< July 03	July 05 >

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Carlos Oliveira

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Also WP:SPAM that meets speedy criterion WP:G11. Ergo Sum 23:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: fails WP:GNG, not notable as spiritual practitioner or anything else. QueerEcofeminist🌈 05:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has referencing included that already demonstrates sufficient in depth coverage per WP:BASIC. It is badly written and promotional but deletion is not for cleanup. It is clearly not spam. Not clear that any WP:BEFORE has been considered here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the published works listed are self published, with, according to online info, the shortest being 9 pages and the longest 64. 5Q5|^✉ 12:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, his publications are not notable. I don't think he meets WP:NAUTHOR. What makes him notable is the fact that people are writing about him and making documentaries about him. 13:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While he has appeared in some reality television, he largely is not the focus of the pieces. There may be other media about him out there, but the filmography listed does not constitute significant coverage. Vegantics (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BASIC, the question is whether there is significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other. We can strip out the self promotion, but we are still left with significant coverage from the National Geographic (reliable), the History channel (not reliable. May suggest there is an issue of fringe here), and Vice (no consensus on reliability, but this report appears to be balanced, and is also significant - albeit that the church is opposing the practice). There are a number of news reports too, which do count towards the multiple sources required. This is just the information on the page. We have multiple sources, including an in depth radio interview. Now we may not believe in what this person is doing or the way he is going about it, and we certainly would be right to think this page needs some serious attention, but regardless of that, it is not clear to me at this stage why we are discounting these sources. No source review has been conducted nor considered of the existing sources, and already we have !votes that he fails GNG (suggesting the delete should be speedy, whilst not giving any speed deletion criterion, I might add). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable sources I'm seeing in this article that actually discuss the subject are National Geographic and NBC. The problem is simply being interviewed by, quoted by, or mentioned by a reliable news outlet does not make a person notable. In each of these instances, the sources are not writing about Oliveira per se, but are writing about exorcisms and just happen to discuss his work. It's the same as if a news organization covers a story about bakery and interviews a baker about what he does. That certainly does not make the baker notable. Here, there is scant coverage and none of it is actually substantially profiling the subject directly. That makes him unnotable. Ergo Sum 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Try again later if more evidence of notability and lasting contribution to his field can be established. 5Q5|^✉ 13:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "reality TV personality". Article is promotional, and the references are very shallow. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only WP:SIRS source appears to be a Vice article. The other cites might qualify, but they all 404 at this point, even the archival links.Kalethan (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't the place for him, advertising his wares. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:31, 11 July 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 List of Turks and Caicos Islands international footballers. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Rene

[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Turks and Caicos Islands international footballers. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 18:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Characters of The Legend of Zelda. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daruk

[edit]

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

Article relies mostly on rankings, and after doing WP:BEFORE shows nothing more. thus, failing WP:GNG. I feel Revali and even Mipha are also be not notable but a dual nomination would be "reckless action". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda. I believe that there should be a split-off character list for BOTW, as the characters have been discussed as a group, but I don't see a single smidgen of evidence that Daruk on his own is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Doesn't seem to be discussed as an individual character in RS, purely in list-articles and articles on the game as a whole. This sort of game attracts a lot of media coverage, but it's mostly just describing the game plot and play experience, so WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs that don't pass the WP:GNG. But there is some verifiable content to merge, as WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on deletion. But I note that the name is a spelling (in Sydney, Australia) of the local [Dharug] tribe: for example, there was a Daruk detention centre (Offending Institution: Daruk Boys Home). So if the current article is deleted, could "Daruk" be redirected to [Dharug] perhaps, rather than to the game character?Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article can simply be moved to Daruk (The Legend of Zelda) or something along those lines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I loved Breath of the Wild as much as the next person, but none of the Champions from Breath of the Wild seem to pass WP:GNG, this one especially. NegativeMP1 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Like Revali. Daruk doesn't have much sourcing beyond trivial mentions, listicles, or Creating a Champion. Probably send to Characters of The Legend of Zelda. ULPS (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Daruk simply does not have enough meat on his bones to justify a separate article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Link, Zelda, and Ganon having their own pages makes sense, but the minor characters, particularly those only originating in recent games, should probably just redirect to a character list, their respective games, or just TLoZ. Especially since Daruk's entire race, Goron, already redirects. That said, if we do it for Daruk, we should do it for Mipha, Revali, etc. Kalethan (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalethan Revali was also nominated for afd. If you feel Mipha isn't notable, then you're welcome to nominate it for yourself. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:54, 11 July 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!} 23:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Needham & The Blue Trees

[edit]

