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. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vuhledar[edit]

Battle of Vuhledar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deleted previously so could have been speedy G4, but may have been improved enough to survive new discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. UtherSRG (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article has been improved a lot, new information, much more reliable sources, its also more relevant now, as Russian forces are trying to take the city yet again. SnoopyBird (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The battle is notable, especially since the area remains contested. TH1980 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The battle is definitely notable, although the scope of the article might be worth further discussion later. From preliminary reports, the current Russian attack is a more serious effort than the recent minor skirmishing in Zaporizhia Oblast. The capture of Mykilske on Friday and the use of TOS-1 systems (normally controlled at the military district level) both suggest a significant effort of operational scale. Source: "Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, January 27, 2023".

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article has a lot of information, and Vuhledar is a really important city making several headlines and on the news a lot recently, which could bring a lot of new information. 73.17.35.238 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Prior to January, the article was irrelevant, but the recent Russian push is notable enough for it's own article as many sources have reported on it. Jebiguess (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:for now at least. The articles about this war may need to be reorganized at some point, but there is a lot of painstaking and possibly important work here, and I don't see any point in deleting it. Elinruby (talk) 19:48, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Casino Job[edit]

The Casino Job (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, only 1 review found in a BEFORE...2 needed. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is not passed. On a google search I could only find the Las Vegas Weekly review which is already referenced in the article. If someone does find good coverage please ping me, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 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!} 23:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. BruceThomson (talk) 03:17, 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 delete. Star Mississippi 13:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazran conflict[edit]

Nazran conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is very flawed, it is solely based on 1 story from a man who is biased, wasn't there and contradicts history even according to the source, please check the talk page for more info, the last section is enough to understand the problem Goddard2000 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are no supporting sources for the legend about the battle of 1781.--Товболатов (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Found another source that refutes the legend. --Товболатов (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the battle is described in Ingush folklore. Historical Russian sources contradict the folklore and describe the incident as following:

Chronology — Butkov P. G. Materials for the new history of the Caucasus, from 1722 to 1803. - SPb., 1869. Volume 3. page 171.

Here are the details of the battle from the Author. — Butkov P. G. Materials for the new history of the Caucasus, from 1722 to 1803. - SPb., 1869. Volume 2. page. 111 --Товболатов (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This document is talking about a battle between Ingushes and Chechens that happened in 1783 while the Nazran conflict happened in 1781. The dates don't even match and it doesn't disprove anything. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• During the discussion of the article in the "talk" section, I proved that the article deserves the right to exist, and there is far from one source in the article. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Товболатов , WikiEditor1234567123 We obviously disagree with each other and we have talked 100 times in talk pages, let the admins decide now, if they want us to make our case again in here then we'll do it. It's better if we don't debate in here now. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe and Russia. asilvering (talk) 23:13, 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!} 23:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i don't understand why this article hasn't been deleted yet. I recommend reading the talk page, this whole article is based on the words of 1 single man from the Dalgat source. 1 man who was not present during the battle (he claims it happened 200 years ago), he contradicts history which is confirmed by the author that records this story from him, he is biased as he is Ingush and aggrandizes the history of his hero, the story is not corroborated in Russian military records or any other source from that period. Why should we allow wikipedia articles to be made on the words of 1 man? this is not a credible source, especially not since this article tries to aggrandize Ingush history against 3 of their neighbors. This article is too biased. Please read the talk page in the Nazran conflict page. Goddard2000 (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave, It's not based of a word of a single man, if it was then Yakovlev and Krupnov wouldn't have mentioned this story. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. lack of confirming sources described in the article

Merjuev Salovdi (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inaccurate information.--Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources. --Simba16 (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Ingush are known in Russia as falsifiers of history, and their false articles are not allowed in the Russian-language Wikipedia. So they moved here and started spreading their lies. It is necessary to remove these false articles here as well. Таллархо (talk) 04:14, 4 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. I've hesitated a lot before closing this discussion. While most of the "delete" !votes have policy-based arguments, I find that the "keep" !votes are either WP:ILIKEIT or just some hand waving, i.e.: "meets X or Y", without going into detail how this article meets X or Y. I also find the participation of so many relatively new editors with only a few edits unusual and wonder if there has been some off-site canvassing. Whatever may be the case, I find that the "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Thawani[edit]

Mani Thawani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It has no encyclopedic relevance, it does not have enough information to be considered an encyclopedic article. It has a certain promotional tone towards the person and «Mundo Crytpto». CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Bradford (Talk)  11:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He's mentioned a zillion times in media, but the stories aren't about him. He's an expert on xyz subject, giving his opinions for the article... Delete as no sources found about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - the person is notable has been mentioned in various sources.Althair (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources. Ivanbetanco43 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't find the Keep votes here very persuasive in countering the nominator's argument that this is a promotional article. Every week we delete articles on cryptocurrency "experts".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No additional discussion since last relist, let's try this again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd delete, as mostly he's just being called on for opinions. The main referencing used to support his biography is basically no more than an interview. The El Correo article's writer has peppered it with "he claims", "according to him", and gives no indication of having done any fact-checking whatsoever - in fact they make it abundantly clear they are merely repeating what he wants said. We shouldn't have articles on entrepreneurs that are entirely sourced to their own statements about themselves. Elemimele (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the sources available are nothing more than promotional puffery, WP:GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The individual is relevant, for example, the Forbes note that talks about the award he received only mentions him in the part where he gives a few words of thanks for the rest. He is NOT his own source. Do we expect him not to give a few words after the award? or the quotes about its origin... tell me if it is not with your word, how to know these data with certainty of all individuals in general? Shall we travel to the past to verify it? Do we ask the government to tell us the taxes it declares? His citations are only used when he won the award (the words he gave) and to talk about his origin as a businessman, however, why it is relevant, he does not use his own word as references, the individual is really known in Spain for having an institute where he teaches topics related to blockchain and finance. A quick Google search is enough to see it

