't establish notability. Draftification is all right, but not moving unilaterally to draft space because that has already been done once. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Assam. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. I am unable to locate additional reliable sources. The primary contributor also appears to be connected. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails every flavour of notability by some margin. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleGrazing (talk • contribs)
Comment it appears the article has been moved back into draft space by the user who moved it into article space in the first place. A procedural close with an understanding that the article should not be moved into article space without the approval of an AfC reviewer might be warranted. W 42 13:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. An interview with the director is not an independent source for the film, and that appears to be the best there is as far as coverage goes. May be an issue of WP:TOOSOON given that the film hasn't even released yet, but according to what I'm seeing it's a short film with a $20,000 budget; I wouldn't be surprised if coverage for this project does not materialize at any point in the future. - Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was moved back to article space. My own opinion is that the moving of articles, either to a different namespace or to change the title, should be prohibited while an AFD is in progress. Any move can be done by the closer. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Jam[edit]

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

(Previous PROD wasn't noticed due to lack of a tag) This game seems to fail WP:GNG with only 2 instances of SIGCOV, the last one being a 148Apps review, which is generally considered not a decider in terms of notability. All else is a trivial mention/news post/etc. that doesn't count towards notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article easily covered by Rovio Entertainment Poketama (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh. I would generally argue that 2 full reviews from reliable sources and 1 review from situational 128Apps by a seemingly reliable author is enough for GNG. There are tons of game like this (e.g. Nibblers (video game) or Amazing Alex) with hardly any sources and such that may or may not pass the N bar. But the game is dead, there is no real chance to improve the article or hope for new sources as it's basically one more shovelware mobile "game". So I would say merge on editorial basis rather than strictly due to (lack of) notability. But I'm not sure where this could be merged, but I imagine there could possibly be enough content for a List of games by Rovio Entertainment (instead of Rovio Entertainment#Games developed perhaps) with a paragraph or two for all these junky titles. But that implies merging/discussing other games too. That said, personally, I just don't care enough about these IAP cashgrab games so I would not undertake this myself and I don't know who would. Therefore my !vote of "I don't care if it gets deleted" since my solution requires a bunch of further work and it won't be an improvement to the encyclopedia unless someone actually does the work. — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG with numerous reviews in reliable sources, as well as in situational sources. In addition to the sources already in the article, which are enough to showcase notability by themself due to two of them being from reliable publications, I was able to find this this article in PCMag.com, listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS, as well as this review in Cubed3, which is listed as a situational source. Five reviews, three reliable and two situational, are easily enough to showcase notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources must be both reliable and significant, not one or the other. The PCMag article is not SIGCOV, and situational sources should not be used as the deciding factor with notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The PCMag article is over 250 words long, clearly enough to be considered significant coverage. In any case, the article would be notable even if it were not SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Devonian Wombat. A list of games by Rovio may still be a good idea, though. IanTEB (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-opened by request on talk-page following earlier closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG 3 reliable reviews are sufficient for a standalone article. W 42 13:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established via the sources discussed above and in the article; the subject has significant coverage in multiple independent third-party sources and therefore meets WP:GNG. (Just a heads up for people looking for additional sources though: Google Books and Newspapers.com were dead ends for me, but I wasn't expecting much from those resources to begin with. The current sources are still sufficient for notability though.) - Aoidh (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Gila River Indian Community. Legoktm (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Butte Ranch, Arizona[edit]

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

This is a ranch mislabeled as a populated place, and my search did not find significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of routine mentions in Phoenix area newspapers over many years (small plane crashed there, 6 year old boy fell of car running board and got hurt, 23 year shot in hunting accident, ranch listed for sale in 1958, etc.). It was a 2,069 acre ranch on the Gila River Indian Reservation. Plausible search term, but no viable redirect target - the reservation article is just a stub. MB 04:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The targeted article's text is so short (just "Lone Butte Ranch is a populated place situated in Maricopa County, Arizona, United States.[2] It has an estimated elevation of 1,112 feet (339 m) above sea level.[1] It is located on the Gila River Indian Community.[3]") that it can easily be merged. --Doncram (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am imagining that "Lone Butte Ranch" is the name of a former or current ranch operation, and I see that both the "Lone Butte" itself and the "Lone Butte Ranch" are within the reservation. The Gila River Indian Community article is faulty for not mentioning the butte, the ranch, or any of the tribe(?)'s business ventures. E.g. the mission of the Lone Butte Development Corporation (see brochure), not mentioned, is "To promote economic development for the Gila River Indian Community, develop reservation lands, create job opportunities for tribal members and generate revenue." Gila River Indian Community also has four casinos (see Gila River Lone Butte Casino Chandler). It remains to be discovered what the role of the Lone Butte Ranch is, whether it was an ongoing ranch operation or not, but the point location is upon a residential(?) development near the center of the reservation. I dunno, would it be the name for a census district covering one or more of the several residential areas on the reservation. Some info about all these would improve the Community article.