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

Unreferenced article. I can only find brief announcements for gigs and some blogs that discuss the group. Claim that a song they performed charted but cannot find anything to confirm. CNMall41 (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with the nominator, I was unable to find any information about the song "Chasing You" as a charting single in the Adult Contemporary chart. The claim is very vague as it does not specify which chart, and only vaguely states it charted in late 2015 rather than specifying which weeks. Their own press release material states it is as " #8 on FM Radio Charts" which is is even more vague. In searching for coverage of the band, I am unable to find anything that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. No referenced content, and the only claim of importance fails verification. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq.Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any sources that count toward notability. Skynxnex (talk) 21:51, 11 July 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!} 23:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Ngwa

[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. A search found a few press releases and reprints of press releases but nothing that would count for notability. CNMall41 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cameroon and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage to support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - just a resume. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skynxnex (talk) 21:47, 11 July 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!} 05:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rated A for Awesome

[edit]

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

Lack of reputable, secondary, non-independent sources. I attempted to search for sources (I am not extended confirmed yet, so I could not access The Wikipedia Library) to no avail. Even if I could find sources, the entire episode list would need to be rebuilt using the correct template, and the writers, storyboard artists, & directors' identities would need to be verified. After further research, I can confidently say that this show fails the general notability guideline. Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 22:49, 27 June 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 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Library user/animation fan chiming in. Starting off with the most—and only—substantial material I could find on PQ at this writing (amid a slew of mere mentions and TV listings); further research elsewhere needed. (This debate was on my radar for days now, but I got too carried away by personal book duties, the fall of the Reddit and Twitter empires in real time, and my newfound itch for WP:Rater.)
"Disney co-pros Awesome cartoon series". Broadcast. Emap. 2011-04-13. Retrieved 2023-07-04 – via ProQuest. Disney's UK-based production hub has co-produced a CG animated comedy which will in 129 countries on the Disney XD channel...52 x 11-minute adventure story.

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above plus an in-depth review from staff of a reliable source: [1] —siro χ o 21:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. After my own search I was not expecting this to clear the GNG but the above sources appear sufficient. -- Visviva (talk) 23:06, 5 July 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!} 05:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Deeds Day

[edit]

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

non encyclopedic, clearly advertorial, participation by name sake user name. Graywalls (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is coverage [2] and [3]. Coverage of events in the Phillipines and in St Lucia, seems to be a global event. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. Seems to be a promotional piece. Maliner (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meet GNG. It seems prootional --Wyndhan Han (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep: news coverage seems to be global and work with GNG. Gerblinpete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Comment did you see the depth and quality of coverage? I just removed some sources, such as a video from Good Deeds Day's own YouTube. Look through contribution history and you'll see a good chunk of info added into the article is a user name that is the same as the article title. Graywalls (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others mentioned before me, coverage is more than sufficient for the WP:GNG.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] These are just a few of the articles. Not sure how this could have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we not finding any English sources for supposedly globally notable thing? Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does your question even START to relate to my opinion? My opinion is that this is a major community day in Israel and hence notable. There is sufficient SIGCOV to support this. I never spoke about anything international. Why would that even matter? The population of Israel is 10 million people. Is this some kind of deflection from my opinion and sources? If you have questions for other people, please ask elsewhere! gidonb (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to irrelevant, it also is untrue. Consider: [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. That's just SOME of the English-language coverage in just ONE fine English-language newspaper. Please check before asking and, more important, do a WP:BEFORE ahead of nominating an article! gidonb (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review newly discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, abundant RS coverage demonstrated. We might quibble over whether this has been adequately shown to be a global phenomenon (although a scan of Google News suggests it is), but it has certainly been shown above to have ample GNG-compliant coverage within Israel. (In the "things on AFD that make you go hmm" department, I will note that the two delete votes claiming no RS coverage came after a comment providing two facially reliable sources, and did not state any grounds for considering them unreliable.) -- Visviva (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple reliable sources provided above. Cavarrone 09:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something doesn't have to be global to be notable - evidently big in Israel and with some coverage elsewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:34, 6 July 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 am unimpressed with arguments which discuss an editor's "pass rate" at AfD, and would like not to see that happen again. An argument is evaluated on its own merits, not that of the person who makes it. That aside, the arguments which specifically evaluated the reliability and independence of the reference material used for this article showed it to be lacking in substantial coverage of this company in particular, and several "keep" arguments either did not refute this or discussed somewhat related topics rather than the company itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accel-KKR