User:Editorsinpulso‬ (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorsinpulso (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The biographical article can be improved in terms of neutrality and more referenced information. --Luis1944MX (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I really do not understand why it deserves to be something promotional, the person has enough sources on the Internet such as ABC Economia or [1]. It is quite notable in its country of origin.Bradford (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Please keep. The article can be improved if they include reliable sources, in this way the article is neutralized. CristianTheMaster (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: This is a travesty. A feel-good WP:BLP that overlooks several areas of controversy. A WP:SPA with 4 edits all on the subject should be used with caution. It would be nice if an admin could examine the article for neutrality which is a policy on What Wikipedia is not. The sources I read paint a different picture than the article (promotional). (See WP:NOTADVOCACY). An editor named Clear Alba, for El Correo (August 25, 2022) was not positive and right behind that Iratxe Bernal (September 1, 2022) stated the subject "claims to have earned ten million euros by providing training on blockchain technology". Maybe Wikipedia can give the subject a philanthropic award. The "free classes" initially cost $500 USD but are discounted to $299 USD for "membership". The platforms the subject company runs through have been considered "financial stalls", the company has been placed on the National Securities Market Commission's "grey list" for over a year. The subject had to refund money charged for a supposed free event. The total charged was a little over 49 euros and FACUA filed a complaint with the General Directorate of Commerce and Consumption of the Community of Madrid. I don't know a lot about the euro but 343,000 for a free event would have likely been a good haul. Parents have complained that their children are being "brainwashed", Concerning being licensed the subject stated, "since it is not a financial institution nor does it sell or advise on financial instruments, but is dedicated to education in the sector digital". He brags that 55,000 students have become investors. Spain has made new crypto laws for 2023 and many countries in the EU are doing the same. The price of MundoCrypto has lost around 96% of its highest value. The good news is that Wikipedia likely will not suffer when the subject crosses the right line. The price of MundoCrypto has lost around 96% of its highest value. The good news is that Wikipedia likely will not suffer from advancing the sunjects notability. We can just use his legal issues as proof of notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article can be improved, however the individual is relevant and better sources can be included such as [2] and [3]. Franco98silva (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak Keep Apparently, the individual has some significance. If the page has neutrality problems, it can always be improved to meet the neutral point of view. Miaow 18:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: I have included more information about his controversial events as another user has already mentioned.Bradford (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Initially in the article, some events that could be considered controversial were omitted, however, reading the initial references of the article, at least two references were added that mention these controversial facts, as is the case of the report by Iratxe Bernal for El Correo [4] "The National Securities Market Commission recalled days before the event that Mundo Crypto has been on its gray list for a year, the one that includes entities that, without registration or authorization from the market supervisor, «could be carrying out some kind of fundraising activity or providing some service of a financial nature." It also mentions that the charge of the 47 euros was to reserve a place in the event and it would be returned to those who finally attended the event, as a type of insurance so as not to have reservations for people who did not attend in the end, however after the complaint decided to return the amount to everyone whether they attended or not "On the other hand, the consumer association denounced to the General Directorate of Commerce and Consumption of the Community of Madrid that, despite announcing it as a free event, the organization demanded the collection of 47 euros (plus a commission of 2.35) for reserve the place and only intended to return this deposit to those who finally attended. After the complaint, the organizers announced the change of criteria and the general return of the 49.35 euros" Above, my parter, Otr500, mentioned the following "I don't know much about the euro, but 343,000 for a free event would probably have been a good loot" hinting at a fact that is based on assumptions peppered with phrases like "probably would have been a good loot "Now, regarding the inclusion of your company in the gray list by the National Securities Market Commission according to [5] "its function is to alert <<to report entities that do not have any type of authorization or are registered for any purpose with the CNMV and that could be carrying out some type of fundraising activity or providing some service of a financial nature. The list is not exhaustive and derives mainly from search and analysis exercises on the Internet and social networks>>. The inclusion in the list does not imply any pronouncement on the conformity or not with the current regulations of the possible activity of the corresponding entities" But returning to the central issue that is the subject of this article, it is said that it has kinda a promotional tone, I am going to quote the report by Bárbara Bécares for GenBeta [6] critical and negative source that talks about the controversies and the inclusion of Mundo Crypto on the gray list of the CNMV however mentions "Mundo Crypto is the best-known cryptocurrency platform in Spain. Although it accumulates scandals (like other unregulated companies in this sector)"Althair (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well thanks Althair. I have been sick and just got back from the hospital, doing better now, but I have not had a chance to look at things. I would like to point out to @Miaow: that severe neutrality problems are not just against policy as an editorial bias issue, it is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. WP:ATD-E states: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.. Nonchalantly bringing it up in an AFD discussion, as supposedly an easily solvable problem, is not really a good thing. It is a start to add in "one" little itty-bitty transgression out of several so that might suffice until a later date. It just gets the curiosity flowing if a hesitancy to add the several not-so-good deeds is because of ulterior motives. I would venture to surmise more than a few articles have not passed AFD because of severe neutrality issues. Do I think they are solved yet---Not in the least, but it is a start. I don't think there is enough significant independent coverage in reliable sources on the subject to account for encyclopedia coverage. The sources I looked at are more about the company, or interviews (that do not advance notability), and more than a few controversial commentaries, therefore if there is notability it would be on the company. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Added note: I just have a problem when a crypto guru keeps selling his wares (they have been referred to as "Crypto-evangelists") and a feel-good article is written in a non-NPOV way, knowing the token is down over 96%, and this money can not really be recovered, it is usually gone. In the US some consolation is that a person can write off up to $3,000 dollars a year and roll this over actually until death. Those that think that the $530 million lost by Coincheck in 2018, or the $8 billion dollars lost by FTX, or the crypto currency collapse (around 2 trillion lost) are just market corrections, blows my mind. They use the term ushered by David Marcus "It’s during crypto winters that the best entrepreneurs build the better companies,". It is not so easy for the multitudes that may have lost all their savings. My point is that as an excyclopedia with a NPOV goal, we should not post flowery resumes, nor promote people. Time will tell. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: Let's remember that we are here discussing the article of the person as such, and not about the risks of investing in cryptocurrencies or how the financial markets react to them. We should not bring into consideration cases unrelated to the person in question in order to generalize his case. Based on the statement made by one of the users participating in the discussion, I will quote a neutral source such as the Presidency of the Government of El Salvador[7] "This day, the Vice President of the Republic Felix Ulloa received in his office the deputies of the Bancada together with Mani Thawani, CEO and founder of Mundo Crypto, with his delegation ...... In the approach they talked about the adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender; the transformation in the education system to close the digital divide, technologically equipping all students in the country" "<<We want to give it the follow-up and all the necessary support so that this project is not lost and is executed as soon as possible.>> said Congressman Navarro." "The company is working to achieve the massive adoption of this industry through education, thus contributing to the financial inclusion of the whole society." To complement the above description, I will quote the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador.[8] "The same was founded by Manish Thawani, who serves as executive director of the referred multinational academy, which has positioned itself as a leader in the sector, with more than 50,000 students enrolled and a community of more than 200,000 people." In conclusion, in my view, the person is relevant beyond the divided opinions that may arise from cryptoassets as such.Althair (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources in the article. NYC Guru (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As I mentioned earlier, certain modifications could be made to the article, mainly by the sources that were contributed by users that demonstrate the relevance of this person. Several of these notes and interviews are from independent media and publishers and I would not consider them advertorials or paid interviews (even more so when some of these seek to attack the subject himself), suggesting the person's notoriety as such. Franco98silva (talk) 16:41, 5 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!} 23:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loco (esports platform)[edit]

Loco (esports platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article has been attempted to be created numerous times: Draft:Loco (platform), Draft:Loco (live streaming app), Loco (Game Streaming Platform), Loco (app), and possibly more. Also very likely some sockpuppetry going on. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 22:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and India. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 22:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as passing mention with other stories, few reliable sources just covered raises $42 million . need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. No indication of notability. Thesixserra (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valiaveetil (talk) 07:21, 4 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 Katara Cultural Village. czar 17:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21 High Street Doha[edit]

21 High Street Doha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Zero in-depth refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Was sent to draft in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace immediately without any. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage of topic Belichickoverbrady (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources Mujinga (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No reliable independent sources that I can find. Paul W (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ' to Katara Cultural Village. RPSkokie (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ' to Katara Cultural Village. - I agree with RPSkokie it should be merged into the article above Jaedenediting (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 19
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I can see the logic behind doing this Elinruby (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (oppose merger). The target article already includes this information, so there is nothing to merge. As far as deletion goes, this is not covered in depth in multiple independent sources, and since it is a business venture of Ali Bin Ali Holding, a mall, it would actually have to pass WP:NCORP, not simply GNG; this has several light-years of catching up to do in that regard. —Alalch E. 22:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the actual name of this thing is '21 High st', not '21 High Street Doha'; I don't feel that a redirect at this name would be useful, so I support plain deletion. —Alalch E. 23:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect as it's a reasonable search term since redirects are cheap. I'd be fine with a merge, but it really already has been. I've yet to see an argument about why a redirect is the wrong outcome here. Hobit (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we can have "21 High street" and "21 High st" as a redirects, which are vastly better, I feel like there would be no tangible benefit from "21 High Street Doha" —Alalch E. 02:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Katara Cultural Village As Alalch E. points out, there's nothing really to merge here. Still, it seems like a plausible search term, so a redirect feels like the most appropriate solution. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and selective merge to Katara Cultural Village as a reasonable search term. I think the content that remains in the target page is a sufficient explanation for this topic, but I’ll leave that for editors with a more vested interest in this topic. Other equally reasonable search terms "21 High street" and "21 High st" already exist as redirects so it would make sense for this to be a redirect as well and therefore I oppose deletion. Frank Anchor 04:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Katara Cultural Village, do not delete. Fails WP:GEO per nom. Nothing to merge since content is already in the article. Name is a plausible search term. So a redirect doesn't hurt at all. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 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 speedy deleted per G14. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pann Kyar Wutt Hmone (disambiguation)[edit]

