< January 24	January 26 >

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. If you'd like to argue for an article rename, please take it up on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torture and castration of a Ukrainian POW in Pryvillia[edit]

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

A discussion to merge this account of a war crime into the article of the war crime's location (which quickly accrued opposition) cited WP:EVENTCRIT, which I still think holds true if we look at the criteria:

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

This is a single incident of a war crime among many other incidents of war crimes. This one incident and its six sources can be reduced into a paragraph of information: it already has been at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which contains the same information as this article.

Google hits for "Pryvillia war crime", including any word from Bellingcat or other Western sources, fall off after August 2022. Even if newer sources were presented to argue that this topic has "enduring historical significance", they would still be best added to the one paragraph in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are no individual articles for every ISIS beheading video; there are individual articles for notable individuals that became the subject of ISIS beheading videos. I'm not proposing against the inclusion of the atrocity at all, but whether the sources indicate this topic is significant enough to merit an article is questionable when its impact is minimal and serves best as an example to be listed in a larger, related article—which, again, it already is. ‒overthrows 23:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ukraine. ‒overthrows 23:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge without prejudice to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Castration and murder of a Ukrainian POW in Pryvillia. It absolutely merits inclusion on Wikipedia somewhere, but despite how horrific it was, currently there is no evidence of enduring historical significance. Even the Russian and Ukrainian wiki articles don't seem to have sources beyond August last year. I say without prejudice because I think it is plausible that after the war it may receive more attention as a war crime. I thus disagree with the OP about the emergence of new evidence of enduring significance. If that existed (or is produced during the course of this discussion), that would change matters and a standalone article may well be merited.OsFish (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed vote). Having seen some of the other pages on incidents from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it became clear to me that what was missing in this page was details of formal international reactions in order to raise the story above gruesome detail. I looked those up and added them. I now think the article should be kept.OsFish (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on significant coverage. Yes, the coverage has 'fallen off' since it happened, but that is true for ANY event. There's always more coverage initially then after awhile. Also, yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF but there's nothing special about this article, we have a lot of these articles from this conflict that document one-time incidents or individuals who were briefly in the news and then disappeared. For example: Torture of Russian soldiers in Mala Rohan, Makiivka surrender incident, Stara Krasnianka care house attack, Vita Zaverukha. All these articles are in the same situation - initial coverage (maybe even less in some of these cases) and then a falling-off. Volunteer Marek 18:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those links to similar pages. They helped me grasp what was missing from this page. I've added international reaction to the page and have changed my vote to keep.OsFish (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments presented by Volunteer Marek. There are currently 71 entries listed under Category:War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and, while the all-inclusive article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is useful for a condensed outline of each such crime, as of this writing, it consists of 247,013 bytes and contains 378 inline cites. The nominated article, on the other hand, has 6,464 bytes and six inline cites. Thus, merging an abridgment of it into the already-overlong entry would not be helpful to users especially since the event has confirmed its notability via major media coverage. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident has a borderline notability, just as several other incidents noted by VM. In my opinion, this is not so much a matter of coverage in RS (all of them are covered), but having the incident investigated by a 3rd party reputable organization, Bellingcat and Conflict Intelligence Team in this case. Without such investigation, one could question if the incident had actually happen (and what exactly had happen), which would be an argument for deletion I think. An additional factor here is the extraordinary cruelty. That is what makes it notable; this is not just shooting someone. My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no merge to Pryvillia. This is not a routine crime blotter event. In general I am uncomfortable with articles based on Telegram videos, but there's no question that Telegram is used for messaging in this war, so here we are. The primary reason I unreservedly support keeping this one is that Bellingcat believes this, and they are authoritative. I urge other editors not to take the Mala Rohan article as a model, since it, on the other hand, does in my opinion need to be deleted as incoherent. I've spent more time at the War crimes article than was good for me, and can attest that if anything it needs to spin off more daughter articles. So no to merge back.Elinruby (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY due to User:OsFish's work. I also agree with User:My very best wishes' point about "extraordinary cruelty". Gildir (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I would like to present that the title is wrong. I am sure that it was missed that "and shot him in the head" is included. Although not as shocking as the"castration of a Ukrainian POW" it is nonetheless horrendous and likely a war crime, per chapter III Article 86: "No prisoner of war may be punished more than once for the same act, or on the same charge". Of course Part II, article 13 ("Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated") would be violated. At any rate it would seem that a better title could be used in an encyclopedia. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Waggers TALK 00:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Coronado[edit]

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

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced, except for the list of people who use this model. One reference is a link to a Wikipedia Commons picture with no further infomration. It's not hard to find brief reviews of this product, but those don't satisfyt the "substantial" part of WP:GNG and even longer reviews aren't in-depth coverage. Mikeblas (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

WP:GNG

Roberts, Jim (October 1999). "The Coronado cult". Bass Player. 10 (11): 88.
Excerpt: "Ah, the Coronado. One of Fender's most maligned-and perhaps most misunderstood-models. A product of the notorious late-'60s period when the new CBS management was doing its best to demolish Fender's reputation, the Coronado Bass is usually seen as little more than a "Frankenstein" axe that joined a bolt-on, long-scale Fender bass neck (with four-in-line headstock) to the semi-hollow body of a Gibson thinline guitar. Sonically, it had neither the punch of a solidbody Fender nor the muddy thump of a Gibson EB-2. It was, as the saying goes, neither here nor there. Dig a little deeper, though, and you'll find the Coronado Bass has quite an interesting history. The Coronado line (both basses and guitars) was created by Roger Rossmeisl, the German expatriate luthier who had designed the Rickenbacker 4000, the first neck-through electric bass. [Perspective, March '99.] Rossmeisl had been working for Fender since 1962, mostly on acoustic guitars, and it must have seemed logical to the CBS masterminds to have him whip up an acoustic-electric hybridespecially since that was one of Gibson's strongest market areas. The Coronados were introduced with suitable fanfare in 1966. The first bass offered was the single-pickup Bass I; the double-pickup Bass II followed a year later. Unfortunately, one pickup or two, the design didn't quite work. Even when Fender cooked up the psychedelic "Wildwood" Coronados-with bodies made from beechwood that had been colored by injecting dye into the growing trees-musicians reacted with a yawn. As former Fender executive Don Randall once noted, "They were beautiful guitars, but they never went anyplace. Never caught on." The series died with a whimper in 1972, and it has never inspired much interest from vintage enthusiasts."
Bacon, Tony (2010). 60 Years of Fender: Six Decades of the Greatest Electric Guitars. Hal Leonard Corporation. ISBN 978-0-87930-966-4.
Excerpt: "The Coronados looked like conventional competitors for the Gibson models, with equal-double-cutaway bound bodies that sported large, stylized f-holes. But in fact, just like the earlier flat-tops, they employed the standard Fender bolt-on necks, as well as the company's distinctive headstock design. Options included a new vibrato tailpiece, and there was a 12-string version that used the Electric XII's large curved headstock design. Unfamiliar with some edge-binding techniques, factory hands had to re-do some of the work. To cover up burn marks caused by re-binding, the team devised a special white-to-brown shaded finish — Antigua — to salvage the scorched Coronados. Antigua-finish Coronados would go on sale over the next few years."
1001 guitars to dream of playing before you die. New York : Universe. 2013. p. 359. ISBN 978-0-7893-2701-7.
Excerpt: "After fifteen years of producing solidbody guitars, Leo Fender had decided the time was right to offer an uncharacteristic thinline hollow body electric guitar. As the man who had designed all of Rickenbacker's classic hollow body models, Rossmeisl was the man for the job. The back and sides of the Coronado were constructed from laminated beechwood, and featured a gently arched maple top—again, unusual for Fender. A further departure was in the use of nonstandard Fender pick-ups; the Coronado was fitted with single-coil DeArmonds. The Coronado was produced between 1966 and 1972. The model shown features a "Wildwood" finish, a dubious-sounding process that involved injecting a chemical dye into the growing beech tree prior to harvesting. This resulted in an unusual stained grain pattern of the wood, a thin laminate of which was then used on the top of the body."

Jfire (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This particular model of guitar is among Fender's best-known, even if it's not the Stratocaster. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Waggers TALK 00:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RailReview[edit]

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

I had tagged this article for notability concerns earlier today, since all 3 of its refs were primary sources (its own website). The article's creator took umbrage with that tagging and removed the tag. They did add 3 more sources, none of which added to the notability of the subject (1 was yet again to a primary source, and the other two are mere mentions). I tagged it for primary sources, since 4 of the 6 current sources are primary, so that other reviewers would be clued in as to what the issues with the article are. The article's creator has seen fit to remove that tag as well, without any rationale based on policy, or without improving the article. The current sourcing includes those 4 primary sources, and two brief mentions. A BEFORE revealed zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. It appears to be a non-notable trade magazine. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Transportation. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not withstanding the author's disruptive attempts to remove the AfD template (despite the clear instructions that it isn't meant to be removed), and insinuations that the nominator is acting "maliciously", this article fails WP:SIGCOV. Referencing this version, ref 1, 2, 3 and 5 are self-published and therefore not independent or reliable. Ref 6 is a passing mention on page 7 of the document, not "significant coverage". I cannot validate ref 4 but reagrdless, it would not be sufficient on its own to justify notability. Daniel (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel. Regarding reference 4, I am missing a few pages but I can access most of it through Google Books' preview, and it doesn't seem to refer to RailReview at all in the bits I can see; I am highly doubtful that it contains signficant coverage of the publication. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reference in full is "A recent cover of RailReview more or less hit the nail on the head within its bracketed hint '(Clue: It's not transport)'". You may be able to access it with this link, it's the second sentence of the last paragraph. It is the perfect example of a passing mention. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:GNG 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rail transport–related periodicals#United Kingdom. No demonstration of notability, but the publication is present in the list. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rail transport–related periodicals#United Kingdom, per Trainsandotherthings BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rail transport–related periodicals#United Kingdom, per TAOT. I'm not able to find significant coverage of this magazine by multiple independent reliable sources in an online search, and I'd expect to be able to find them in an online search given that this was first published in 2014. That being said, redirecting to a place where it is mentioned is an eminently reasonable use of WP:ATD-R. If significant coverage is obtained in the future, then the history is preserved and the article can be re-created then. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect to Bauer Media Group as well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of rail transport–related periodicals#United Kingdom: BLAR since there is a reasonable destination. Otherwise this would be an easy delete as NN. UtherSRG (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be good with redir to Bauer Media Group. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't going to comment, but there is no good redirect target. The entry at List of rail transport–related periodicals is nothing more than a link to this article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD to Bauer Media Group, where it should also be mentioned by the title or, just maybe, by a sentence. gidonb (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and Daniel. I don't think there's an ideal redirect target in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a publication! Have you considered the publisher as the target? gidonb (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bauer Media Group. The sources used are not enough to demonstrate notability for the subject on its own, but a redirect might be useful here. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide between Deletion and two different redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's WP:GNG concern. Also, no appropriate redirect target per User:ActivelyDisinterested. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Article was speedy deleted before AfD closure by User:Doug Weller under criteria G5. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 08:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. Sherinian[edit]

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

Not much in-depth and independent coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Mostly press releases, brief mentions, or routine coverage in sources Sherinian is affiliated with/has written for. Mooonswimmer 23:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sources look like PR listing. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 08:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Sherinian (2nd nomination).-KH-1 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per G4 , the article has prospects but at present looks WP too soon.Epcc12345 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per previous AfD discussion. SouthernNights (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth- CJ[edit]