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 16:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject is sufficiently notable and has coverage from reliable sources including the WSJ. - Indefensible (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a 62% pass rate on Afd and have taken part in 39Afd. You don't know the policy and doubt you have even read it. scope_creep^Talk 13:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like ad hominem and has nothing to do with the nomination. - Indefensible (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A first indication of significance: they have 14 billion dollars in assets. That's a pretty significant number for most people. I ran a Wikipedia Library search and came up with 150 citations. Most of these were purchases and sales of large stakes in technology companies.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the 70+ companies in which they have major investments at Talk:Accel-KKR#Portfolio as of 27 June 2023.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assets size don't count towards notability nor does number of investments. 14billion under managament is miniscule compared to the average high street bank. It is just another indicator of how small it is. scope_creep^Talk

Accel-KKR doesn't just hold some stock; they make substantial investments and exercise control through Accel-KKR executives they place on company boards. Companies they partially own and control include: SugarCRM, Airship, Basware, Entersekt, FastSpring, Masabi, Ontraport, etc. These are not passively managed investments spread in small chunks of stock across many publicly traded companies. For a passively managed fund, $14 billion under management is indeed a much smaller sum; those passive funds are usually much less profitable and may be managed by a handful of people.

About those high street banks: Since Accel-KKR largely makes equity investments (there are some debt investments), it's more technically accurate to think of the 14 billion as the collective market capitalization of these companies and then compare that to the market caps of big banks in Britain and Ireland (the countries with "high streets"). (Note: the following numbers fluctuate daily). Royal Bank of Scotland's is certainly bigger: 19 billion^[47]. NatWest Group's is 26 billion^[48] and Lloyds Banking Group's is still higher. Then again, Accel-KKR is worth more than Virgin Money's 2.7 billion^[49], the Bank of Ireland's 10.8, billion^[50], and Allied Irish Banks' 11.1 billion^[51]. Switzerland and Germany don't have "high streets" which may be why Credit Suisse's valued at just 3.6 billion^[52] and even huge Deutsche Bank is only 50% more valuable than Accel-KKR at 21 billion^[53].

As for true "high street" (i.e, retail banks), most of these have by now been subsumed into bigger British or global banks.

So $14 billion still buys a lot, whether it's big stakes in software companies or whole banks.

As for notability, we have the plethora of reliable sources noted elsewhere.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a paid editor? Are you paid to advocate for this. None of that is a criteria from proving notability, its all routine business operations and posting it up, is a complete waste of your time. We will go through the references this week. scope_creep^Talk 18:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Scope creep, "Are you a paid editor?" - do you ask that of every editor you disagree with? Are you suggesting I am?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"None of that is a criteria from proving notability,". I don't disagree, I was responding to your assertions. I asserted notability based WP:RS. You brought up "high street banks" as a point of comparison; I just responded. You asserted that 14 billion under management was no big deal and I pointed out the big difference between passive and active portfolio management. As for adding the lists of companies to the article talk page -- kinda looks like article research and building. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not a paid editor. If I was a paid editor I would tell you. I've certainly thought about it in the past but gave up on the idea. The reasons I asked is due to your spurious non-arguments around investments and monies held that are completely routine line of business function and don't denote anything that is considered special or notable and are completly outside WP:NCORP, but looked like advocacy for somebody who is unconnected. Regarding the list of companies they invest in, per consensus it was decided into about 2018 they no longer suitable for wikipedia as they were considered promotional and removed around that. If they been added in by editors, then there is a problem. That is a clear sign of promotional editing or UPE. We will look at the references and compare them WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 06:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarding the list of companies they invest in, per consensus it was decided into about 2018 they no longer suitable for wikipedia" -- is this rule in a guideline or policy somewhere? I haven't seen it but then we have a lot of guidelines.

"That is a clear sign of promotional editing or UPE" -- not necessarily.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 10:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the references today. scope_creep^Talk 08:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted for this discussion:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Private Equity#Establishing Notability

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Scope creep, here you go: since you raised the question of my commercial editing status above, here is the comprehensive history of my interactions with commercial editing since 2005 across all Wikimedia projects.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references:

Ref 1 [54] Company documentation. Non-rs. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 2 [55] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 3 [56] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 4 [57] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 5 [58] Press-release. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 6 [59] Press-release. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 7 [60] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. monies raised.
Ref 8 [61] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. trivial coverage.
Ref 9 [62] Interview. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND.
Ref 10 [63] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 11 [64] Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Monies raised.
Ref 12 [65] Press-release.
Ref 13 [66] Press-release
Ref 14 [67] Not independent. Information taken from company press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 15 Company link Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 16 Company link Fails WP:SIRS.