Pann Kyar Wutt Hmone (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER. Onlk (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Onlk (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G14, only one extant link. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:41, 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!} 06:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhupenddra Singh Raathore[edit]

Bhupenddra Singh Raathore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | [since nomination])

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

Non notable Motivational Speaker, having only Paid PRs. Articles are under BrandPost feed in Hindustan Times. Mid-Day article is Partneref content, Deccan Herald is Brandspot, Outlook is Spotlight, India Today is impact feature, and rest are either not reliable. According to me, the subject is Non-notable. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn at Special:Diff/1136029998. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Bhupenddra Singh Raathore is Indian motivational speaker and also he's notable as per WP:GNG. Shanaya Chaturvedi (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Subject seems to be notable per WP:GNG. He is a very known and Notable Motivational Speaker. Sahilrazvii999 (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 2A01:4C8:54:3BB7:5504:60F5:4EC:362 (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 2A01:4C8:54:3BB7:5504:60F5:4EC:362 (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looking at the first few references and reading in the small print:
  • 'Disclaimer: This is a company press release. No HT journalist is involved in creation of this content' (per Hindustan Times)
  • 'featured content' (per Deccand Herald)
  • 'This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability' (Mid-day)

  This tells me all I need to know about this guy. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Edit history suggests undisclosed paid editing. Article was declined twice in draft, then pasted back to main space by User:Shanaya Chaturvedi above, with additional WP:REFBOMBing of the usual output of the paid Wikipedia mills: paid "contributor" pieces in mainstream press, and other obvious paid puff pieces. The accompanying promotional photo File:BSR - Bhupenddra Singh Rathore Pic.jpg, uploaded by article creator as own work, is another giveaway. 2A01:4C8:522:ABAC:E1B2:E055:AF79:123F (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  2A01:4C8:522:ABAC:E1B2:E055:AF79:123F After looking into your edit history, it looks like you are a Old editor of Wikipedia, pls comment here through your Account. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion of the quality of the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of the given material is simple SEO, paid placement, and press releases: HindustanTimes (PR), MidDay (Partnered Content/paid placement), DeccanChronice (Spotlight/paid placement), Outlook India (Spotlight/brand paid placement). All of the India Today Web Desk "Impact Features" look like undisclosed PR. ibtimes and goodreads are specifically depreciated at WP:RSP. Spotify bios are useless for BLPs.

The others seem to be primary sources: a local TEDx, links to his self-help book, etc. I'm not clear on "FounderIndia"; brands itself as a "new age media startup". It's a "interview" article with no author and some gushing puffery and exclamation points.

I wasn't able to find much else looking for "Bhupenddra Singh Raathore"; a lot of PR, though. Not sure how "Most viewers of a time management lesson live stream on YouTube" listed on Guinness counts for anything. 32k viewers? Okay. Maybe it would be helpful for the "keep" opinions above to indicate how this meets GNG? Sam Kuru (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Kuru has explained it very well above. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with Kuru's assessment — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:58, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsi Luck[edit]

Kelsi Luck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Insufficient depth of coverage from reliable sources. "Culture Brats" does not meet WP:RS; the remaining references are either trivial mentions or read like press releases (the Broadway World one is borderline, though the coverage there is limited). The creator of this article also recently created That's What I Like (Kelsi Luck song), which clearly fails WP:NSONG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO, based on sources in the article and my search. For example, a 2013 BroadwayWorld source includes some biographical and career coverage but matches the 2013 PRNewswire press release, so is not independent coverage. The 2020 BroadwayWorld coverage is an announcement "...Pale Waves have released a deeply personal video for their latest single "She's My Religion," which features frontwoman Heather Baron-Gracie and her life partner Kelsi Luck..." and a 2021 Vanity Fair source is based on an interview with Baron-Gracie and says "Luck's starring role in the song's music video is her most obvious contribution, but Baron-Gracie tells me that Luck’s fingerprints are all over the album", so independent coverage of Luck is limited; 2020 NME coverage is more limited, and there is somewhat more depth in a 2021 Illinois Entertainer source. The 2022 NME source in the article only mentions Luck in the photo credit, similar to a 2022 Clash source. Overall, coverage appears to be largely interview-based and focused on Baron-Gracie. Independent and reliable sources not already in She's My Religion could be incorporated there, where Luck is discussed as a subject of the song and star of the video. This also appears to be an WP:INVALIDBIO based on a lack of significant independent coverage about Luck. Beccaynr (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as there is Top40-Charts.com, MTV, Pride Source, Clash Magazine Music News, BroadwayWorld, and Vanity Fair to back up most of what's being discussed on this page. I do see blogs and a prnewswire.com source which could be removed, but this page I believe has enough other sources to make it stay.Chermie222 (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC) — Chermie222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Chermie222 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Mekalos, the creator of this article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:17, 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 delete. czar 17:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Free Art[edit]

Fat Free Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This gallery (no longer in operation) does not meet our notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP. The sourcing consists of a press release in StreetArtNews, and a database listing of posters for sale on an art sales website. An online WP:BEFORE search reveals social media posts, calendar listings, blogs, and a review about an artist who showed there but not about the gallery itself. Nothing substantial that could be considered significant coverage WP:SIGCOV seems to exist. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Visual arts, Companies, and New York. Netherzone (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing found at all in reliable sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete this is the best I can find, and it's not enough without more since the focus is on the Sotheby's partnership/show and not in depth about the gallery. Star Mississippi 13:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not finding any new sources and the existing sources are not sufficient to show notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sourcing I can locate meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:09, 2 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. Salvio ^giuliano 15:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Cody[edit]

Nathan Cody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a biographical article about a radio personality/voice artists with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sourcing for the article consists one reference which is identified as an interview in Sac Music Rocks. I am unable to find any publication by this name. My search for other sources turns up nothing useful. The closest thing to a source I could find is a voiceover CV. Fails WP:GNG. Whpq (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources found, appears to be a minor local celebrity, turns up in Goodreads. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Alaska, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm finding nothing. Article seems to have been created by someone with an association with the person, based on comments in the history file. Lamona (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:30, 4 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. Salvio ^giuliano 15:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmrishi Bawra Shanti Vidya Peeth, Udhampur[edit]

Brahmrishi Bawra Shanti Vidya Peeth, Udhampur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional piece about a religious school, lacking independent sourcing. I did not see anything in English to support notability, though there may be adequate sourcing in other languages. Mccapra (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Hinduism, and India. Mccapra (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Found trivial mention in news section of google search. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 03:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Poorly referenced. Valiaveetil (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page providing all the information regarding the Bramhrishi Bawra Shanti Vidya Peeth and it's founder are legit. This page must not be nominated for deletion. Bramhrishi mission has supported lives of thousands of people and given a new direction to it. Though not very visible on the global scale, the people of this mission are doing the moral work with honesty and determination. Wikipedia as an internationally recognized open encyclopedia understands and has the moral responsibility to keep this page about BRAMHRISHI BAWRA SHANTI VIDYA PEETH from being deleted

THANKYOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saumya behl (talk • contribs) 09:04, 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 delete. Salvio ^giuliano 15:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Barbarigos[edit]

Danny Barbarigos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Apparent memorial page of a restaurateur, entirely unsourced. I don’t see any sources that would support notability, although given the age of the subject there may be offline sources or archived US news pieces I haven’t turned up. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Illinois. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's a tapas bar owner in Chicago with the same name, about 30 years after this person. Perhaps related, but no sources found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing in newspapers.com except for a 1999 review of a Chicago tapas bar as Oaktree mentions, which must be a different Danny Barbarigos. Jfire (talk) 02:10, 4 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.. Over the past week, this article has been Merged into Shinabe clans leaving this page as a simple Redirect. I would have closed this discussion as a Soft Delete if it hadn't already been emptied of content and I see no value in deleting a valid Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhitobe[edit]

Fuhitobe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Please draftify. The topic may have potential but the text of the article makes no sense. To begin with, the first paragraph introduces four names (Fuhitobe, History Department, Tomo, and Kabane) without making it clear if these are synonyms or in any way different. The next paragraph continues with new names without any bridging between the paragraphs. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Japan. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a direct translation of the first link, which is a non-free source, Encyclopedia Nipponica. It is also somewhat inaccurately done (for example, they weren't "given the family name 'Kabane' (史)", they were "given the kabane (family name) Fuhito/Fubito (史)"). As noted above, the topic itself might have potential, but this is not something that can be fixed in its current form. Dekimasuよ! 15:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, this appears to point at an uncomfortable overlap between the editing and citation patterns of certain editors, but at any rate it looks like other pages in the category also need attention (e.g. Shinabe clan, which is a translation of the Japanese Wiki page but has a number of other problems) and other pages involving similar topics are also worth a look (e.g. Yamatai Honshu Theory). Dekimasuよ! 15:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Subsequent edits here made what I was referring to unclear, but this cannot really be considered an improvement: there was no person called "Fuhito Be". Dekimasuよ! 06:46, 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.

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. Salvio ^giuliano 15:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dao Yin Yang Sheng Gong[edit]

Dao Yin Yang Sheng Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. I am sending both this article and the article about the Chinese academic who developed it to AfD as I did not feel bundling was appropriate. All the current sourcing in this article is primary sourcing, although the article about the academic did include a single independent source which goes in-depth about both the procedure and the academic. Both articles were tagged for a week without improvement, after which I sent this article to draft, and prodded the other one. This was returned to mainspace and the other was de-prodded, both without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that either passes GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep alternative or complementary medicine widely taught in China as part of the nation's education curriculum, adopted, and used in hospitals in China, as demonstrated by multiple reliable sources. Shoerack (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Kohn, Livia (2008). Chinese Healing Exercises: The Tradition of Daoyin. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-8248-3234-6. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Another is Daoyin Yangsheng, developed by Zhang Guangde 张广德, a Beijing academic who developed serious health problems and in 1974 was diagnosed with heart disease and tuberculosis. Then, as the workshop flyer of Red Lotus Tai Chi Qigong in New Hampshire says, [quote]. Zhang's system, which is quite popular in China and practiced variously in the West, is documented in his book Daoyin yangsheng gong 导引养生功 (2001). Acknowledged officially as a form of qigong and recognized by various martial arts and sports organizations in China, it involves moves that are adapted from taiji quan but that are gentler and more medically focused. Its sequences tend to specialize in different areas of ailments. ..."

  2. Faulkner, Gordon (2011). Managing Stress with Qigong. London: Singing Dragon. p. 25. ISBN 978-1-84819-035-1. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "In the 1970s Daoyin Yangsheng enters the picture. Daoyin Yangsheng is a modern healthcare system created by Professor Zhang Guangde and taught at the Beijing Sports University. This comprehensive system follows the usual Daoyin actions of gentle exercise with breath control, the stimulation of key acupoints in the body, self massage and mental development but has now been updated by combining Traditional Chinese Medicine with modern knowledge of anatomy, physiology and medical theory. Professor Zhang made a keen study of the classical theories of the Daoyin, Yangsheng and Longevity schools. He had inherited a family owned "Exercises for Chronic Diseases" from his maternal grandfather and started the development of modern Daoyin Yangsheng when he, himself, was severely ill. Basing his work on this huge wealth of traditional knowledge, Professor Zhang developed his new style to combine the methods of Daoyin with physical exercise and mental cultivation. It was through the use of this health system, so it is claimed, that the Professor overcame his own illnesses."

  3. Yang, Yubing 杨玉冰; Peng, Xiangji 彭翔吉 (2011). "健身气功·导引养生功十二法对普通大学生体质的影响" [Effects of Health Qigong·Daoyin Health-preserving Exercise Twelve Methods on the Physique of Ordinary College Students]. 北京体育大学学报 [Journal of Beijing Sport University] (in Chinese) (6). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via CQVIP.
  4. Wei, Shengmin 魏胜敏 (2011). "导引养生功六字诀对中老年人健身效果的影响" [Influence of Daoyin Health Preserving Exercise Liuzi Jue on the Fitness Effect of Middle-aged and Elderly People]. 南京体育学院学报：自然科学版 [Journal of Nanjing Institute of Physical Education: Natural Science Edition] (in Chinese) (3). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via CQVIP.
  5. Hu, Hao 胡好; Huang, Jin 黄今; Fang, Xinpu 方新普 (2008). "和谐社会背景下"导引养生功法"的文化传承与价值放大研究" [Research on the Cultural Inheritance and Value Amplification of "Daoyin Health Preserving Technique" under the Background of Harmonious Society]. 北京体育大学学报 [Journal of Beijing Sport University] (in Chinese) (11). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via CQVIP.
  6. Zheng, Qiangfen 郑强芬 (2014). "高校体育开设导引养生功课程的必要性研究" [Research on the Necessity of Opening Guidance and Health-preserving Kung Fu Courses in College Physical Education]. 武术科学 [Wushu Science] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via CNKI.
  7. Zhang, Weiyi 张伟毅; Jia, Shanyu 贾善玉; Wang, Jindong 王金栋; Li, Han 李涵; Hu, Xiaoyan 胡晓燕; Wang, Yunming 王运明 (1990). "导引养生功对心血管系统的保健作用" [Effect of Daoyin Health Preserving Exercise on Cardiovascular System]. 中国运动医学杂志 [Chinese Journal of Sports Medicine] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via CNKI.
  8. Wang, Xin 汪鑫; Wang, Qi 王齐; Guo, Xiangxuan 郭祥轩 (2016). "健身气功·导引养生功十二法研究综述" [A Summary of Research on the Twelve Methods of Health Qigong·Daoyin Health-preserving Exercises]. 中华武术：研究 [Chinese Martial Arts: Research] (in Chinese) (12). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via CQVIP.
  9. Li, Jun-xi 李晙熙; Huang, Chuan-ye 黄传业. "中老年女性24式太极拳与导引养生功运动 心率变化特点及健身效果观察" [Heart Rate Responses to 24-style Tai Chi Chuan and Dao Yin Exercise and Health Benefit following Long-term Practice in Older Women] (PDF). 中国体育科技 [China Sport Science and Technology] (in Chinese). 53 (5): 97–100. doi:10.16470/j.csst.201705011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.
  10. Lin, Ziyu 林子煜 (2019). "导引养生功十二法对青少年的健康影响文献综述" [Literature review on the influence of the twelve methods of Daoyin health-preserving exercises on the health of adolescents]. 中华传奇 [Legend of China] (in Chinese) (30). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via CQVIP.
  11. Wang, Zhen 王震; Qiu, Pixiang 邱丕相 (2004). "中国导引养生功法的文化解析" [Cultural Analysis of Chinese Daoyin Health-preserving Exercises]. 第七届全国体育科学大会论文摘要汇编 [Compilation of Abstracts of Papers of the Seventh National Sports Science Conference] (in Chinese) (1). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via CNKI.
  12. I am listing this source for completeness. This source doesn't establish notability as it is a primary source in which Zhang Guangde, the academic who developed it, is a coauthor.
      1. Hu, Xiaofei 胡晓飞; Zhang, Guangde 张广德; Lian, Bizhen 练碧贞 (1997). "导引养生功功法遥测心率的实验研究" [Experimental Research on Remote Measurement of Heart Rate by Daoyin Health Preserving Kung Fu]. 北京体育大学学报 [Journal of Beijing Sport University] (in Chinese) (2). Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via CQVIP.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dao Yin Yang Sheng Gong (simplified Chinese: 导引养生功; traditional Chinese: 導引養生功) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Again, thanks to Cunard for his work on finding sources. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 14:58, 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. Salvio ^giuliano 15:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Guangde[edit]