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

Non-notable. Seemingly accomplished individual, but there isn't much in-depth, independent coverage from reliable sources. A lot of puff pieces, promo, and brief mentions. Mooonswimmer 23:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christon Jones.-KH-1 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian culture (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Are Jewish culture or Culture of Israel often refered to in the relibale sources as "Palestinian culture"? I never saw this meaning, although it could be logical. Onlk (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems entirely unnecessary to me. Mccapra (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Israel, and Palestine. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jews, Israelis, and Palestinians are all distinct in meaning. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Distinct meaning. Nobody searching Wikipedia for articles on Palestinian culture can be reasonably assumed to be looking for information about Israeli or Jewish culture. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exactly the cleanup we need! gidonb (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is a very different article than the version was nominated for deletion and I think the improvements have addressed the nominator's deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European Boys' Team Championship[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability, entirely sourced to event organiser. Roxy the dog 14:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important boys team event. While the current article only cites from the event organiser, there are plenty of other sources out there. eg from just one newspaper from just one year, 1984: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Also this [5] from the Daily Telegraph. If we covered all newspapers in all European countries I'm sure we'd find plenty of coverage to demonstrate it's notability. Nigej (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep History of the European Boys' Team Championship is an important part of the golf history. Pages concerning the event from the anniversary book of the Swedish Golf Federation (2004 - 100 years anniversary) page 200 - 201 http://www.e-magin.se/paper/1pfc350j/popup/1#/paper/1pfc350j/202 The organizing body European Golf Association (EGA) is acknowledged as the organizer of European championships and in cooperation with the R&A i St Andrews, Scotland. The European Amateur Team Championship for men, the European Lady's Team Championship for women, the European Boys' Team Championship for junior men and the European Girls Team Championship for Junior Girls have participation av all golfing countries in Europe, including the British Isles. With fast increasing standard of elite golf on the continent of Europe in recent years the importance of EGA events have increased comparing with the traditional events on the British Isles, like the Boys Home Internationals. The European Boys' Team Championship has replaced the European Youths' Team Championship, due to the lower age of elite golfers in recent years. Most of today's top professionals i Europe have played in these EGA boy's team championships, in recent years for example Jon Rahm, Matt Fitzpatrick, Renato Paratore, Guido Migliozzi, Rasmus Hojgaard, Thomas Pieters, Adrian Otaegui, Grant Forrest, Romain Langasque, Thomas Detry, Matthias Schwab. Just to mention a few. For the men's and women's events, there is an article for each year, for the boy's and girl's, there's only one article each covering the whole history of the events. Regards, EEJB (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Not an independant reliable source in sight!!. - Roxy the dog 17:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't my newspaper links independent reliable sources? Nigej (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the Junior Championship of a continent in a wide spread sport. And there is no world Junior Championship in golf, like there are in some other sports. Concerning the amateur status: among 18 year olds, there are very few professionals, so you can be sure these players are the best young players in Europe. What's the problem? Media specialized on golf are also independent and reliable. They are not connected to the organizer of the tournament. Regards, EEJB (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable independent sources added. I will continue adding more. Regards, EEJB (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article improved as requested. Status of tournament explained. Every European winner of professional major championships since 2011 have participated and named in article. Position of championship among other EGA events appears at end of article. 42 sources mentioned, some of them independent reliable newspapers, many of them specialized media but authors independent from the organizer of the championship. This is one of 32 junior golf tournaments on Wikipedia, this one a championship of a continent covering 46 countries. Regards. EEJB (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanth Reddy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Breaks several records, but no significant or reliable coverage elsewhere. The claim that the subject is a "12 times US Presidential award holder" is unverifiable. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 22:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 22:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be speedied Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previous martial arts discussions have come to the conclusion that merely holding a Guinness world record is insufficient to show WP notability. Sources do not show that he meets WP:GNG. Several of them are passing mentions on articles about his students while the source marked as showing he set 29 Guinness records is about a student and doesn't mention the number of records he has set. In addition, the source marked as showing he has 12 U.S. Presidential awards makes no mention of him even having one. The website of Namya Press indicates that his books are likely vanity press which also fails to show WP notability. He fails to meet notability as an author (WP:NAUTHOR) or martial artist (WP:MANOTE). In other words, I can find no WP notability criteria that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Waggers TALK 01:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deliveree[edit]

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

Non-notable company fails to meet WP:ORGCRITE. Nothing found in reliable sources in-depth. All the references are primary, tech and finance blogposts. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Indonesia. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep; there is another Wikipedia page in another language for the company that looks pretty well-sourced. You can review that and then come to a further decision. I know it's another operation altogether in terms of non-English language Wikipedias as to how they run them, but if the company withstood the scrutiny test there regarding notability, why can't it be bestowed here based on the sources? JRed176 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor here who knows Indonesian looks at the sources in that article and can show that they are sufficient to sustain an article then those sources can be used here. We can't take the fact that an article was created two or three months ago on another Wikipedia and has not withstood any scrutiny test there as any evidence of notability here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The initial recommendation to delete this page contains a substantial amount of western bias. The company qualifies as notable under WP:ORGCRITE as it is the main subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are both secondary and completely independent of the subject. The sources are:

- TechCrunch

- Business Times

- DealStreetAsia

- Tech in Asia

- TechNode Global

- The Loadstar

- Kompas

- Tempo

- BeritaSatu

Some of these sources, notably Business Times, DealStreetAsia, TechinAsia, Kompas, Tempo, and BeritaSatu are well established sources in Asia which may not be familiar to the editor who made the initial recommendation for deletion. None are blog posts or blogs as the editor incorrectly states. WKAsia (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WKAsia, This nomination wasn't on the basis of western biasness as you people always claim. I am aware of and familiar all the sources you listed above and searched thoroughly before nomination. All the websites are unreliable and news agregator except Business Times, Kompas and BeratiaSatu, if you take a look on the wiki pages of those websites you would find notability tags too , but here we aren't discussing these sources. If you see on the subject, its flooded with reference and just covering "Deliveree raises USD 70 million in series C funding" news in the same dates after each other. I can't find anything noteworthy other than that to comply with the companies notability guidelines. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. So what does that mean? In summary, we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - so the quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant, we're looking solely at the quality of content. We need at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In short, references that rely almost *entirely* on announcements or information provided by the company or their execs fail ORGIND.

I've looked at the references including those that WKAsia mentions above. For example, the TechCrunch article (like most TechCrunch articles) relies entirely on regurgitating and puffing up an announcement ("announced today that it has raised a $70 million Series C...") using quotes from the CEO with absolutely zero "Independent Content". Fails NCORP criteria miserably. The Business Times reference fails for the same reason. WP:SERIESA essay is relevant here. I'm unable to locate and references that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing, thank you for your explanations. To help address your comments, I have added a new citation from BeritaSatu, a large and reputed news organization in Indonesia, that should suffice as independent content and reporting. The nature of business and news reporting in this part of the world tends to be more fact based and generally lacks the the spirit of investigative journalism and independent reporting that you’re referring to. This may help to explain why there is a substantial lack of Asia based content in Wikipedia’s English site – this is something we are attempting to address by adding this page. WKAsia (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WKAsia, perhaps your definitions are different but I don't consider regurgitated PR and announcements to be fact based reporting (other than reporting on the fact that an announcement was made and what the company said). What we require is that the journalist has created some in-depth Independent Content. I can't see anything in the new references that shows they meet NCORP - the references invariably rely on announcements and/or information provided by company execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the relevant standard, as Highking points out. XOR'easter (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that press release materials have been abused to bulk up the prose and referencing in this article. However, upon close analysis of the individual sources, I believe there is enough independent coverage to keep the article and endorse a rewrite instead. When I exclude all the Series C news (which account for at least half of the citations) and cross reference against Deliveree's press releases (Indonesian and English), I'm left with the following:

Digital News Asia: [6]
Tech in Asia: [7] [8]
Kompas: [9] [10]
DealStreetAsia: [11] (Covers Series C news, but first few sentences appear to have a more neutral tone. Need to get around paywall to evaluate more accurately.)

—Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Arsonal, you say that "there is enough independent coverage". Let's go over the sources but first lets check what we're looking for. I've already posted the requirements above including the definition of "Independent Content". It is important to remember the criteria doesn't evaluate or consider volume of coverage (or "enough" coverage) or an aggregation of coverage. As per WP:SIRS, *each* reference must meet *all* the requirements and we simply need "multiple" i.e. two references. Each must be significant and in-depth. And each must contain "Independent Content" and that content must be clearly identifiable as such.

Thailand’s Deliveree shifts to a B2B gameplan reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and a discussion with its regional senior manager Nattapak ‘Nat’ Atichartakarn. There is no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
This startup delivers boxes in Jakarta. Nope, it’s not Go-Jek reference relies entirely on information provided by an investor, Inspire Ventures founding partner and CEO Tom Kim, who cannot be considered as someone "unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject", there is no evidence of any "Independent Content" and therefore this reference also fails ORGIND.
As gas prices soar, SEA logistics players brace for impact reference also relies entirely on information provided by the CEO. There is no "Independent Content" therefore also fails ORGIND.
Ingin Gebrak Industri Industri Logistik, Ini Strategi Deliveree Indonesia reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and its CEO. It also has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
Perusahaan Startup Ini Justru Tetap Rekrut Karyawan di Tengah Gelombang PHK reference also relies entirely on information provided by the CEO. Fails ORGIND.
https://www.dealstreetasia.com/stories/deliveree-expand-indonesia-298461 reference can be read simply by having a free account (one free "premium" story per month). Unfortunately it also relies entirely on information from the CEO and the company. It also has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.

Arsonal, perhaps you'd like to review your !vote in light of the above? Or perhaps you can point to another source which you believe meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Arsonal appreciate the objective viewpoint. Your suggestion is a reasonable approach and I agree with it. I very much welcome the Wikipedia editorial community to edit/rewrite this article based on the independent coverage available here and elsewhere on the internet. Moreover, while I appreciate the rigorousness with which this current article is being evaluated, I also note that it does not seem that the same level of rigor is being applied to many other pages in the Wikipedia English universe. For example, I reference another company that is not too dissimilar to Deliveree called Lalamove. The sources used for this page rely nearly entirely on company content and press releases with the single exception of the Forbes article. WKAsia (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WKAsia, while I understand what you're trying to say, please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a productive argument to be had in deletion discussions. Deletion is an article-by-article evaluation and not meant to be an assessment across articles. I will attempt to draft a rewrite. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arsonal thank you, I think a rewrite and further contributions/edits from the rest of the Wikipedia editorial community is a reasonable way to proceed. WKAsia (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The reliability of the sources matter as much as the relevance that there is "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Company announcements and company seed money reports, do not advance notability. The company was founded in 2014 but a source (from the article) states "This makes Deliveree a centaur or startup with a valuation of over US $100 million. Are we sure this is the same company? Hard to be a "startup" after 8 or more years. I do not see that the notability criteria have been met. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. With all due respect to those suggesting a rewrite, all the editing in the world cannot fix this. BruceThomson (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University. I don't think further relistings will result in any more participation here so I'm closing this discussion as a Redirect. Should the Canadian microbiologist be covered in an article in the future, we can reconsider the use of this redirect page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninan Abraham[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Being a vice chancellor of a college does not in itself confer notability. I tried searching for sources, but only discovered this very short obituary in Malayalam [12] that I added to the article.
Note: there is a Canadian microbiologist of the same name who might be notable [13], and for a while this article was a WP:FRANKENSTEIN listing the latter's papers; I reverted it to the original state. No such user (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Found https://uccollege.edu.in/news/dr-ninan-abraham-an-alumni-and-former-faculty-of-ucc-turns-100-years-old/, but cannot track the original newspaper source. No such user (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vice chancellor of a college in India actually can in itself confer notability, as Indian vice chancellors are considered to be the highest post at an cfor WP:NPROF#C6. That said, I'm unsure (and skeptical) of whether or not Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University is considered a major academic institution in India. Curbon7 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University. The reason for redirect is to WP:NPROF#C6. Although Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University is a public sector university in India but I can't see any of the coverage in reliable source during his tenure. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Waggers TALK 01:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intact America[edit]

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

Promotional page for the organization. Coverage of the group in reliable sources outside of passing mentions is almost non-existent. Present citations for the article are entirely self-cited from Intact America itself, rather than secondary+ sources.