Supposing we can't now determine what the ranch is or was, it still would improve the article to state simply that GNIS or whomever recorded "Lone Butte Ranch" being there. And in the future some reader might add some historical context. --Doncram (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Granted that I skimmed through your comment but what possible Merge target did you see? Because other editors saw no good article to redirect this page to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't see how there could be any doubt but that I was suggesting it be merged to the Gila River Indian Community article. For context, please look at the outline of the reservation in Google maps, and then search "Lone Butte Ranch" to verify for yourself that its point location is within the reservation area.

To be clear: The current article, plus information which has come up in this AFD, should be merged to Gila River Indian Community, making a short paragraph there (probably not a section). With an anchor set there so that Lone Butte Ranch, Arizona can be redirected to Gila River Indian Community#Lone Butte Range. The material to merge is what's in the article, that it is a GNIS-designated "populated place" at a certain elevation, etc. And add that the populated place designation was created February 2, 1980. And add also that the GNIS feature "Lone Butte" itself is a landmark in the reservation, created as a GNIS entry at the same time. And that material should be expanded to include what User:MB identified, with whatever is their source, that the ranch was a 2,069 acre ranch and that it was listed for sale in 1958. I "imagine" again that the property was bought or otherwise acquired by the tribe(?), akin to how the reservation was expanded by other acquisitions and/or akin to how the tribe(?) acquired properties outside the reservation for its casinos, etc. My recommendation should not be dismissed because I have twice used the term "imagine"; it is absolutely not necessary to state anything speculative in the article, yet still to improve it by stating facts. --Doncram (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For your information, see this nice satellite view of the Lone Butte, a significant landmark.

And here is the actual relevant GNIS data for both the Ranch and the Butte, from GNIS directly:

7288|Lone Butte|Summit|AZ|04|Maricopa|013|331543N|1120156W|33.2619878|-112.0323558|||||382|1253|Lone Butte|02/08/1980|08/21/2021

7290|Lone Butte Ranch|Populated Place|AZ|04|Maricopa|013|331357N|1120250W|33.2325488|-112.0470891|||||339|1112|Pima Butte|02/08/1980|

I am giving it to you (meaning any potential closer) on a platter. To close this, you don't have to do the merger yourself, you just follow instructions at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure, namely "If the consensus is to merge the article and the merger would be non-trivial, it is acceptable for the admin to only begin the article merger process by tagging the article," of course citing this AFD discussion. So use Template:Afd-merge to. IMHO it is clear that merger here improves the Wikipedia and is far better than deletion. --Doncram (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi-to-Punjabi Machine Translation System[edit]

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

Non-notable. The only things I could find from a Google search was the paper about the system and an academic book by the authors of said translation system. No secondary sources. Mucube (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this article is supposed to be a about a particular instance of a translation system developed in 2010 as an academic project. I am not seeing claims or sources that this system was developed further. I am seeing sources talk generally about translation, and I think there could even be a Wikipedia article on "automated Hindi to Punjabi translation", but this is not developed to be that. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of independent coverage, and no clear redirect target. Ovinus (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Glam rock. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glam pop[edit]