Zhang Guangde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While accomplished, does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR.  While he did originate a procedure, apparently, all the sourcing for procedure, which will also be at AfD as I did not feel bundling was appropriate, is primary sourcing, except for the one book reference in this article.  Both articles were tagged for a week without improvement, after which I prodded this one, and sent the article about the procedure to draft.  This was de-prodded, and the procedure article was returned to mainspace, both without improvement.  Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that either passes GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ACADEMIC#4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. He didn't originate just a procedure but a novel system that has been incorporated into China's curriculum of education. This novel system is taught in China's academic institutions and used as alternative or complementary medicine in hospitals in China. The subject aslo meets WP:ANYBIO#2 and WP:CREATIVE#2. As I already pointed out to the nom in other venues, articles aren't draftify because they aren't notable, and WP:DRAFTIFY is not a backdoor to deletion. If you think that the subject of an article does not meet any inclusion criteria, nominate it for deletion. Shoerack (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I'd agree with this assessment, we need further sourcing, but I'm seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, and that's why they are sent to draft, for improvement, for they do not currently meet WP standards for inclusion, but have the possibility to do so.  You chose to ignore that opportunity to improve the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it met the required standard. Articles that meet the required standard should not be WP: DRAFTIFY. This article meets WP:STUB and has a high chance of surviving at AfD. It doesn't meet any WP:CSD criteria. You tagged it with Template: Notability, because you thought it wasn't notable, and shortly moved it to the draft space. This is the definition of "using draftify as a backdoor to deletion." That was not the purpose of WP:DRAFTIFY. Shoerack (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you should really read WP:DRAFTIFY. The topic has some potential merit; however the article did not meet the required standard (hence the notability tag); and there was no improvement after it was tagged, meaning there is no evidence of active improvement (at least one hour since the last constructive edit); and the article does not contain copyright violations. Textbook draftify. However, in this instance, a BEFORE did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG, so it was prodded, instead of draftification. The Prod was contested, again without improvement, and so we are here.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the relevant policy above, not you. I am unsure why you thought I would link to a policy I haven't read, despite quoting some of its key elements and components. That said, you added the Template:Notability tag. This tag is not for article improvement. Notability cannot be improved but may be established with multiple independent, and reliable sources as required by WP:GNG or SNG. You seem to be thinking that subjects that appear non-notable to you at first glance should be moved to draft space. I have told you repeatedly that this is a bad approach. Subjects that are not notable should be nominated for deletion, and not to draftify. Per WP:DRAFTIFY , pages that meet the required standard are pages that meet WP:STUB, have high chances of surviving at AfD, and pages that do not meet any speedy deletion criterion. Shoerack (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ACADEMIC#4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Here are some sources:
  1. Kohn, Livia (2008). Chinese Healing Exercises: The Tradition of Daoyin. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-8248-3234-6. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Another is Daoyin Yangsheng, developed by Zhang Guangde 张广德, a Beijing academic who developed serious health problems and in 1974 was diagnosed with heart disease and tuberculosis. Then, as the workshop flyer of Red Lotus Tai Chi Qigong in New Hampshire says, [quote]. Zhang's system, which is quite popular in China and practiced variously in the West, is documented in his book Daoyin yangsheng gong 导引养生功 (2001). Acknowledged officially as a form of qigong and recognized by various martial arts and sports organizations in China, it involves moves that are adapted from taiji quan but that are gentler and more medically focused. Its sequences tend to specialize in different areas of ailments. ..."

  2. Faulkner, Gordon (2011). Managing Stress with Qigong. London: Singing Dragon. p. 25. ISBN 978-1-84819-035-1. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "In the 1970s Daoyin Yangsheng enters the picture. Daoyin Yangsheng is a modern healthcare system created by Professor Zhang Guangde and taught at the Beijing Sports University. This comprehensive system follows the usual Daoyin actions of gentle exercise with breath control, the stimulation of key acupoints in the body, self massage and mental development but has now been updated by combining Traditional Chinese Medicine with modern knowledge of anatomy, physiology and medical theory. Professor Zhang made a keen study of the classical theories of the Daoyin, Yangsheng and Longevity schools. He had inherited a family owned "Exercises for Chronic Diseases" from his maternal grandfather and started the development of modern Daoyin Yangsheng when he, himself, was severely ill. Basing his work on this huge wealth of traditional knowledge, Professor Zhang developed his new style to combine the methods of Daoyin with physical exercise and mental cultivation. It was through the use of this health system, so it is claimed, that the Professor overcame his own illnesses."

  3. Yu, Gongbao 余功保 (2006). 中国太极拳辞典 [Dictionary of Chinese Taijiquan] (in Chinese). Beijing: People's Sports Publishing House [zh]. p. 484. ISBN 978-7-5009-2879-9. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "【张广德】( 1932 ~ )养生学家。河北省唐山市人。 1963 年北京体育学院武术研究生毕业,留校任教。根据自己的研究和实践经验,创编“导引养生功”系列,在国内外具有广泛影响。于太极拳等武术领域也多有研究, 1996 年当选“中华武林百杰”。中国武术学会常委, ..."

     From Google Translate: "【Zhang Guangde】(1932 ~ ) Health preserver. Born in Tangshan City, Hebei Province. In 1963, he graduated from the Beijing Institute of Physical Education as a master of Wushu and stayed at the school to teach. Based on his own research and practical experience, he created the series of "Daoyin Health Preserving Exercises", which has a wide influence at home and abroad. In 1996, he was selected as one of the "Hundred Masters of Chinese Martial Arts". Member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese Wushu Association, ..."