Doesn't appear to be independently notable. KlayCax (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2023 (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/2023 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in many RS, easily passes WP:GNG. Nom's claim that Present citations for the article are entirely self-cited from Intact America itself, rather than secondary+ sources is evidently incorrect: secondary sources cited in the article are Reuters, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, NBC News, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post (twice), American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics (journal) (twice), Associated Press. Last I checked, all of these are RS. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentioning" isn't the criteria of notability. WP: GNG requires "significant coverage" for sourcing.

That is, it "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Note that WP: GNG also states that references like "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." and is thus "not notable". All of these sources — with the exception of Reuters, The Washington Post, and The Huffington Post — are exactly this. Of the remaining, all of them fail the criteria of being independent of the subject. WP: GNG goes on to state that reliability "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent".

Everything posted is either a self-published source or brief mention. None of that meets the criteria of WP: GNG. Note: I'm the person who proposed the AfD. So I'm not casting a vote for or against the proposal in this. Personally, I think that merging the article into circumcision controversies would be the best option. KlayCax (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Circumcision controversies Delete per rationale given by KlayCax in the above comments. I agree that the subject does not presently meet the notability criteria required for a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: I've revised my !vote. After further consideration, a redirect might be considered, but I'm not convinced there's enough RS-based content here to be merged.Sal2100 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The organization has not been profiled in any sources, only mentioned. Lamona (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIRS. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Elrod[edit]

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

Author that fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE search shows only primary and non-reliable sources. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my own search confirms Nom's findings, there's no independent notable Ghits or anything of the sort. Fails WP:BIO. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 22:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. I've heard of the name, but there's no reliable sources, and is this an easy target of vandalism. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fender (company). Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Urge Bass[edit]

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

Non-notable product. No references given, and the only references available seem to be superficial capsule reviews that don't satisfy the "in-depth" part of WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of products manufactured by Fender Musical Instruments Corporation (or possibly Fender (company). Article has zero sources. (Cursory Wikipedia Library cross-database search also did not yield any results.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, just redirect to Fender (company). (Have now been reading all the other AfD history associated with the List page and the individual product pages, and I see the problem that the List page specifically excludes non-notable products.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian numbers[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a language translator. Someone who wants to know the name of a number in Romanian can do so by looking up the English word for the number in Wiktionary and then going to the Translations template and finding the Romanian word. Georgia guy (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this isn’t a quick “how to say ‘eight’ in Romanian” guide but a valid encyclopedic exposition of the unusual grammatical characteristics of numbers in Romanian and some of their variations. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — valid topic, in line with many others of this type. Has been covered as such by reliable sources. — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is far too much-unsupported material that one cannot possibly tell what is original research or not. Three inline citations citations and seven "general references" do provide adequate sourcing let alone advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - goes well beyond dictionary definitions. I agree it could be better sourced and I will tag it for that. Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The stated rationale for deletion does not apply to this article. If anything, the article explains why translation is more complicated than just going to Wiktionary and reading off a list. Yes, it is presently undersourced, but this is the kind of topic that linguists can noodle about indefinitely. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it could use better sourcing, especially inline sources, it passes GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh massacre[edit]

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

Another term invented by the Lauriswift911 user that is not mentioned in authoritative sources. Yes, perhaps we have a separate fact of the murder of 17,000 Kazakhs, but there is no generalized term "Kazakh massacre" in historiography. I would advise you to pay attention to the user's activity, since half of his articles are real hoaxes. Kazman322 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Contrary to your expectations, Foggy kub is my friend, and he just went to my account, do not be offended by your story, you lost and won, this article has the right to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriswift911 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that you admitted to breaking the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry rule? Kazman322 (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Sockpuppetry" rule is - if I edited through several accounts, but no, I only have one account - Lauriswift911. Kazman322

@Lauriswift911, Gosh, this is compromised account. I will notice a sysop ASAP. Lemonaka (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazman322, If you no longer have questions about the article, then I propose to close the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriswift911 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources that use this specific term as defined here can be found. There is no article about the war in which this event took place – the first step would be to create that article, I'd say. Provided there are sources discussing it. --bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though historical tragedy, found literary nothing to use as reference. Twinkle1990 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! Twinkle1990, can i prove it with sources? the article has all the sources, and Kazman322 simply does not appear on the network, since he is Kazakh, it is beneficial for him to hide the losses of his nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriswift911 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is important for you to come up with a story about the great Kyrgyz winners and Kazakh losers. the term Kazakh massacre does not exist, it's just your euphoric fiction. Kazman322 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Be that as it may, the article contains all the sources about the massacre of Kazakhs by Kyrgyz troops. Gotta know how to lose.

Lauriswift911 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't see that GNG is met but an AFD closure isn't about the closer's opinion but the consensus of the discussion participants and on that, after 3 relistings, I see no consensus here. For those advocating Keep, I suggest you add sources supplying SIGCOV to the article or we will likely see it renominated for a second trip to AFD in the very near future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aparajita Auddy[edit]

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

Actor BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in non-routine sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR and GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Somebodyidkfkdt. Which references do you think establish that WP:GNG is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This, this and this appear to establish notability. Even if GNG is not met, she passes NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links. Personally I think they are trivial gossip-type articles, but we shall see what other people think. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets WP:NACTOR #1. Multiple lead roles in several films and television programs over many years. The awards mentioned such as BFJA awards are notable and prestigious and help towards further establish notability. This page has enough source and depth of various sources and this page is presented in an organized manner so there is no question of deletion. Nilpriyo (talk) 2:17, 7 January 2023
- Note to the closer: Please not that the two keep votes directly above are from the same editor.The Banner talk 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Got it: comment altered by admin (me); two keeps merged into one. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: please search with alternative spelling Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and specially in Bengali Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Google Translate will help to read from the Bengali sources. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but rescue should be possible Seeing that a majority of the article is unsourced, that info should be scrapped. The rest is only backed up by poor sources (trivial), not by in-depth quality sources. At the very least, the WP:BLP-issues must be solved. The Banner talk

Hello The Banner. Perhaps WP:DRAFTIFY would be useful here? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When there are proper sources for this article, they should be added pretty soon. But when the main authors do not commit to that, I think draftify would only act as de delaying tactic. (i.e. nothing happens --> draft --> nothing happens --> draft restored to article space on request --> AfD --> removal) The Banner talk 22:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable Bengali actor. There are several WP:RS references available in Bengali language media. Twinkle1990 (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBIO and all other notability criteria for lack of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. -- Otr500 (talk)

Comments: An indirect reference to WP:NEXIST that is often cited as a Hail Mary that sources may exist, somewhere in the universe. The last sentence of WP:NEXIST states, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. A 2012 article would suggest enough time has passed. In fact, there is a 2020 "needs additional citations for verification" tag.

A major issue, that seems to be overlooked, is that a BLP is more than career content that makes an article a resume or pseudo biography. Sometimes it may be considered silly but a birthday, place of birth, and other "personal" information are usually in a biography.

What we have is a lead with "Aparajita Auddy is an Indian actress who works primarily in Bengali film and television industry" and the article jumps straight to the "Filmography" section. There is so much unsourced content that the given sources doesn't support so the article is either original research or the career lists are sourced through IMDb that is not a reliable source. Wait! what about awards? Best Actress In A Supporting Role should advance notability. However, the source does not mention the subject at all. It is a "Press Release by Filmfare via Brandwire.in" and that company redirects to Mediawire, "Where PR Becomes News". The subject supposedly won "West Bengal Film Journalists' Association" Awards for Best Actress In A Leading Role for Cheeni (Winner). Find a reliable source for either of those awards. Hint: The first one listed has not happened yet. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Titodutta Are you able to search for sources yourself? Google translate can only get you so far. I'm inclined to think she's notable based on the volume of coverage in Bengali and English news media, but I'm struggling to find a single source that has substantive biographical information. I'm currently thinking she just about meets WP:NACTOR; she appears to have been given second or third billing in a few pieces we'd consider notable. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manthan Systems[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirement; NCORP. Most sources are simple remarks or news about investing, raising funds, acquisition news etc. RPSkokie (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. RPSkokie (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also the parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algonomy, the firm's current name. AllyD (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both articles have a lot of press, but I do not see anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete I can see the subject has coverage in multiple business and finance news sources, but the independence and reliability of the references are still questionable per WP:ORGCRIT. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could have potentially closed as delete, but I relisted the other debate so figured it would be logical to relist this one also. Daniel (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find reliable, substantive, intellectually independent coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Algonomy[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirement; NCORP. RPSkokie (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. RPSkokie (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also the parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manthan Systems, one of the preceding constituent firms. AllyD (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both articles have a lot of press, but I do not see anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find reliable, substantive, intellectually independent coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Allahyar and the Legend of Markhor. The need for a standalone article has not been established. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uzair Zaheer Khan[edit]

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

Notability not established because fails to meet the WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. References are primary and unreliable. Only single reliable source covering his work thrice. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:CREATIVE. The subject has created (written and directed) a notable animation film Allahyar and the Legend of Markhor. Also, he has received a fair amount of media coverage. Insight 3 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - even though he fails WP:GNG, he just qualifies under WP:CREATIVE as having "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work." That work, Allahyar and the Legend of Markhor, received a couple of significant awards. The reason my recommendation is weak is that the coverage of that work may not rise to the standard of being "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". In particular, the first 8 refs under "Reception" were all about the trailer rather than the film itself, so do not contribute. I prefer 206.84.190.55's suggestion of a redirect to Allahyar and the Legend of Markhor.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article Allahyar and the Legend of Markhor actually misses some significant reviews, for example: [14] and [15]. Insight 3 (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have mis-typed when you said it "misses" reviews. Those reviews are not missing, as your links show. Perhaps they should also be incorporated into the article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although he wrote and directed the film, if you take a look at the film, the page is filled with references from a mix of primary, gaming and blog news posts. A few credible sources are covering its trailer as regular news. However, more contributions would be somewhat agreeable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uzair Zaheer Khan has done so much in the field of animation in Pakistan that a separate page about his information should be on Wikipedia.

So I do not think deletion of his page is valid. MuhammadWaheedBhatti (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allahyar and the Legend of Markhor (his only noteworthy contribution). Most of the coverage is interview-based (primary source) and some mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 206.84.190.55 (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just a "contribution", its a "creation" and falls under the WP:CREATIVE. Insight 3 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close.. When all of the participants in a discussion (save one) have been sockpuppets and the one editor who isn't a sockpuppet didn't sign their opinion, I think it is time to close this discussion and start afresh with a new one. No penalty for starting a 2nd AFD after this closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ulugbekhon[edit]

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

Promotional Does not meet BLP notability requirements Obscure sources el.ziade (talkallam) 17:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Uzbekistan, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’m not familiar with where the promotional point of view could be coming from. But subject article has gained significant coverage from reliable source which passes WP:GNG such as Daily Times (Nigeria), The Punch, San Francisco Examiner, Vanguard (Nigeria), Khaleej Times many but few to mention from my research on Google. Regarding the BLP notability, I think subject passes Basic criteria. Subject passes Keep and if sounds promotional other editors can help I think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EZYF (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC) — EZYF (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Gabriel601 (talk · contribs). Spicy (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. With the exception of the San Francisco Examiner piece, there's a total lack of either substantial coverage or reliable sources.
Keep The subject is notable and has gain enough independent reliable sources as I can see. although requires little cleanup and needs to be added in more categories related to the subject.--Kgbrrb54 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)— Kgbrrb54 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Gabriel601 (talk · contribs). Spicy (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC - Also found some of this reliable sources useful which also meets WP:GNG

"Dubai businessman Ulugbekhon Maksumov set to launch Aksum Group in Africa". Daily times Newspaper. Retrieved 19 December 2022.