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

From the sources I've been able to find, I can see some which appear to be using "glam pop"/"glam-pop" interchangeably with "glam rock" but none definitely calling them the same. I didn't see any mentions of New Romantic. Can't really see a justification for this term leading to either page. It was an orphan before I saw the glam-pop page which redirected to glam rock which I moved to here, and at least one of the two pages that use that redirect would probably make more sense linking directly to/using the term glam rock anyway. This page hasn't had very significant page view numbers in the last year, only once breaking 200 in a month, so I don't know that the term will be missed either. QuietHere (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glam rock. Plausible search term, should redirect somewhere. Justification is that the definition of Rock music is a "genre of popular music", therefore Glam pop = Glam pop rock = Glam pop. MB 14:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glam rock. I understand the nominator's rationale that this term may not be the most helpful or used item, but redirects are cheap and this does have at least the potential to help readers find information so I think this would be better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write it into my nomination 'cause I wasn't quite sure if the case was strong enough for it but I'm fine with a redirect. Honestly I'd prefer it be a redirect because they are very useful, I just didn't know if consensus would be for it or not. But given the two votes so far it appears I assumed wrong. QuietHere (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This isn't an article but i've never dug into when something goes to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion or here, and I suppose it doesn't matter. Its a plausible redirect to glam rock.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 02:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News Team 13[edit]

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

Article unsourced since 2011, fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "News team 13" brings up coverage for about every station using that phrase as a hook. I have no desire to sort through them to find which ones were about a defunct news program from the Philippines. If you can't be bothered to source the article, we can't help you at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and failing that by default is the reason to delete an article. There are special inclusion criteria for certain topics. Among those topics, Wikipedia favors sources which fact check other claims, and a news program would fit that but we do not have criteria established. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability, which is draft criteria for newspapers, and some of those criteria could apply to a news television show. It is problematic that there are no sources here to fact check any of this information. If anyone can come up with sources to fact check information, then I would like to change to keep, but without cited sources, this content is not meeting our standards. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. Fails WP:NTV per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm also fine with SBKSPP's Redirect proposal per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to NewsWatch (Philippine TV program). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RPN Arangkada Balita[edit]

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

Article unsourced since 2010, fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No English sources and I really have no desire to sort through GTranslate to find some we could use either. If you can't use citations in an article, that's not up to us to fix. It's been tagged for a while with no improvement. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to suggest redirecting to its successor show RPN NewsWatch Aksyon Balita but that’s unsourced too Mccapra (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am also nominating the following pages under the same reason above:

Redirect all to NewsWatch (Philippine TV program). They fail WP:NTV per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SBKSPP. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mar (musician/artist)[edit]

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

Not immediately clear whether the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:CREATIVE. KH-1 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iceland. KH-1 (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Bands and musicians. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He might meet WP:GNG with coverage such as these [46][47] in the Icelandic national media. Alvaldi (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The translation tool doesn't seem to work on that page, can you summarize what was said? Thanks.-KH-1 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So I don't speak Icelandic and the two sources above aren't in a format that allows for a simple plugging into Google Translate, but I did manage a crude workaround by using the Google Translate app on my phone using the Google Lens translate feature to translate the text by pointing my phone's camera at my computer monitor which had the references on screen, and that worked. Both of the sources above are interviews (one about an album release for an album called Mellows, the other about an art exhibition) and therefore are not independent sources. It may be that the short simple stage name is causing any reliable sources to be buried, but I was not able to find any significant coverage in any third-party sources under that or his real name. As far as I can tell the article's subject fails WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021#List. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Downtown Minneapolis bar shooting[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. I can't find any coverage of this shooting besides the week it happened. The article has also been a stub for months, and shows no signs of improvement. Silent-Rains (talk) 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, sadly it's just another routine shooting in the US. I don't find much of anything about it, no lasting coverage to this point. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2021#List per WP:PRESERVE. I also cannot find any coverage of this event after May 24, 2021. Ovinus (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete under CSD G14. Ooh that's a new one for me. Do I get CSD bingo yet...? firefly ( t · c ) 06:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Chan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Simple enough: Neither of these people is called "Chris Chan", at least not according to their articles (one of which I'll note the creator wrote just to have an excuse to create this DAB), and thus both fail MOS:DABMENTION. The obvious ulterior motive here, as noted, was to get around longstanding consensus at Talk:Kiwi Farms that the prose of that article should not mention an individual known by the nickname "Chris Chan". There have furthermore been multiple consensuses at AN and one at DRV to not have any article on Chris Chan. On that basis, I have removed the "see also" to Kiwi Farms—but besides, a "see also" doesn't count toward a DAB page being useful or not; it's an extra little thing for not-quite-ambiguous titles. This is pure gaming the system, and this DAB page does not in any way benefit the encyclopedia. (If Chris Chan → Chris Chann [the page the DAB's creator wrote] is a plausible redirect, that can be decided separately.)