  Cunard (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all above. Taung Tan (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thank you to Cunard (talk · contribs) for his work on finding sources for this article and Dao Yin Yang Sheng Gong. I think it's clear that both of these articles are notable and linked together. Papaursa (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ACADEMIC#4. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:04, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rooqma Ray[edit]

Rooqma Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Actor doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in non-WP:ROUTINE sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR#1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows ... - Lead role (by definition significant) in multiple notable TV shows (as shown by the fact that these shows have articles). UtherSRG (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the actress has acted in lead roles in a good number of TV soaps and web series supported by verifiable WP:GNG 150.107.146.165 (talk) 09:48, 4 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 speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Asia-Pacific Grand Touring Series[edit]

2000 Asia-Pacific Grand Touring Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can’t find the tournament on Google at all. – 333-blue at 09:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. – 333-blue at 09:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless any actual sourcing is found; may need someone to see if there's any relevant results in Japanese etc. - Article on spurious subject with no obvious results coming up from WP:BEFORE searches, even in databases. Edit: Looking through the article creator's user sandbox there are several articles which are (to a trained eye) quite obviously about fictitious subjects. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are simply young and do not understand what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, but it seems quite likely this article is a WP:HOAX. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Season article without a parent, likely hoax. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Creator of the page here, i had meant to create the page as part of my sandbox for testing things but i forgot to include the sandbox in the link, so it was totally an accident and i do not mean to spread hoaxes. I would like to request to delete the page as quickly as possible. SpikesIvory (talk) 02:09, 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 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!} 08:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PitchBook Data[edit]

PitchBook Data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. All of the sources offered are either interviews with staff, press release type stories, or announcements of the activities of the company. No sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and Washington. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ORG. In searching for additional sources, I did find a few noteworthy articles (surrounded by a sea of blog posts from the company itself) but all of these count as trivial in the WP:ORG guidelines. Especially frequent are passing mentions, which includes "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources." DJ Cane (talk) 12:32, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Kreh[edit]

Kurt Kreh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominator's rationale: No evidence that this person was notable or was their disappearance. I also can't find any additional coverage about this person, and their article is just a mere stub as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:12, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 14 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!} 06:25, 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!} 06:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless somebody can find significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. His canoing accomplishments fail to establish notability and the anecdote about his disappearance is unreferenced. I completed a good faith Google search and found nothing about this person, although a few other people share his name. Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of notability, lack of sources. --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Biography with no reliable source to proof passage --Doctorlimp (talk) 18:26, 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. Closing per WP:RELIST, consensus to keep formed, no substative differences from earlier AfD discussions. Note: nomination by editor subsequently blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UrduPoint[edit]

UrduPoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable media outlet, I checked under the urdu name/spelling (اردو پوائنٹ) and found even less sourcing, which indicates to me that this is a complete notability fail despite the many attempts to spam it crosswiki. This new Pakistani TV channel has no references that demonstrate it meets the ">Parkashjit Singh30 18:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Pakistan. Justiyaya 04:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per my arguments in the previous AfD. Insight 3 (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Although I couldn't find a lot of sources to demonstrate notability, there seems to be previous consensus to keep - there have been two past AfDs for this article, and both failed. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 09:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although the subject is lacking of RS but its due to media race as no media outlet promotes each other, otherwise it's among the biggest media outlets in Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:03, 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.

The nominator is also reminded that if you wish to nominate future articles for AFD discussions, please tag the article and inform the article creator of the existence of the discussion. They appear to be inactive but other editors might have their talk page on their Watchlists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calvario[edit]

Calvario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A little-known band. After searching in Google books and a regular search engine, I found nothing but the doom metal band of the same name. The sources on the page are unreliable and dead. Crystallizedh, 17:52 — Preceding undated comment added 22 January 2023‎ (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ecuador. Justiyaya 04:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Always fun when the WP:GARAGEBAND essay seems to apply --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:18, 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. There is not only a consensus to Keep this article but a lack of a coherent deletion rationale from the AFD nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal (caste)[edit]

Gopal (caste) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete Gopal Caste Article Because Gopal means Cow Owner and in ancient time/after independence all people have their own Cows, buffalo example like Farmers, Brahmin, Barber, Rajput etc and many people in this world have their own Cows so how can Ahir,Goaud, Yadav is Claiming , Gopal is name of Shri Krishna because he is owner of Cow also So this article not match it's content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhagruti (talk • contribs) 03:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Odisha. Justiyaya 04:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator has failed to present a well-reasoned argument for deletion. Personally, I agree with many Indian leaders that the caste system should be abandoned, but the caste system still exists and Wikipedia needs to cover it. This article appears to be neutrally written and appears to be well-referenced. Further input from knowledgeable and neutral Indian Wikipedia editors would be welcomed. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination fails to advance a policy argument for deleting the article. It's well referenced and satisfies the GNG guidelines. --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - The nominator, with all due respect, failed to provide a coherent rationale for deletion. The article has plenty of references with WP:SIGCOV, is neutrally written, and has no big problems that justify TNT. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 09:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I kind of agree with the OP. However, caste, including this caste, is a thing that exists, and therefore Wikipedia has an article about it as a thing that exists. If some part of the article is incorrect, then I suggest Dispute Resolution. If the objection is that this thing should not exist, then that is outside the scope of Wikipedia. Probably requires grassroots organizing. Elinruby (talk) 06:13, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chr. Michelsen Institute[edit]

Chr. Michelsen Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No references-at-all!!! Especially in the field of social sciences and politics, this is an extremely unacceptable situation for an encyclopedia that wants to be taken serious (like Wikipedia)!! Corriebertus (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Norway. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the backlog of unreferenced articles dates, at present, to March 2007 and is over 131,000 articles. This is not an "extremely unacceptable" situation, it is an ongoing area of improvement that many editors are diligently working to improve. A Google search reveals a number of independent sources for this topic, which I will add momentarily, and is part of an editor's due diligence prior to nomination an article for deletion. I would familiarize yourself with WP:BEFORE prior to tagging more articles for AfD. Kazamzam (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has an article in Great Norwegian encylopedia et al. 2A01:799:19A1:C100:55CA:6CAA:2785:4F4D (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nom, these old unreffed articles are a black eye for the encyclopedia. Regardless, this appears to be a think-tank. I don't find significant coverage about them and the "Great Norwegian Encyclopedia" is at most a few lines. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete, no substantial coverage, even when using "Chr. Michelsens Institutt". Mooonswimmer 19:41, 13 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!} 20:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough coverage to meet GNG. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 13:51, 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. While there is a slight majority to Redirect this article, there also a misperception that this is a one sentence article about a reality show contestant when it actually is a full-fledged article that appears to be well-sourced. So, I find the reasoning behind some of those arguing for a Redirect to be faulty and will default to Keeping this article. Of course, there is room for improvement but that is the case with all articles on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naysha Lopez[edit]

Naysha Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article doesn't answer to the criteria of WP:GNG and it lacks in-depth sourcing.Radiohist (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Lots of interviews, not much else. This is the best non-interview, and it's minor coverage [9]. I'd redirect to the article about that season of Drag Race. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 8), per Oaktree b, WP:BLP1E applies. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:984F:BC09:7E73:6D6E (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify / Redirect to RPDR Season 8, based on a search of Google News, there are some articles about Naysha but they do all same to relate to their time on RPDR which would be WP:BLP1E. I know there's a staunch group of dedicated editors who create some great RPDR articles but I'm not sure that creating a one sentence stub with a view to "expanding in the future" is the best way to expand the collection of RPDR articles. Would much prefer to see more detailed stubs or actually creating articles AFTER the subject is notable. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject won the Miss Continental competition and has appeared in multiple television series. @Oaktree b and Lil-unique1: Does this mean WP:BLP1E does not apply? I'm also finding claims about the subject's pageant achievements out of drag, though there's not a Wikipedia entry for the Mr. Continental competition. Entry now has 20+ archived sources covering career and personal life (not to mention, publish dates span a decade). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's possible keep now but still leaning towards redirect - why create one sentence articles instead of not creating a fully-fledged one in the mainspace when its ready? I'm not sure its detailed enough coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 09:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand, this isn't a one-sentence article... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Many RPDR articles are - they're created as one sentence (or a handful) of sentences just for the sake of creating them until they can be expanded. That's not how wikipedia works. You're supposed to create articles when you can already establish their notability. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 17:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion is about this article, for which notability seems to be established, not "many RPDR articles". The creation of such articles is precisely how Wikipedia works, per our editing policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, so it's a BPL2E (two events), the individual is better known in relation to the TV show and hasn't had much coverage otherwise. I wouldn't exactly call their time on the TV as major either, the first person eliminated is hardly notable. It's a brief blip in relation to the entire run of the show. I suppose the beauty pageant adds to notability; I'd prefer a redirect as they just aren't known for the pageant, it's tangential to the time on the TV show. Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that's not true. The subject competed on Drag Race after winning Miss Continental. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• cautious keep/maybe redirect I think WP:BLP1E is meant to prevent an article being made about someone participating in a single newsworthy event, not someone who performs over multiple years and gets interviewed by Billboard[10] and The Advocate (magazine)[11]. I'm not sure what problems you're seeing with WP:GNG. Then again, I just had to remove a sentence on the article saying where he was living in 2020. It was probably a good faith edit, but a reminder we need to be very careful about notability with BLP. So maybe a redirect is best Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sativa Inflorescence Yes, 100% agree. It should be redirected into the season 8 article.Radiohist (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rupaul's Drag Race *and* winning Miss Continental (a national beauty content *with* state level feeder ) definitely removes this from BLP1E as a criteria. (And as others have said, if "deleted" should simply be restored to a redirect.)Naraht (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of curiosity, does the Miss Continental competition have an article? Is that notable in its own right? Notability isn't inherited. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 17:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Miss Continental ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:51, 19 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!} 02:28, 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!} 03:21, 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!} 06:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Book of Mystery[edit]