"Uzbekistan government honours founder of Aksum group Maksumov". The Nation Newspaper. Retrieved 21 January 2022.

"Ulugbekhon Maksumov speaks on INKAS UAE success at 2019 Dubai Motor Show". Vanguard Newspaper. Retrieved 30 November 2019.

"Aksum Group CEO, Ulugbekhon Maksumov speaks on Covid-19 pandemic, vaccines". Guardian Newspaper. Retrieved 9 January 2021.

~~"Ulugbekhon Maksumov's touch to launch and making of Aksum Marine". Khaleejtimes Newspaper. Retrieved 7 May 2022.~~--Foodei564 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC) — Foodei564 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Gabriel601 (talk · contribs). Spicy (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Article biography doesn’t seems to be promotional, meanwhile it has been rated as start-class on its talk page .~~--Doctorlimp (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC) — Doctorlimp (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ugbedeg (talk · contribs). Spicy (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Mollegen[edit]

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

Notability not established with independent substantive sources. The main source, Marquis Who's Who, is established by WP:RSP as an unreliable source based on the subject's own contributions. Then cites 2, 3, and 4 are not even about him, cites 5, 6, and 8 are from his high school paper, and cite 7 is written by the subject. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citation two features a direct quote from the subject which begins at the end of the first page of the article and continues on the second page. The Hartford Courant identifies Mollegen as the chairman of one of Connecticut's top defense contractors establishing notability by a reliable independent source. His notability is further established by the newspaper calling on him to comment on the subject of the newspaper article. Regarding citation one, the reliability of an entry in a Who's Who directory is a matter of debate. While some if not all of the information may be provided by the subject, it does not preclude the verification of that information by the publication. One's nomination for inclusion in such a directory in no way guarantees that the nomination will be accepted. Additionally, if the reliability of sources is the only issue and not the subject's achievements, the article should be tagged requesting more reliable sources and not tagged for deletion.Igbo (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Analysis and Technology, Inc. is apparently not even a notable enough company to have an article. Why in the world would its chairman be automatically notable for holding this position? There's a lot of even major corporations out there whose CEOs do not and should not have articles, and a brief quotation in the local paper does not establish notability. Who's Who is not up for debate – WP:RSP says it was already up for debate for the sixth time just five months ago and found to be generally unreliable. Reywas92^Talk 14:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that someone is working through a genealogy of this family on WP - and few of the members meet GNG. There is virtually nothing about this person except for listings in ancestry.com. That his one sister does seem to meet GNG does not help him at all. I am sure that the professional photo here is not free of copyright. He wrote a four-sentence letter to the editor of the LA Times. Lamona (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom, fails notability criteria. Also, while the use of ancestry.com (2 times) as a primary source is debatable it is not debatable that a primary source does not advance notability. An obituary does not advance notability, nor does the "Mollegen, Ted" source. The "Bixby, Lyn" source is about the company. A search turned up that the subject is a church officer and passing mention on

this source -- Otr500 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Feel free to start an RM discussion to resolve any concerns about the title. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro-Roman Kingdom[edit]

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

Potential hoax.

I've searched on Google, Google Books and Scholar and found nothing pertaining to this subject. There's some mentions of Romans in North Africa, but no mentions of a "Mauro-Roman Kingdom". Greyhound 84 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Greyhound 84 (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't had a chance to look into the sources yet, but I doubt that an article that has passed a GA review from a competent user who is knowledgeable in the topic (User:Iazyges) could be a hoax. Curbon7 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is properly sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through several of the sources and none of them mention Mauro-Roman Kingdom. Greyhound 84 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likely a sampling error, as a number of them are used for context not directly related to the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, or use names not identical to it. See the link below. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep properly sourced, but niche topic (and a huge variety of names, such as Moorish-Roman Kingdom) is likely to interfere with an easy search result. @Greyhound 84: among other sources, see this for confirmation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7: Appreciate the compliment ;). You can find easy proof from the link above, as well as the other sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's only one source and it's quite vague. I looked up "Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum" on Google, Google Books and Scholar and that's the only thing that comes up. There's a couple other books but they seem to be translations of said book or cite that book. Greyhound 84 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyhound 84: On its own, it's a reliable source that supports its existence, and disproved a hoax. See also this. Again, there are a number of sources that use different names for a niche subject. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyhound 84: With respect, I suggest withdrawing the nomination. It's an understandable mistake, given how hard the niche sources are to find. But its demonstrably not a hoax, as several reliable sources refer to it and confirm it's existence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: I think the title is a Wikipedian invention. It cannot be found in RS. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: Hmm. Perhaps Moorish-Roman kingdom? That's in the RS. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concerns have previously been raised about the title (Talk:Mauro-Roman_Kingdom#Title_and_Latin_name) and although there was general agreement that something ought to be changed, there was no consensus on what that change should be. However, whatever issues exist there are not justification for deletion.Furius (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-title and re-jig. I raised the same issues as Furius on the talk page. It's not a hoax, but it probably shouldn't be a GA until the problems are fixed. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retitle such as Moorish-Roman Kingdom as under that name it is covered in reliable sources as identified in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty funny situation to be honest. The kingdom is mentioned in an extremely wide variety of sources including Procopius's history of the war, who refers to it either simply as "Moors" or "Altavans", and Corippus's Iohannus, who referred to it by the same names. The name "Mauro-Roman kingdom" comes from an inscription made by king Masuna which called him the king of the Maurs and Romans. I believe this name is used instead of the alternative "Kingdom of Altava" to differentiate from the later runp state that came after the fall of Garmul, last king ruling over this unified kingdom.

Whatever748 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably renamed - There must have been some one ruler this area in the late antique period. I see no reason to regard this as incredible. However the current name needs reconsideration. That is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper above, although also a possible move? Bearian (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XPO, Inc.[edit]

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

XPO, Inc. is not notable as its business has diluted over the years. I'm noticing a lot of the current sources focus on a previous version of the company and have become inaccurate. Based on my research, the company seems to have solely focused on trucking since 2021, and as it stands it does not meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG standards. Not all public companies are notable. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Transportation. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing used in the article is routine business press. All I find are stories about their stock, a new CEO and the like. Does not meet CORP. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple BEFORE search of various U.S. publications shows continuing coverage to the present day for various issues, so there should be sufficient sources to demonstrate notability: 2021 wage theft, ties to DeJoy at the USPS, CNBC coverage of a spinoff, etc. Sounder Bruce 19:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like the current version of XPO owns all of the trucks and drivers. For example, the LA Times article you referenced focuses on STG and RXO which don't own the trucks, and were deemed non notable on Wikipedia. It seems to me like most of those trucks are not branded, and are driven by independent contractors after a quick look at the RXO website. I'm not sure that these sources establish notability for XPO today. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and New York Times citations readily establish notability. 2. There appears to be a fundamental mistake in this nomination, which implies that the company is not as notable as it used to be because it spun off RXO. ~~By this logic, Lehman Brothers's article should be deleted because they are not around today and therefore no longer notable.~~ Sorry, Sneakerheadguy, I hadn't noticed that you have rarely contributed at WP:AFD in the past and may not be perfectly familiar with all the nuances of WP:N. That was an unfair remark of me to make. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I appreciate that. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is (or was) a Fortune 500 company, NYSE listed, included in the S&P 400; there will clearly be ample coverage. Enough is already cited in the article to establish notability. WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Jfire (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For comments on it's Fortune 500 status and mentions in newspapers above. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to start working on distinguishing between the companies since that seems important. The GXO page is also nominated for deletion. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on all keep comments above and Fortune 500 status I agree that this should be kept.Threevian (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified above. Article clears NCORP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SounderBruce. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:CORP --Devoke water 19:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Wayne Van Leer (Officer)[edit]

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

No evidence found of notability, the Washington Post obituary is in the local section of obituarues, together with a local elementary school teacher, police officer, .... Other sources aren't independent (his college, his employers, his family, ...). Fram (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, United States of America, and Virginia. Fram (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he had various office jobs, nothing very notable that I see. Just a long-serving functionary in the military and other boards/companies. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see any credible claim to notability, and the only source of any weight is the obit. If this was of any substance it might confer some claim to notability, but it's barely more than a death notice.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fram, great work with putting numerous articles through deletion tests to maintain quality control. I added several additional sources outside of the obituary, archive, and college publication you listed above. With that said, I read the Military history/Notability guide again and I'm not sure if it's sufficient at this time. Most of the other refs are military publications mentioning the person's record as Oaktree pointed out. I'm impartial with a deletion. Joplats (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC, numerous minor passing references show that he existed and, as Oaktree b says, was a long-serving functionary in the military and other boards/companies. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any evidence of real notability. Although if the article's kept someone might want to actually correct the death date...as it stands the article is showing two different ones, and neither agrees with what's in the cited obituary.Intothat darkness 16:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while accomplished, does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calculator (Nintendo Switch)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. All the reliable sources I could find only give it a trivial mention announcing it exists and maybe a jab at how expensive it is. This is perhaps expected considering the simplicity of the actual software but means it is non-notable nonetheless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It probably deserves a mention somewhere, as many reliable sources have called it out for being a dumb idea. I would vote to keep the article as is if someone can find a source outside of that one week in May. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the most amazing idea, since almost everyone has a smartphone these days, but I'd guess it has its uses. Regardless of my opinion, the real problem is that there is not much commentary on the app itself or its functionality. It's the definition of trivial coverage, and everybody just says the same thing. If anyone actually reviewed the calculator in an objective manner, it might be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has plenty of coverage, but I do question if it meets WP:SUSTAINED, considering it was only really discussed for being a stupid idea before moving on after a week. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as article creator – things like the TechRadar ref are SIGCOV in my opinion, and most everything else is the most that can be covered about it—it's a calculator. While that can probably be used as an argument against notability, I think the existence of sources, WP:GNG states that significant coverage makes it so that no original research is needed to extract content, and the article doesn't contain OR, and that it is a non-trivial mention. Given that the articles are all about the Calculator specifically, I think it's a non-trivial message. DecafPotato (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so basic that it cannot be covered in more than a few sentences, maybe it simply innately lacks notability for an encyclopedia. However, I believe it has the potential for an *actual* review and it was simply ignored in that regard. That is to say, it could be notable with the right coverage, but it's not, since it only got a bunch of snarky remarks in various game websites. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been non-trivially mentioned in about a dozen gaming publications, which is more than enough to demonstrate notability. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to consider is that the nominator believes that the article's citations only demonstrate "trivial" coverage. How could this possibly be the case when in most cases the app is the primary subject of the cited articles? Partofthemachine (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those can be the case at the same time if the article is just a short announcement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even stupid products can be notable if they received dedicated, significant coverage from reliable, third party sources, like this one does. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: For the record, I don't actually think it is stupid, so this is not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. I would like to see the WP:SIGCOV examples you state exists, though. Everything that I checked from the references seems trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same thing you've already been told up and down this nomination - the article is already filled with many WP:VG/S-approved third party sources dedicated to the subject. Entire articles written around the subject. We all define significant coverage differently, but it's rare to not consider 6+ sources written specifically about the subject to not be enough to meet the GNG. You're setting the bar too high, and I find it strange that you don't realize that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Apparently setting the bar at "more than just a news announcement that it exists" is too high. I saw almost no actual critical reception positively or negatively or reviews of the calculator. That would be enough to disqualify any standard video game. You can't solely determine notability from the fact that a trusted source made a passing mention of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are setting the bar too high. None of that is required in meeting the GNG. And there's a complete disconnect between your claims of "passing mention" and the actual sources being used in the article. I think you're a bit too caught up in the mindset of merge discussions. We commonly merge back split out articles that are relatively short. But there's nothing wrong with short start/stub articles existing if there isn't anywhere that makes sense for merging. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its the main subject of all the cited articles as far as I can tell, which makes it more significant than just a "trivial mention". Since some people are unsure as to wherever it had sustained coverage, I did find articles after May 2021 that mention it, including a game that seems to be a parody of the original - [16][17][18] --Totalibe (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are all dedicated to the app, satisfying WP:SIGCOV. Yeah, it's a stupid product, but still passes WP:GNG. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elke Tsang Kai Mong[edit]