As a housekeeping note, if there is consensus to keep this, the closing admin should move this to the salted title Chris Chan, as there is no need for the "(disambiguation)" here when there's no article at that title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The motive for this page's creation is transparent, and it has nothing to do with guiding lost readers to the correct articles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Chann has now been deleted, so I have tagged this page for G14 speedy deletion. (Note that, even if the Kiwi Farms link were restored, that would not be a page being disambiguated, so would not prevent a G14.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Jinnies[edit]

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

Very minor notability for one event only. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and subject is known for multiple events. The main event is that they were a named and recognized athlete in the Super Bowl, which is a major athletic event. Other sources present this person's biography, they are a named and featured model for a fashion brand, they are a public face of a nonprofit organization in a fundraising campaign, and their dance education and professional background is highlighted. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: article creator). I agree with Bluerasberry's assessment. I see multiple in-depth profiles about the subject in reliable sources, which means notability is established. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep passes WP:GNG with several feature articles. The policy WP:BLP1E allows for exceptions based on specific criteria, and I believe that criteria has been met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides the sources already in the article, Jinnies received some coverage when he first made the team as well as in advance of the Super Bowl: [48][49]. Although this wouldn't be enough for notability on its own, I think it proves that BLP1E doesn't apply here. Hatman31 (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Evidence-based argument to keep has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewsLeecher[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. The article has been tagged for notability since January 2010. A WP:BEFORE search did not find sources any apart from downloads and reviews that are not sufficient for notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG. – Meena • 12:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will we also be deleting all/most/many of the other clients that are in this Wikipedia list of news reading clients or perhaps from this comparison list of clients? I mean,why this particular client (yet again) but not the others? It seems to me, that pretty much all or most of the clients in those Wikipedia articles, should be in these deletion discussions. There simply are no good arguments as to why NewsLeecher (one of the most successful, and oldest surviving commercial binary readers) should be singled out in this way, for deletion where the others remain. I have no dog in this fight (other than being an occasional user of this software - amongst others) but it does seem, at least to me, that there is an unreasonable focus on this client, that does not appear to apply equally, or similarly focused, on the other clients. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That is clearly invalid. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Tech Radar source is the only source I find, other than download sites. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article meets WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT (by way of inclusion criteria #3, the reviews). There are in-depth web reviews ( ITProPortal, TheLoadGuru, AlynSmith.com, UsenetReviews.org) which show notability through WP:NSOFT. I know what some may say in rebuttal, "I've never heard of 'itproportal.com' it doesn't sound like a reliable source. They're regulated through the Independent Press Standards Organisation and are part of Future plc, so it's got the editorial oversight we look for in reliable sources. The other three I can see an argument for them being questionable, but fortunately we have more than just web reviews to go by. Here is a newspaper review of the software featured in the Chicago Tribune in 2005. It's also discussed in print in the 2007 book Windows Vista Timesaving Techniques For Dummies on pages 217–220 (maybe it goes past page 220 but it won't let me view those pages, but that much content is much more than a trivial mention). So we have the ITProPortal review, the Chicago Tribune, and the Dummies book, that's WP:THREE reliable sources right there, all of them are reliable sources independent of the subject, meaning the article meets WP:GNG. Add in the TechRadar reference already present in the article and I'd say notability is established through these sources. - Aoidh (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the excellent sources found by User:Aoidh, and strong WP:TROUT the nominator User:GeoffreyT2000 for all of the following:
1. Having found "reviews" (plural), which automatically demonstrate WP:GNG unless there are specific reasons to exclude them, yet making no attempt to provide any such reasons to justify the assertion that they "are not sufficient for notability";
2. Telling another discussion participant their argument is "clearly invalid" because of a page that is a mere essay, not a policy or guideline; and
3. Rejoining the debate to write the above, but completely ignoring the wealth of sources that had already been provided by then.

Modernponderer (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]