Sixth Book of Mystery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:DAB. Two entries on this page have no meaningful connection to the dab title.  // Timothy :: talk  02:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 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!} 03:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The first entry, which appears to have an alternate name that at least has these words, still shows no evidence that the title here is ever used. The second entry is even further from the "Sixth book ..." name. I could not find either of these referenced using this name. Lamona (talk) 02:22, 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 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!} 06:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Book of the Mysteries[edit]

Sixth Book of the Mysteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:DAB. Two entries on this page have no meaningful connection to the dab title.  // Timothy :: talk  02:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 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!} 03:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See my comment on previous afd. Lamona (talk) 02:23, 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 Withdrawn. Sufficient sources were found, I withdraw the nomination with no other delete rationales. (non-admin closure) McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Networks II[edit]

Net-Works II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced article about an BBS software which does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Found a litany of sources regarding its development and reception, including a three-page in-depth review in InfoWorld. More to come. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:55, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kartika Sari Dewi Sukarno[edit]

Kartika Sari Dewi Sukarno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced BLP article. Article and sources do not meet SIGCOV for GNG or NBIO.  // Timothy :: talk  01:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for the following topic: Indonesia. JarrahTree 01:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, only source in the article is a dead link. Delete per nominator. Tails Wx 01:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral on deletion, but I want to point out WP:ARTN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the suggestion. Tails Wx 22:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The only dead source link which is retrieved in 2008 cannot verify. Per nominator. IntegerSequences (talk | contribs) 04:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The (archived) source is here, but it only mentions the subject's parentage, her wedding date and her husband's name and occupation. None of the other information in the article is cited. Davidelit (Talk) 04:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The arguments to delete seem to rely too much on the state of the article, not based on searches. I did the searched, found CNN coverage which confirmed everything and improved the article. She seemed notable and there is lots of coverage for her, although translation issues and my unfamiliarity with Indonesian sources makes me not want to add them in. CT55555(talk) 02:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV. Mentions in sources are largely restricted to her being Sukarno's daughter, rather than actually achieving anything in her own right - except marrying - in sharp contrast to her step-siblings (e.g. Megawati Sukarnoputri and Rachmawati Sukarnoputri). At best she deserves a few sentences in the Sukarno article. Davidelit (Talk) 03:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not everyone mentioned in the sukarno family template is adequately in the notability to adequately show significance beyond being in the family tree JarrahTree 11:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dewi Sukarno. There are examples of her being covered in Japanese print media, which are rarely digitized, dating back to the 1990s, but her notability is undeniably tied to the notability of her mother, who is a television celebrity in Japan. In Japanese media, she is better known as "Karina Sukarno" (カリナ・スカルノ). When searching for her name in Japanese, virtually all sources simultaneously mention her mother, "Madam Dewi" (デヴィ夫人). —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. What's on this article is already mentioned on Sukarno#Children and briefly on Dewi Sukarno, no need to expand it to its own article as it fails WP:GNG Ckfasdf (talk) 14:12, 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!} 03:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG Almeida Fernando (talk) 06:29, 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 Solar Entertainment Corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Avenue (TV channel)[edit]

2nd Avenue (TV channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

another page subject to a slow-motion long duration edit war in regards to notability and whether it should be a standalone article or a redirect Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Justiyaya 04:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to Solar Entertainment Corporation. There are good materials out there for the channel like the carriage dispute between Solar and SkyCable. However, I can't justify its claim on notability as the second-highest earning channel within its parent company as enough to warrant a standalone article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and salt: to Solar Entertainment Corporation, please protect the article until GNG has been found. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found some reliable sources about the defunct channel, its programming and events: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19]. That said, though the article needs a bit more expansion, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 00:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All those references you linked are regurgitated press releases without the journalists/authors writing them, some even have a direct "sponsored content" tag or a flat out promotion at the end. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Solar Entertainment Corporation, not convinced by the The Philippine Star references above at all. While it's obviously a reliable source, after reading these it's quite clear it's not the independent coverage of the channel. Otherwise, my searches bring up passing mentions, listings, Fandom + blogs and unrelated results. Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:28, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Vernon Lindo[edit]

Cecil Vernon Lindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. No indication of notability. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Given the extent of coverage cited, why isn’t this a GNG pass? Mccapra (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Costa Rica, and Jamaica. AllyD (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I'm completely distressed at this, because this is an interesting article, and is much more likely to be accurate than most of the rest of Wikipedia. But in answer to Mccapra's question, I'm guessing the problem is that the vast majority of it is supported by primary sources, so in effect, most of the article looks like a really high-quality piece of original research. It should be published somewhere. I am leaning towards a weak keep based on the fact that the first three references aren't primary, and three's a keep, right? But mostly I'm leaning keep because I come to Wikipedia to learn something about people who mattered, and I much preferred reading this article to the endless, drivellingly endless PR pieces of minor politicians, minor Indian civil servants, minor films and their minor actors, minor entrepreneurs, forgettable beauty pageant winners, and other minors who come here looking for self-validation and promotion to major-hood. I know that's irrelevant in WP terms, but I'm a human. I actually enjoyed reading this article. Elemimele (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Of all the Lindos, this is one of two for whom a case can be made for notable. Athel cb (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep The nominator nominated 8 articles of members on the Lindo family in a 10 minute span and used the exact word-for-word deletion rationale for all of them. Of the subjects with "No indication of notability", least 2 were members of Jamaican Parliament and one was the Governor of Dominica for seven years. If the nominator would provide an article-specific rationale I will consider changing my vote but currently this looks like a mass-AfD with little WP:BEFORE research or even reading of the articles that are being nominated. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, comment Could the nominator please state less generically why they think WP:GNG is not met? The article has lots of sources, several offline, for which we should assume good faith for. Has each of them been thoroughly assessed? CT55555(talk) 03:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in the absence of a good rationale for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Lindo[edit]