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

I can't find anything notable about this person outside their arrest and execution. Seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E, and WP:PERP also applies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about the person found, routine drug smuggling case. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, yes i dont think this deserves its own article, please dont delete it, or the other i have created, for a few days please until i receive direction on how to remedy I think i should create an over arching article "Drug Trafficking in Singapore" and add in each of the offending articles as paragraphs, would that work ? something like this:

opening paragraph

the brief history is blah blah can be split into 2: local dealers and drug mules caught at airport

notable local drug busts

bust a arrest of offender trail verdict and sentence

notable drug mules

person a arrest trail verdict and sentence

person b arrest trail verdict and sentence

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: definitely WP:ONEEVENT, also the WP:EVENT itself is not notable and the subject does not pass the criteria "For perpetrators". -- Otr500 (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sachiko Tsuruta[edit]

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

There simply isn't enough third-party evidence that Sachiko Tsuruta satisfies Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Everything here is based around winning the Marcel Grossmann Prize. I doubt that this is enough. Even the list of publications is unspectacular. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue to keep this article as the subject does pass WP:NACADEMIC. She has been awarded the Marcel Grossmann Prize, a prestigious international award for her scientific achievement. Additionally, WP:BIO has stated that many "academics are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." That being said, this article definitely needs work and more sources. Some sources I found in my search were: 1 2 3 4 5. There are others out there, these are just to name a few. --RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to be true, the article needs work. I based it on translating the de.wikipedia entry for Tsuruta, where apparently standards for "notability" are not so strict. She did fundamental research in the study of neutron stars and pulsars in the 1960s which is noteworthy. -- SelfCorrection (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a very prestigious award. It's also necessary to look at an academic's career in the context of their own time, not the present moment; her publication list is good for the times through which she worked. Her link to the neutron star makes her a very impressive figure. Elemimele (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won a notable award (see WP:ANYBIO) after discovering a notable thing (the star type). Therefore, in my opinion, clearly a notable person and this article clearly improves the encyclopaedia. CT55555(talk) 19:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Faulty nomination doesn't even consider the correct notability criterion, WP:PROF. With seven triple-digit citation counts and others close to that, I think she passes WP:PROF#C1, and the award makes a strong case for #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets our notability criteria for WP:ANYBIO per the notable award and WP:PROF per citation count for her research, (and she sounds like an awesome woman in a field that mostly consists of men). This is an important contribution to the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. This nomination seems to typify a prejudice in Wikipedia against women scientists exemplified in the Donna Strickland scandal. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, Xxanthippe, you should assume good faith. I have worked hard in my editing throughout a decade to ensure that women scientists are treated fairly. This page is in a much stronger state than it was when I nominated it. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination should be done on the basis of the subject's notability, established by analysis as defined here WP:BEFORE, not on the state of the article. CT55555(talk) 04:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That goes without saying. But how does one know? I did google her. One makes a recommendation in good faith and trusts the expertise and judgment of other editors. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One could try learning what the correct notability criterion is before making a deletion nomination that doesn't even address that criterion. I would think that rather less than a decade would be needed to learn such distinctions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a personal attack. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoyTheKingCanDance: It is nonsense to claim that a justified question of WP:Competence is a personal attack. You might like to withdraw this misguided nomination before further time of editors is wasted. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see how that is remotely true. The nom just didn't know about NPROF and so correctly assessed that the subject did not meet traditional GNG criteria, as would be the case for most academics, male or female. And the "Donna Strickland scandal" could just as easily have been named after Hiroshi Amano or Takaaki Kajita or Konstantin Novoselov or George Smith or John C. Mather or John L. Hall or Theodor Hansch or any of the other scientists who didn't have WP articles before they won a Nobel. The problem is entirely in editors' understanding of NPROF and the fact that there are probably hundreds of thousands of scholars who meet NPROF so our coverage is understandably incomplete. Baselessly accusing people of sexism is needlessly inflammatory and counterproductive. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion that has veered off topic of this AfD
The case of Nobel Prize winner Donna Strickland was not that she did not have a BLP. She did, but it was rejected, [19], [20] [21] at AfC by an editor who was apparently also unaware of WP:Prof. Many people make mistakes and most can learn from them. I hope that the nominator will. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC).[reply] No, the draft was rejected based on not clearly meeting NPROF: the reviewer didn't have evidence that OSA membership was sufficient for C3, and there was no secondary source to support the importance of chirped pulse for C1. Those determinations didn't have anything to do with gender, the same conclusion would be made for any such draft. The media's misinformed and overblown reaction, particularly their mischaracterization of a routine guideline-based AfC rejection as a "deletion", further calls into question the validity of their other "Wikipedia v. women" reports. The point I am trying to make is that in the current case the nom's mistake is entirely his ignorance of NPROF, so it's completely inappropriate to assert this AfD is because of sexism and even more so to tie it to a separate event that also had nothing to do with sexism. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Your post-facto rationalization is dubious at best. At the time of the decline she already had a good citation record and the draft listed her as a fellow of a major society, both giving a good case for passing WP:PROF. There is no evidence from the draft decline that the decliner even considered these things. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] To add numbers to support Eppstein’s argument: on Google scholar [22] Donna Strickland had 9441 citations to her work before she got the Nobel Prize. This gives a stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 by the standards of the time, where even 1000 citations has sometimes been argued as a case for a Keep at AfD. The decliner of the draft BLP did not seem to have considered this matter. If the BLP had gone to AfD it would, in my view and based on current standards, have received an overwhelming pass. To revert to something more on-topic: I think that the notability of Sachiko Tsuruta is not just run-of the mill but is, because of her citation record and her prize, very strong. I hope that editors who look for an increased presence of women scientists on Wikipedia will vote to keep this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC).[reply] And the assertion that the decline was based on sexism violates AGF and NPA, in addition to being directly contradicted by the decliner's stated rationale. AfC reviewers are not required to do a BEFORE, let alone know the nuances of field-relative citation counts, especially when being heavily cited isn't mentioned as a claim to notability in the submission; nor is it expected they personally investigate the stature of specific academic societies; and N/OR very clearly require secondary sources, which were not in the draft. Again, a routine decline because the draft did not make a clear case for notability or comply with policy is not sexism. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] You are entitled to your views, but they weren’t shared by the international media [23] [24], and harm was done to Wikipedia’s reputation for gender neutrality. Wikilawyering about following rules blindly (particularly when WP:IAR is available) is not going to change that. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC).[reply] The international media have always had a severe misunderstanding of Wikipedia processes, as should be immediately evident by their calling the decline a "deletion" and their baselessly asserting this was motivated by sexism; this is in contrast to the overwhelming support of the decline among actual Wikipedians. The text of the submitted draft did not demonstrate notability, and as AfC specifically does not expect reviewers to do BEFORE it is irrelevant whether the draft would have survived AfD (which I'm sure it would have, and if it had been created according to the AfC submission rules this would have been evident). *There is nothing* here to suggest that the draft would have been treated any differently if it was for a man.** That's not "following rules blindly". Thousands of drafts of researchers get submitted, why on earth should a reviewer be expected to track down each of their citation profiles (and compare them to others in the field; simply looking at citation counts (especially from GS) in isolation is lazy and strongly discouraged by NPROF itself) on the off chance they might meet C1? Why should they apply IAR for arbitrary subjects when the importance of the subject isn't clear -- unless you are suggesting Bradv should have accepted the draft because it's on a woman? JoelleJay (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] I am sorry that you have chosen to give the name of the decliner, which I have not done. He has learnt from his mistake and has not repeated it. In fact, he is doing fine work editing Wikipedia and I hope he will continue that for a long time to come. If following the rules, with neglect of WP:IAR, leads to a public relations catastrophe for Wikipedia, then the rules need to be changed. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC).[reply] I am asking why he should have considered IAR in that case. Nothing in the draft suggested she was anywhere close to receiving a Nobel, how would he have known he was declining anything more than the usual SPA articles on academics? The only way to avoid accidentally declining actually-notable subjects would be to force reviewers to do thorough BEFOREs, which would eviscerate AfC efficiency and participation. And it would defeat the whole purpose of having a system where the burden of proper article creation is just slightly shifted toward the article creator rather than other editors. JoelleJay (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] You may dig up as many excuses as you like. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia experienced a public relations catastrophe as a result of the Donna Strickland episode. Perhaps some thought needs to be given to how to stop this happening again in the future. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Extended discussion that has veered off topic of this AfD

The case of Nobel Prize winner Donna Strickland was not that she did not have a BLP. She did, but it was rejected, [19], [20] [21] at AfC by an editor who was apparently also unaware of WP:Prof. Many people make mistakes and most can learn from them. I hope that the nominator will. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

No, the draft was rejected based on not clearly meeting NPROF: the reviewer didn't have evidence that OSA membership was sufficient for C3, and there was no secondary source to support the importance of chirped pulse for C1. Those determinations didn't have anything to do with gender, the same conclusion would be made for any such draft. The media's misinformed and overblown reaction, particularly their mischaracterization of a routine guideline-based AfC rejection as a "deletion", further calls into question the validity of their other "Wikipedia v. women" reports.

The point I am trying to make is that in the current case the nom's mistake is entirely his ignorance of NPROF, so it's completely inappropriate to assert this AfD is because of sexism and even more so to tie it to a separate event that also had nothing to do with sexism. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your post-facto rationalization is dubious at best. At the time of the decline she already had a good citation record and the draft listed her as a fellow of a major society, both giving a good case for passing WP:PROF. There is no evidence from the draft decline that the decliner even considered these things. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add numbers to support Eppstein’s argument: on Google scholar [22] Donna Strickland had 9441 citations to her work before she got the Nobel Prize. This gives a stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 by the standards of the time, where even 1000 citations has sometimes been argued as a case for a Keep at AfD. The decliner of the draft BLP did not seem to have considered this matter. If the BLP had gone to AfD it would, in my view and based on current standards, have received an overwhelming pass. To revert to something more on-topic: I think that the notability of Sachiko Tsuruta is not just run-of the mill but is, because of her citation record and her prize, very strong. I hope that editors who look for an increased presence of women scientists on Wikipedia will vote to keep this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

And the assertion that the decline was based on sexism violates AGF and NPA, in addition to being directly contradicted by the decliner's stated rationale. AfC reviewers are not required to do a BEFORE, let alone know the nuances of field-relative citation counts, especially when being heavily cited isn't mentioned as a claim to notability in the submission; nor is it expected they personally investigate the stature of specific academic societies; and N/OR very clearly require secondary sources, which were not in the draft. Again, a routine decline because the draft did not make a clear case for notability or comply with policy is not sexism. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your views, but they weren’t shared by the international media [23] [24], and harm was done to Wikipedia’s reputation for gender neutrality. Wikilawyering about following rules blindly (particularly when WP:IAR is available) is not going to change that. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The international media have always had a severe misunderstanding of Wikipedia processes, as should be immediately evident by their calling the decline a "deletion" and their baselessly asserting this was motivated by sexism; this is in contrast to the overwhelming support of the decline among actual Wikipedians. The text of the submitted draft did not demonstrate notability, and as AfC specifically does not expect reviewers to do BEFORE it is irrelevant whether the draft would have survived AfD (which I'm sure it would have, and if it had been created according to the AfC submission rules this would have been evident). There is nothing here to suggest that the draft would have been treated any differently if it was for a man. That's not "following rules blindly". Thousands of drafts of researchers get submitted, why on earth should a reviewer be expected to track down each of their citation profiles (and compare them to others in the field; simply looking at citation counts (especially from GS) in isolation is lazy and strongly discouraged by NPROF itself) on the off chance they might meet C1? Why should they apply IAR for arbitrary subjects when the importance of the subject isn't clear -- unless you are suggesting Bradv should have accepted the draft because it's on a woman? JoelleJay (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you have chosen to give the name of the decliner, which I have not done. He has learnt from his mistake and has not repeated it. In fact, he is doing fine work editing Wikipedia and I hope he will continue that for a long time to come. If following the rules, with neglect of WP:IAR, leads to a public relations catastrophe for Wikipedia, then the rules need to be changed. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I am asking why he should have considered IAR in that case. Nothing in the draft suggested she was anywhere close to receiving a Nobel, how would he have known he was declining anything more than the usual SPA articles on academics? The only way to avoid accidentally declining actually-notable subjects would be to force reviewers to do thorough BEFOREs, which would eviscerate AfC efficiency and participation. And it would defeat the whole purpose of having a system where the burden of proper article creation is just slightly shifted toward the article creator rather than other editors. JoelleJay (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may dig up as many excuses as you like. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia experienced a public relations catastrophe as a result of the Donna Strickland episode. Perhaps some thought needs to be given to how to stop this happening again in the future. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Bodies[edit]

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

I believe this subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The only reviews I could find were on self-published fan sites, and the only other mentions of the book I can find are brief mentions in the context that this is the start of a longer story arc. I can't find any significant coverage about the book itself in independent reliable sources. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any substantial coverage. Content is pure fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acusensus[edit]

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks sources meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH threshold. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent sources sufficient to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH threshold, as follows:
1. Walker, Christopher K. (2020), Sullivan, Helen; Dickinson, Helen (eds.), "Digital Regulation: A New Frontier for Public Service Delivery, Surveillance and Compliance", The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–17, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03008-7_8-1, ISBN 978-3-030-03008-7, retrieved 2023-01-25
  This academic work in the domain of public policy uses Acusensus's trial in NSW as a case study. It provides an in-depth description of the company's product, and the trial is used as an example for analysis of the relationship between private technology companies and regulatory agencies. The article notes: "The digital surveillance system has been developed and deployed by a private technology firm contracted by the state transport and regulation agency (https://www.acusensus.com/). The regulatory aim of the service is to enforce road rules by monitoring and detecting illegal phone use. The policy goal is to encourage behavioral change and reduce the prevalence of distracted driving and consequently improve road safety... The surveillance system uses digital cameras and a radar-based sensor system to visually detect illegal phone use in vehicles, taking high-quality and court admissible digital images of the offending behavior. The digital technology has the capacity to function 24/7 in all weather conditions providing a comprehensive monitoring system. In terms of system operation, digital images of suspected illegal behavior are collected and processed by automatic analysis software."
2. O'Sullivan, Matt (2019-07-18). "High-tech cameras to nab motorists catch eye of Privacy Commissioner". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2023-01-25.
  This news article reports on scrutiny Acusensus received from the NSW Privacy Commissioner. It is similar to one of the "Examples of substantial coverage" from WP:NCORP, namely A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product (in this case "privacy" replaces "safety"). The article notes: "A trial of "world-first technology" that snapped photos of every driver who passed cameras on two Sydney roads, irrespective of whether they were in the wrong, has raised concerns from the state's Privacy Commissioner, internal government documents show. The state's transport agency hired technology firm Acusensus for a three-month pilot early this year, which was aimed at photographing drivers who were illegally using mobile phones near the M4 motorway at Prospect, and Anzac Parade at Moore Park. The high-tech system captured images of all passing drivers and number plates, which in the first 25 days of the trial amounted to 2.1 million vehicles. About 10 per cent of all "sightings" in January were sent for "human pre-verification" by staff at Acusensus, internal documents released to Nine News under freedom of information laws show."
3. Omstead, Jordan (2019-08-25). "Future of distracted driving technology makes Edmonton pitch". CBC.
  This news article reports on Acusensus's business activities in Canada, demonstrating that the audience for news about the company is not limited to Australia. It contains analysis and quotations from a Canadian privacy expert and a government official. The article notes: "But experts are warning the technology poses privacy concerns and would likely face court challenges in Canada. "I think for sure there's going to be a public outcry in whatever jurisdictions in Canada that introduce the technology," said Tom Sides, an Edmonton-based lawyer specializing in technology and privacy issues... Bob Hassel, senior speed management coordinator with Edmonton's office of traffic safety, says the city is always looking for new technology to help move towards its Vision Zero goal. "We have detection methods that we've seen here at this conference for things like distracted driving that I think are really leading and cutting edge that at some point would be really worthwhile in looking into," he said."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Acusensus to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Jfire (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jfire. Cabrils (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sources are available from secondary sources, independent from the subject which are reliable and provide significant coverage. (See the following: Business News Australia, AFR, IT Brief). - GA Melbourne (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Phooler Madhu[edit]

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

Pay-TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sourcing nothing but ratings and program announcements and reviews. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 13:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NCORP. I posted my evaluation of the 12 citations in the article 11 weeks ago at Talk:Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve#Notability is not evident (nothing has changed since then). A BEFORE search brings up nothing further to contribute towards notability (just some PR fluff and non-independent mentions). The article was written entirely by an employee, who has contributed to no other articles in Wikipedia (WP:SPA). Grorp (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Grorp (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kazamzam (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the coverage is routine and nothing about this place is particularly notable. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

École Française Internationale de Djeddah[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Saudi Arabia. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: topic fails WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This school affiliated with Mission laïque française [25] gets a passing mention here in a list of French facilities available in Jeddah, and the building has been used for a festival [26] but both fall short of the substantial coverage of the institition itself which is needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity-based-TOPSIS[edit]

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

There are several reasons to remove this page from the Wikipedia: (1) This user (Pasiluukka) used his paper which is a clear case of self-promotion (user name = author name of the main reference). (2) The paper which proposed Similarity-based-TOPSIS received a few citations in recent years, which is not notable enough to be added to Wikipedia. (3) This is a small extension of TOPSIS article, and there is no need to create a page for any small extension. Scholartop (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with TOPSIS: Per nom, this is partially OR and partially an extension of an existing article. WP:ATD is best suited here. UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion but how many scholars used this method already? There are so many extensions on the TOPSIS method which are more important than "Similarity-based-TOPSIS". Moreover, this user used Wikipedia for self-promotion which is truly clear. Without considering these issues, this article is hard to read, low quality and there is not enough independent references to prove its notability. Scholartop (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly, it is a case of self-promotion. One can find hundreds of extensions of popular techniques and certainly only the influential ones meet the notability criterion of Wikipedia. I support deletion of this article while suggesting a sub-section should be created in TOPSIS, where the extensions of this technique can be listed. However, only "notable" extensions (e.g., the ones with many citations) can be added. Researcherphd (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Researcherphd, this certainly seems to be a case of using Wikipedia for promotion. It may be that a brief mention can be made over at TOPSIS but that should be based on reliable independent sources, and as Researcherphd says, anything over there should summarize the range of extensions that such sources discuss, not necessarily even including this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment particularly relating to merging: this highlights a common problem with Wikipedia articles on technical methods. Methods naturally progress by people coming up with new variants, which they publish. The vast majority of variants, for one reason or another, don't get used. But either their creators self-cite, or someone gets excited and inserts the new variant, citing the original source. And we end up with a technical article that lists twenty-five completely trivial variants that are never used, which detracts from the overview of the one or two versions that have dominated "real work" since the original discovery. Merging shouldn't be used as "delete-but-I'm-not-totally-sure-so-merge". Merging is for when something is notable but small enough to be covered more effectively in a parent article. Elemimele (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The self-promotion is clear in this case and I suggest to delete this article. Moreover, after checking the contributions of this user (Pasiluukka), I found that this user wrote two more articles, which can be deleted with the current article as well: Fuzzy similarity based TOPSIS and N-ary Topsis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narges 2020 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While this is numerically even, the arguments to delete are far stronger; those wishing to keep have failed to demonstrated that WP:SIGCOV of this topic exists. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian[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)

Does not meet WP:NWEB. The only independent source provided is an announcement of the site reaching 25,000 articles. Notability maintenance tag was repeatedly removed by article creator. No sources provided to show how this website is important or influential. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Websites, and Spain. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has already 3 different references to 3 different mass media. The reasoning that the sources provided are of "dubious notability" is a subjective and particular opinion that does not correspond to reality. They are independent digital newspapers from the Valencian Community (Spain), current and active, written by journalists.
It's not completely true that I have remove the "notability maintenance tag repeatedly removed by article creator". I only have remove the tag two times, and the last time I added before removing the tag, another mass media reference (right now 3 references to diferent mass media), as the Wikipedia rules indicate.
I can't find the reason to delete this article and other articles of other encyclopedias wikis has no problems in Wikipedia in English, as all of these: Enciklopedio Kalblanda, Sarvavijnanakosam, Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, Vienna History Wiki, Banglapedia, Metapedia (neo-nazi encyclopedia!) and so on.
I'm a collaborator of Wikipedia since year 2008 and I have created many articles in Wikipedia in English, Spanish, and other languages and this is a strange behavior.--Valencian (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:other stuff for why that is not a great argument. Also your WP:BADGEring is not going to help your case. I am quite sympathetic to wanting to preserve this Article on a fascinating media wiki/minority language preservation protection. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. I checked JSTOR, Google Scholar and other places for any possible arguments of WP:PUBLISHER or other references to this Encyclopedia in a minority language, but I couldn't find anything beyond the 3 news links mentioned above. Only one of which has a named author. All three are on short side, and reference the same bench-mark of 25,000 article, so this does not pass WP:BASIC. To ensure this info is not lost on enwp I would recommend to move some of the content to Valencian language#Media in Valencian should this be deleted. One more source from a reputable scholar would sway me. Hopefully this changes in the near future, but for now I don't see any other possibilities. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious cross wiki-spam (the creator of the articles is administrator of the same websites and one of few regular contributor to it), no clues to prove actual relevance, the three mentions are from regional confidential online newpapers (Valencia News, is probably directly related). CaféBuzz (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator reasons. Also there's a second user (also active in that project) that helped in the crosswiki promotion (in artificial and some African languages). Is blatant promotion. Taichi (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a useful information tool in Valencian and about the Valencian Community with 26,000 articles and it is obvious that it is relevant about the Valencian Community (Spain). I certainly do not find any serious reason to be deleted. The sources are regular newspapers from the Valencian Community which are already cited in other articles. They are common users between wikipedia and this encyclopedia? It has always been between encyclopedias and wikis, it is nothing strange, on the contrary, it is something common. --Okkto (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okkto Do you have a reason for your opinion? 331dot (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User expanded their answer in response to my query. Thank you 331dot (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A wiki with more than 26,000 articles and the article has references. As abovementioned, the fact that the authors are users of both wikipedia and this encyclopedia doesn't mean anything, given the fact that this is quite common among Wikipedians. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caro de Segeda But what matters is if independent reliable sources give this encyclopedia significant coverage. Only documenting its number of articles is not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is correct, well written and its reference sources are independent and journalist-run media and even used as a reference in other articles of the Spanish Wikipedia. We have in this Wikipedia other articles much more incomplete and with fewer references for encyclopedias and wikipedias in other languages such as Enciklopedio Kalblanda , Sarvavijnanakosam , Universal Free Encyclopedia in Spanish , Vienna History Wiki , Banglapedia , Metapedia among others.
As for the number of collaborators you simply have to see the evolution of this encyclopedia that has already exceeded 26,500 articles and 250,000 editions, to understand that it is not the product of a handful of contributors as it is intended to imply, but the teamwork well done by all its collaborators.
I see no reason whatsoever for it to be deleted. LuisMM54321 (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LuisMM54321 It being correct is not relevant, the issue is that it does not meet the definition of notability here on the English Wikipedia. The Spanish Wikipedia is separate. No sources are provided that discuss this website in detail, telling why it is significant or influential. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LuisMM54321 : The two accounts "Jose2" and "Valencian" have created the majority of the articles on this website. CaféBuzz (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have also created many articles and added information in others in the Valencian Encyclopedia, but anyway I do not think that the number of creators of articles in an encyclopedia is relevant in this case, what does matter is the veracity and quality of them and their impact and in the Encyclopedia in Valencian people come and go as in all and maybe one is months without collaborating And then it re-engages, as has been my case a couple of times. And well you think that it is not relevant and others think that if it is, even much more than other articles that are here about other wikipedias and encyclopedias and that have not been proposed for deletion, so I think that this deletion proposal is totally unnecessary and unfair and that it is coindicated not by the quality and importance of the