Frederick Lindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. No indication of notability. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Jamaica. AllyD (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In no way notable. Athel cb (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep The nominator nominated 8 articles of members on the Lindo family in a 10 minute span and used the exact word-for-word deletion rationale for all of them. Of the subjects with "No indication of notability", least 2 were members of Jamaican Parliament and one was the Governor of Dominica for seven years. If the nominator would provide an article-specific rationale I will consider changing my vote but currently this looks like a mass-AfD with little WP:BEFORE research or even reading of the articles that are being nominated. Best,
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nominator's tack here is definitely problematic, and is showing little regard for very real differences in notability and sourceability within the group he's targeted — but in this particular article I can't see anything to base a keep argument on. The introduction says he was a politician, but then completely fails to contain any body content that describes any political activity, so he can't be judged against WP:NPOL, but there's really nothing else here that meets any of our other inclusion standards for people in other occupations either. And the article is referenced 3/4 to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and 1/4 to a book about the entire Lindo family, which is obviously a start but not in and of itself enough to secure the permanent encyclopedic notability of every individual member of that family all by itself without additional GNG-worthy reliable sourcing on top of that. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: If I'm reading the mention from this source correctly it would appear that he served as a member of the Legislative Council of Jamaica in the 1870's. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, that do change things. Keep as holder of an WP:NPOL-passing office, but flag for referencing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Concur with GPL93, appears to have been a member of the Legislative Council (pp10-11). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having served in a national legislative body, he clearly passes WP:NPOL criterion#1. Sal2100 (talk) 21:27, 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. Salvio ^giuliano 15:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jenia Meng[edit]

Jenia Meng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am not sure how to categorize this individual's profession but given the weight of this article upon her education, I'm going to say that she doesn't meet WP:PROF. In my online search get mentions of her in "the media", her website and social media accounts but being in the press doesn't equate to notability on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Comics and animation, and Science. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The following comment was posted by an editor who has edited this page both using the account Effortshitconsistentinvest and using IP editing, with the IP address 211.30.131.151. JBW (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Google the name, it is already given a knowledge panel. From Google: "Knowledge panels are automatically generated, and information that appears in a knowledge panel comes from various sources across the web. In some cases, we may work with data partners who provide authoritative data on specific topics like movies or music, and combine that data with information from other open web sources." https://support.google.com/knowledgepanel/answer/9163198?hl=en . The page has been vandalized because of multidisciplinary nature of the research Effortshitconsistentinvest (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Knowledge Panel is not what we would consider a reliable source that establishes notability, especially for someone claiming credentials in the academic world. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Heavily promotional, could be G11 speedy. Article creator seems non-knowledgeable re Wikipedia standards for notability: having a Google knowledge panel means absoutely nothing for us, and none of the sources in the article meet the standards of depth of coverage, reliability, and independence from the subject required for WP:GNG notability. WP:PROF seems far out of reach for someone who claims a doctorate but is not using it in an academic capacity, for whom Google Scholar only lists one publication, and whose article instead appears based on WP:FRINGE claims. The fringe claims, in turn, create a stronger requirement that we use in-depth coverage of those claims from a mainstream point of view, to meet WP:NPOV, we do not have that coverage, and searching did not turn up anything better. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The following comment was posted by an editor who has edited this page both using the account Effortshitconsistentinvest and using IP editing, with the IP address 211.30.131.151. JBW (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• page has been vandalized by Eppstein https://www.quora.com/Is-David-Eppstein-useful-for-Wikipedia it says censorship of theology, the article is not Eppstein's field Effortshitconsistentinvest (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Paranormal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't see how would meet WP:NPROF at all. As mentioned, Google's Knowledge Panels effectively mean nothing for Wikipedia. The only potential way I can think of to keep is if someone finds sufficient independant reviews to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG, which I failed to. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The text is awkward, but more importantly, it is also promotional. The sources are unreliable and further searching turned up none better. The idea that a Google knowledge panel should imply notability is trivially refuted by the very description of Google knowledge panels quoted above. XOR'easter (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As others have said, seems promotional, very thin mentions on the web, does not seem to meet PROF criteria 1 through 8 despite having doctorate. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Australia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing what here meets WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with everyone else, nothing to indicate the subject is notable, and I can't find any sources of my own to back it up. OliveYouBean (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein and other contributers here. -Roxy the dog 08:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein and others here - not notable. Deus et lex (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject is not notable. I couldn't find relevant sources on google. - GA Melbourne (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The following comment was posted by an editor who has edited this page both using the account Effortshitconsistentinvest and using IP editing, with the IP address 211.30.131.151. JBW (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever: Interestingly, her works in the references are all ignored. And of course you cannot find, you are dealing with a multilingual author who wrote in different languages and pen names. You need study some foreign languages before commenting on the subjects. Google knows better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias 211.30.131.151 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP: NPOV notability; clearly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinifex&Sand (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Knowledge Panel is insufficient and also always highly volatile. Admittedly, I was the original draftifier, and though the creator moved it back to mainspace I find the edits leading to that inadequate. Silikonz💬 19:23, 2 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of products manufactured by Gibson Guitar Corporation[edit]

List of products manufactured by Gibson Guitar Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTCATALOG. Tons of non-inks and red links. The list isn't particularly vibrant, so it doesn't meet WP:LSC which says Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. Mikeblas (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and Lists. Justiyaya 04:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Easily meets WP:NLIST where Gibson products have been discussed as a set (e.g., Gibson's Fabulous Flat-top Guitars: An Illustrated History, Gibson Electrics: The Classic Years, The Gibson Electric Guitar Book: Seventy Years of Classic Guitars, etc.). It's literally impossible to say otherwise. Furthermore, the amount of Gibson products with their own independent pages easily means this page has a function as a navigation page (no, categories are not the same; this could be expanded into a more detailed list of just notable products easily). For the latter reason alone, (and per WP:CATALOG literally saying Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content) it should be kept. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would be more useful in a table format with the year something came out and other information listed, but even without that, this is still a valid information and navigational list. The number of blue links alone indicates that clearly. Dream Focus 09:12, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Caribou[edit]

Camp Caribou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see evidence of notability here. One source is an advertorial, one the camp's website, one (NYT) a decent source, and one a trivial mention. A BEFORE search doesn't find anything other than trivial coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find this in the Financial Times too, [20]. I think it's at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Describing the New York Times coverage as a "decent source" is an extreme understatement. It is an outstanding source without a doubt. This place is 101 years old and it seems almost certain that there is much more coverage that cannot be easily found. I found coverage in a book called The Moosehead Lake Region: 1900-1950. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. Long-lived/historic summer camps are going to be notable, along lines of wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION, an essay to which I contributed. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:05, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Yongchun (disambiguation)[edit]

Wang Yongchun (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No disambiguation needed Leschnei (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, and China. Justiyaya 04:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G14, only one extant link. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above comment. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:19, 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. Wikipedia:PROCEDURALCLOSE as the item is currently linked from the main page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwede66 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Jacinda Ardern[edit]

Resignation of Jacinda Ardern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable enough resignation to warrant its own article. The Background section is all repeated infomation from the Jacinda Ardern and Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand articles. The actual Resignation section of the article comprises 5 sentences and a large extended quote. The reactions section contains some infomation about suprise and typical quotes from world leaders (in addition to evaluations of Ardern's premiership which is not relevant to her resignation). Simliar to other world leader's resignations like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss which do not have their own articles. Anything else that may be useful can be added to the Jacinda Ardern and Sixth Labour Government of New Zealand articles.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and New Zealand.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a well fleshed out article on a notable topic. I agree that the 'reactions' section should be trimmed, but without it there's still a lot of substantive content. Ardern's resignation was a major news story worldwide and is likely to receive continuing commentary. I'm surprised we don't have articles on Boris Johnson's and Liz Truss' resignations - we should. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 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.