Encyclopedia but for the language it deals with, I sincerely believe that this is the only reason why it has been proposed to delete the article of the Valencian Encyclopedia and not that of other wikipedias of lesser relevance and with less number of articles. LuisMM54321 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First you pretend "it is not the product of a handful of contributors as it is intended to imply", but when it is proved that it actually is "I do not think that the number of creators of articles in an encyclopedia is relevant in this case"...

The self promotion by a handful of users you're obviously part of is blatant.

Also, I cannot accept your insinuation that what motivates this debate is the language it deals with, I have wrotten a good bunch of articles about Valencian language and culture on French Wikipedia, it's actually a language I've learnt and I do enjoy it (and to say the truth, I am currently listening to the Valencian Community radio station). The motivation for this debate is the irrelevance of the main subject. I've implied myself in several other cases of crosswiki spam, some affecting small wikipedias like here, which is a really shameful practice, because they are very weak to face this kind of spamming. For the rest, see Wikipedia:Other stuff. CaféBuzz (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user CaféBuzz who initiated the last week the article deletion in French Wikipedia is just a second profile of the user Xic667 as him recognize on his user’s page in French Wikipedia. The user Xic667 has been a regular contributor to the Catalan wikipedia since 2013 and even "Amical Wikimedia" offered to this user to be part of this association that promotes the Catalan wikipedia. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian considers Valencian as an independent language from Catalan, not a dialect from Catalan and this and not another seems to be his basic problem with this article. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian use the Norms of El Puig, a linguistic rules developed exclusively for the Valencian language in year 1979 by the Royal Academy of Valencian Culture (RACV). This encyclopedia doesn't use the Catalan language rules. This user has a clear conflict of interest by affinity. I want to think that everyone who has voted in the deletion of this article knows the Valencian linguistic conflict, that as you can see has an article in the English wikipedia since year 2010. Valencian (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous accusations. I have used years ago an account, I have not used it for years. I had less than 400 contributions in 6 years on Catalan Wikipedia, and this offer about "Wikimedia Amical" was some automatical message left on my talk page I have no idea about.

Moreover, please note that the debate about deletion has been initiated before on English and Spanish Wikimedia. You removed maintenance tags on all Wikipedias without a good reason, don' try to drown the fish. CaféBuzz (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already told you before on the deletion page in French, you and I discussed extensively on the topic of Valencian language in the French wikipedia years ago. And what I have said is that it does not seem to me entirely ethical that a person who has previously discussed with the creator of the article on the same subject, is the same one who proposes the deletion of the article. The logical thing is to propose a more neutral person.

I removed the template because I previously added one more reference to another mass media and then withdrew the template. With this reference there were already 3 references to 3 different newspapers, enough for an article of such short length. It’s something I’ve done before and many users do when adding references and other times I have not had any problems. Valencian (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have no neutrality lesson to give. So YOU are allowed to remove the template on this article about your website but other people are not allowed to do whatever just they because discussed with you about you spreading unrecocognized theories all along Wikipedia while there is a scientific consens against it? It has nothing to do about the current debate. Which ethicals model are you allowed to defend, while crossspamming this article about your confidential encyclopedia on small wikis? Please stop giving the argument of the number of articles, most of them have been written by the same person. Come on, be serious just one minute. CaféBuzz (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's refrain from the personal attacks, please. We're discussing the suitability of this article for wikipedia, nothing more. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @LuisMM54321 You said "I do not think that the number of creators of articles in an encyclopedia is relevant in this case, what does matter is the veracity and quality of them and their impact..." That is not what matters for an article in Wikipedia. As already mentioned, what matters is what independent, reliable, published sources have written about the subject.

David10244 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why have you created articles about your/this website in astwiki, dewiki, enwiki, eowiki, eswiki, frwiki, iawiki, iewiki, itwiki, novwiki, nywiki, ptwiki, tumwiki, but not in the catalan-valencian-language edition of Wikipedia? I find this suspicious. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple, impossible that this article was not deleted or boycotted in the Catalan wikipedia from the beginning. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian states that Valencian is a language, not a dialect from Catalan. L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian use the Norms of El Puig, a linguistic rules developed exclusively for the Valencian language in year 1979 by the Royal Academy of Valencian Culture (RACV). This encyclopedia doesn't use the Catalan language rules. In the Catalan wikipedia the contents that claim that Valencian is a language and not a dialect from Catalan, have it very complicated. Explained in one word that sounds very bad but still exists in the 21st century, censorship. I want to think that everyone who has voted in the deletion of this article knows the Valencian linguistic conflict, that as you can see has an article in the English wikipedia since year 2010. Thanks for your kind attention. Valencian (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clear answer. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - based only on the notability, it appears that there are sufficient RS to meet the GNG. There are various other issues about POV etc but I'm not sure how to unravel them to !vote. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt Please list some of these RS you say establish this meets GNG- they aren't currently provided in the article AFAIK. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I include here a new article dated January 15, 2023 on "L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian", in this case the newspaper Las Provincias, one of the two most sold newspapers in the Valencian Community, published in Valencia. Article about "L'Enciclopèdia en valencià". Author: Òscar Rueda. Newspaper "Las Provincias", edition January 15th 2023, Valencia (Spain).

Online link: L'Enciclopèdia del valencià

With this new article right now there are 4 different mass media from the Valencian Community with reference to "L'Enciclopèdia in Valencian" in the last months. Thanks for your attention. Valencian (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't examine the source due to a paywall(which is okay, I'm just saying I can't read it), but its validity would depends on its contents. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article is possible to read it here: Article about "L'Enciclopèdia en valencià". Author: Òscar Rueda. Newspaper "Las Provincias", edition January 15th 2023, Valencia (Spain). Thanks Valencian (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a guideline, and the difference with a policy is that there is always space to manoeuver. This article is not about somebody's cat, webshop or stamp collection, it is one of those many examples of a big fish in a small pond, in other words, it belongs to a grey area where any decision is subjective. Even if this encyclopedia is of some regional significance only, the worst one can say is that notability is doubtful, and where there's doubt, there is room for the benefit of it. Since neither verifiability nor article quality seems to be the issue here, I'm inclined to keep it. Alternatively, it should at the very least be merged into Valencian language. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting case in the regional linguistics and knowledge. Sepharad1 (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sepharad1 This is specifically named as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. The main issue here is if this has sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to be considered notable. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's only spam across multiple versions of Wikipedia. --Arroser (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By direct reference to an earlier comment from days ago, I would like to clarify that the opinion that Valencian is an independent language and not a dialect of Catalan, is the majority in the Valencian Community and among Valencians and has always been so. These are not strange or extravagant theories of mine or of any user. To this end, I quote from the article Valencian in the English wikipedia, section "Politico-linguistic controversy" the following sentences:

Despite the position of the official organizations, an opinion poll carried out between 2001 and 2004[19] showed that the majority (65%) of the Valencian people (both Valencian and Spanish speakers) consider Valencian different from Catalan. According to an official poll in 2014,[18] 52% of Valencians considered Valencian to be a language different from Catalan. Thanks --Valencian (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with this debate. Many people believe they are two different languages but the huge majority of people writing in Valencian doesn't use the orthographic norms you are using on your website, which are not the ones taught in schools or in the universities, and are marginal in the edition too. According to the promotors of these norms themselves, there are about 1000 people formed to those orthographic norms, that represents less than 0.1 % of people able to write in Valencian CaféBuzz (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically a wikipedia clone in another language, as noble as that may be, there are no sources found that discuss it that meet our notability criteria. This appears to be PROMO for the encyclopedia, which is not allowed. There is no coverage in French either, I've looked there. As excited as the editors above are, we can't keep an article with a lack of reliable, neutral, third-party sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The independent sources are local and not notable and uses the site itself various times as reference. The main reason for my !vote is that it is clearly promotional. It has been created with a COI by Valencian, an editor since 2009 and admin of the site he wrote the article about. There has been a clear crosswiki effort by Valencian and another user of the site. they have created versions in multiple exotic minority languages. In the deletion discussion at eswiki that I closed as delete, the user Linuxmania pointed out that some articles can not be edited by users so the wiki label is misleading (see here in Spanish). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Ongelungel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. Clearly fails WP:BIO. References 1 and 2 are primary and reference 4 is a one line mention. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is about all I find [27]. I was hoping being in the collection of the US Dept of the Interior was notable, but I can't find anything about that. I tried the name and a .gov site search in the Google, nothing. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Song dynasty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Song (960–1127)[edit]

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

This article is entirely redundant as we already have a very good Song dynasty article as well as many sub-articles. By its very nature, this article would have to repeat a massive amount of stuff from the Song dynasty article. Plus, this article is almost entirely uncited. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Not sure whether this should be kept, merged, or redirected, but it's a notable topic discussed extensively at Song dynasty. At worst it can be redirected there. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This article is unnecessary, the regular Song dynasty page is really good in quality. A redirection is best. TomMasterReal^TALK 19:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The FA Song dynasty features all the content we need on the Northern Song period, which was after all, more or less half of the Song Dynasty. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect+Merge Totally redundant article (I don't understand why there is an article for Northern Song but not for the Southern), only some copy-and-paste work needed for the FA Song dynasty. Timothytyy (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Steitz[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. It appears he was a practice squad member of a few teams in the NFL. He may have played 1 year in an arena league but I can't find a reliable source to back that up. Rockfang (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears he never played a regular or postseason game in the NFL.--Rockfang (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I did some research and couldn't find anything. He's never played an NFL game and I cant find information about his arena football career. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTSPERSON.

RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He did play in the arena league ([28]) but that no longer gives automatic notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Played in the arena league (as a starter, too), named to the Oregon football all-decade team ([29]) and does appear to have some sigcov, see: Center Of Attention (p2) from The Modesto Bee; Former Los Banos star hopes to stick with 49ers (p2) from the same; A cut above the rest from the Merced Sun-Star (full-page); Where Are They Now? Giesel And Steitz (p2) from the same (although it was originally published in The Los Banos Enterprise); and New kids on the block (p2) from the same. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @RealPharmer3 and Rockfang:. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per BeanieFan. The article at the time of nomination was an unsourced bio of a living person, raising BLP concerns and understandably triggering an AfD. The sources linked by Beanie show that there is SIGCOV sufficient to pass GNG, and one of those sources has no been added to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can’t find any evidence of notability that would meet NATHLETE. Serratra (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't say "delete per NATHLETE" when its impossible for this kind of athlete to meet it! BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether he played in an NFL game or not, doesn't have too much relevance. BeanieFan11's sources provide enough notability meeting WP:BASIC. JojoMN1987 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - failing NATHLETE is irrelevant for a subject that meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources found by BeanieFan11. Alvaldi (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG per Beanie's sources. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG based on new sources found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the three sources provided. DJ Cane (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Atlantic Station#History. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Station shooting[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a tie to some larger picture can be shown. Otherwise tragic but not notable Elinruby (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore previous redirect to Atlantic Station#History See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henderson, Kentucky shelter shooting; article creator has a history of article creation involving minor shootings of local note, and needs to learn how to draft appropriately rather than immediately creating an article for every gunplay event they come across. This doesn't need an article, but the redirect's short mention is appropriate. The article copy is also a poor COPYVIO paraphrase of this story from WAGA-TV, and the article creator has been warned to stop doing so several times. Nate • (chatter) 20:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin Creep[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Nothing in gnews, and 1 hit in Australian search engine Trove. Unremarkable career. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In-article sources and a google search doesn't show WP:GNG. - GA Melbourne (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Radio, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He may have had some notoriety in the 1990s as a radio announcer however I couldn't find any RSs via Newsbank or ProQuest (Australian news databases). Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Texas. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NMODEL. Serratra (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is mostly unsourced, the most-cited source is her profile at the Fashion Model Directory, other sources are videos, and my search found "America's Next Top Model" Winners: Where Are They Now? (PopSugar, 2023, one graf overview about her with no indication of significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions or unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment per WP:NMODEL) and insufficient support for WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was deleted after the first AfD discussion on 14 December 2007, then re-created on 30 December 2007. (14 December 2007 creation also looks odd.) History of article edits and deletion discussions suggests activity by multiple socks. A couple of the sources currently cited in the article don't even appear to mention Chantal Jones. Article doesn't meet WP:NMODEL or WP:BASIC currently. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Tomajczyk[edit]

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

BLP of a writer/poet. I don't see how the subject meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC notability. The article lists some publishers as sources, but without titles or links (eg. simply "Fox News Network"). I can't find any suitable reliable sources to back up notability. Neither his books nor poetry appears to have been of note. I can't find any academic papers by him. — LittleDwangs (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. — LittleDwangs (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something else can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I found one published review of one of his books (JSTOR 20863058), and very few academic citations to his works. We'd need more than that for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's more than I found. All I see is the name connected with the FBI in some way, nothing we can use for sourcing. Delete.

Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. By that, I mean there is clearly no consensus below to delete, but by the same token, I also believe that the commentary around this article needing to be just about blown up and started again have not been sufficiently disproven by those advocating for "keep" (and in some cases, those who !voted keep agree with the sentiment).

Rather than recording a "keep" outcome which provides some level of protection against AfD renomination and a vindication of the article in the state it is in, I am entering a procedural closing of the debate which has an end result of the article being retained, but with a massive caveat that some significant rewriting and removal of content needs to happen - otherwise we will be back here in 3-6 months, and it is less likely the community (and a second closer) will provide the same opportunity at that juncture. Daniel (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari Challenge[edit]

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

This is getting out of hand. This page has been redirected multiple times by various people due to concerns about a lack of secondary sourcing and general WP:NOTWEBHOST issues. However the redirect keeps getting reverted into the same inappropriate article, with either no reason at all, or a reason that is invalidated by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As all parties involved are now approaching or have already exceeded 3RR (myself included) I'm sending the page here so that consensus for deletion/redirection/whatever can be formalized and subsequent enforcement of that consensus (whatever it may be) can be handled without worrying about edit warring. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There are bulk sources on the series from several reputable outlets, for example, Road and Track (link), Motorsport.com (link), Sports Car Digest (link). Coverage of individual Ferrari Challenge series can be patchy but I believe there is enough secondary coverage to justify an article for the overall series. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 5225C has clearly demonstrated notability from multiple reliable sources. The nominator has not given a particularly clear rationale for nominating the article for deletion. I have no idea what WP:NOTWEBHOST or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have to do with this article or why it should be deleted. An article being poorly sourced does not mean the sourcing does not exist. An article being poorly written or structured does not mean it cannot be rewritten. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing in the article is mostly terrible, but there's some good coverage to be found: [30], [31], [32], [33]. Meets WP:GNG as an overall series article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a well-known one-make single series championship like Porsche Carrera Cup, Lamborghini Super Trofeo etc. If there is no problem for keeping the pages of those championships, it will be also unnecessary to delete the page of Ferrari Challenge. As it was mentioned, if the sources are problematic, the page should be nominated for deletion instead of redirecting this page to the page of Ferrari 348 directly. I and Formula Downforce will try to add different sources for this page to avoid the deletion of this page. Apeiro94 (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep per 5225c. Citing WP:NOTWEBHOST and edit warring over it when GNG is very clearly met is worthy of a WP:TROUT for all (2 editors, the nominator and Drmies, certainly not "various") involved in trying to remove this article. Taking Out The Trash please save everyone's time and just withdraw. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Unstriking with the additional comment that AfD is not dispute resolution. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment I will not withdraw. @Drmies: is an administrator, and I trust their judgement that the page is not appropriate. I can't speak for them, so I hope they will chime in here, but I would find it hard to believe that an admin with as much tenure and experience as Drmies would repeatedly redirect a page for no reason or false pretenses. Note that I personally do not hold a firm opinion one way or the other (in fact, the page is quite WP:TLDR for me to read through all of it) - if it wasn't clear from the nomination statement, this is a procedural nomination in order to stop the edit war and establish a definite consensus. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOTWEBHOST is perfectly appropriate for the article in its current state, GhostOfDanGurney. Edit warring--well it takes two to tango (in this case there's four or so?), and if the other partners simply revert without a valid reason other than "other stuff exists", without taking the trouble to add even ONE single reliable secondary source, then who do you think is the guilty party? You say "the GNG is very clearly met"--but that's obviously not true. Neither is it true, Apeiro94, that it is provably "well-known"--if it is, why haven't you actually proven it in the article, which is nothing but a list of results and little flags? With primary sourcing? You don't have to "try" and add sources: you could have done that all along, but you didn't get farther than "some other one-make series such as Porsche Carrera Cup, Lamborghini Super Trofeo have their own pages", which, again, means [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]--and User:HumanBodyPiloter5, you got it wrong: it's not about what that has to do with the article, but it's the argument that the other edit-warriors employed, just look at the history. Finally, Apeiro, this is not article improvement: you simply added more primary links. That's not how one proves the GNG is met. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:5225C, I commend you for actually looking for sourcing. I am not impressed by the little newsy bits on Motorsport.com, and the one somewhat substantive article on Sportscardigest has really only this to say, "The Ferrari Challenge is designed to allow Ferrari owners to compete on some of the world’s most famous race tracks, and over the years has provided joy for not only the drivers competing, but also the millions of enthusiasts who enjoy watching Ferraris in motion in their natural environment, the race track." One can't base an article on that though one could argue that helps notability. The things you indicated at Road and Track look a little better, but all you did was point at some links: which ones are substantial enough to let you write actual content, other than just result? User talk:Jovanmilic97, the first of your links, from Sportscardigest, I already quoted from that. It's not much. The second, the Italian source, it's better but it's about cars more than about the event. The third isn't bad, but "Hagerty Insider" is hardly a widely used acceptable source here; isn't it just another website? The fourth, from Racer, that's OK--but it also proves again how many of those magazines are so close to the industry and the events that they are often just mouthpieces.
So no, I am still not convinced that this is anything more than a hobby. If someone rewrote the article using the best sources I might be convinced, but all these links even taken together are just so incredibly thin. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you may have a wider issue involving Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport and some of it's commonly used sourcing, perhaps? Racer and the Motorsport Network (motorsport.com, Autosport, etc.) are pretty standard, Racer especially for US-centric motorsport series such as IndyCar and IMSA. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The second, the Italian source, it's better but it's about cars more than about the event." - For what it's worth, this article probably should be primarily about the cars rather than the events they participate in, as that's what the sources cover - a lineage of spec racing cars produced by Ferrari under a particular moniker. Information about the events may also be included if the sourcing is available, but it probably shouldn't be the focus of the article. The problem here is that the article is poorly structured and written with a lot of tangential and poorly-sourced material thrown in, not that the article's subject lacks notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - - No no--the car has an article. The cars have articles. This is about a racing event. The article's subject is not a car, it's a race. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is the article's subject a race? Which race? Where and when was this race held? This article's subject matter is fairly unambiguously a lineage of racing cars and the single-make spec-racing series they compete in, with the vehicles receiving most of the significant coverage from sources when compared to the events. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have big problems when the vast majority of an article seems to be regurgitating a database, with extra bits from a chat forum and youtube. If you remove all referencing that is from the sponsors and organisers of the event, or is blog/chat material, how much remains? Even if the topic does turn out to be notable, this is not the correct way to reference an article, and some of it reads like a brochure for would-be participants. I am unimpressed. Elemimele (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over comes to mind. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that WP:TNT could do this article some good. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 5225C and Jovanmilic97. Clear demonstration of meeting GNG. AFD is not cleanup. Strange nomination and comments from opposers which in some cases don't seem to be about this article. Shouldn't have been BLARed again after being restored, per WP:BLAR. A7V2 (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed AFD isn't clean-up, but WP:TNT is appropriate for articles that are so poor they are beyond clean-up. Good sourcing is non-negotiable in all articles. I need to clarify that my comments were about this article, and should be understood as a !vote Delete, without prejudice to recreation of an article based on sources that are independent of the organisers and sponsors. Also agreed, an article should not be blanked more than once. Nevertheless, the obligation is on the person who puts the material back in, that it must be supported by proper sourcing. If the article is kept, there will have to be a lot of work on it. Elemimele (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you want to delete the contribution history of a topic which meets GNG. "It is calling for violation of Wikipedia's fundamental contract with contributors, that they are credited with their contributions by the page history of an article" - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't think the article's contribution history should be deleted, but I think the article is in a poor enough state that if someone wanted to completely rewrite it that may be warranted. Regardless, AfD is not cleanup. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to that point, if someone really does want to apply TNT (and actually start over, not just detonate and run for cover), then a better WP:ATD such as draftifying is far preferable to hard deletion or even redirection in this instance. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Lots of sources and lots of incoming links for a notable topic to anyone interested in motorsports or Ferraris. Some of the comments by the people who want to delete it sound inexplicably vindictive. Which database is being hosted, exactly? As far as I can see only the season results point to (a number of) databases, and these references were obviously compiled from a number of sources over a period of time. The sources for the main aspects of the article pose no problem. I know everyone keeps saying "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS", but if this article was to be deleted then so should about 60% of Wikipedia. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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