A majority of these are press-releases that come from company information directly from the company website: [68] There is not single genuine secondary source that satisfies WP:SIRS in these first two blocks. The article is typical of the type built in 2008-2009 that used any kind transitory source that happened to be there. There is even a Techchrunch source, which is dreadful. Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not, and cannot write an encyclopedia article compliant with our core content policies from the maybe 140 or so press releases and a few textbook standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of a similar nature, which of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business explicitly fall under, nor the around 250 of a similar mix in the google results. The currently applicable notability guidelines reflect that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Changes since nominated for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accel-KKR&diff=1162951842&oldid=1159799475 . Current state of article → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accel-KKR&oldid=1162951842 . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that essentially no discussion occurred prior to the second relist, I think a further relist is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the nom's evident intention to personally attack anyone who finds their arguments lacking, I nonetheless find their arguments lacking. Just a quick dip into Google Scholar gives me: a Private Equity Journal article with a two-page section on the company's partnership with McKinsey; a Private Equity Analyst article about an Accel-KKR structured capital fund (which includes the note A spokeswoman for Accel-KKR declined to comment, which is at least highly suggestive of independence); and several pages from an Against the Grain article on Accel-KKR's acquisition of an equity stake in HighWire. Newspaper coverage seems to be fairly rich as well, as A. B. has noted.
Beyond that, while my time for this is limited, spot-checking the nom's analysis of sources suggests a disturbingly cavalier disregard for the facts. For example, the Techcrunch article is dismissed as non-independent due to being an interview, but in fact it was another portion of the article that relied on an interview with an unrelated CEO. (And Techcrunch itself is listed as "no consensus" on WP:RSP.) As to the bizjournals.com article, I am unable to locate any indicia that this is a press release or even sourced to one; the author appears to be a journalist of decent repute, and prior consensus on RSN seems to be that bizjournals.com is generally reliable. In addition, turning to the WSJ articles that the nom rejects as "press-release(s)", I can only report that an exact-phrase web search does not turn up the sort of matches that I would expect to find for a press release. -- Visviva (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be awake so will reply as I came up on my watchlist as I was looking for another article, although I will doubt it was make a difference. As against the "Against the grain article " Here is the press-release for that Highwire press-release. The exact same content has been copied into the article. On the closing of the fund, an entirely routine operation for a private equity group, that raises funds for investment for your ref [69]. I think they are are on about 18th or 19th fund, but don't hold me to it. Each one gets a press-releases to inform its shareholders and interested investors. Here is a company new desk article, [70], and another press-release from a previous fund [71]. Regarding the Jstor document, when you look at the references 24-28, one of them is an interview making it non-independent, two of them are lifted from the company website, two of them are press-release related. Not an academic article and certainly not the most sulubrious sources. The idea the wsj doesn't take the advertisement dollar when it states clearly in its marketing schtick [72] " allows brands to align with our premium, paid content at scale" that is does, is egregious. The fact that reliable sources state they are reliable only works if you examine every reference. They are generally reliable, not perfectly reliable. There is only on paper like that and its AP News. The Wsj is quite far down the scale, if you care to look. scope_creep^Talk 04:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Against the Grain, it's the exact same press release, but the third segment indicates they copied it from the HighWire side of things. Bit of a stretch to call it "several pages" as well, it's one and a half tops (besides being a press release). Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that segment doesn't show up until a few pages later in the google scholar results though, it was on page 4 for me though easier to find in their archives. I totally sympathise with not wanting to spend an hour on BEFORE sifting the hundreds of results that are quite frankly appalling (or however long it takes for people who are more efficient than I am) but like, I'm not sure I understand the argument from the keep !voters? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WSJ news article has been taken out the WP article for some reason , but the headline states "Goldman Takes Minority Stake in Accel-KKR ", here is the press-release it was taken from [73]. Its on multiple sites? What gives? The company has been producing 2 press-releases a month since both Accel and KKK joined togeher in 2010. Its all from that news desk.scope_creep^Talk 04:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand removing stuff but why did you strip the article of its categories? - Indefensible (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that Scope creep re-added the categories which they mistakenly removed before. I tried re-adding some material but was reverted for WP:PROMO despite it being well sourced and factual, there is a discussion now on the article's talk page for anyone interested. - Indefensible (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the vast majority of references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. There is one reference mentioned above "Multi-Partner Venture Alliances" which I believe meets NCORP criteria as it contains sufficient independent analysis on the alliance between the topic company and McKinsey. I've also seen some reference to a list produced by HEC-DowJones but I cannot ascertain whether there is any "Independent Content" as it appears to be a ranking based on information on investments provided by the company. None of the other references meet the criteria and I'm unable to find anything that does. Happy to reconsider any other references if anybody turns up something. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment + Question I fail to understand why people are removing the "subscription" and "registration" metadata for citations. I believe this is quite important for verifiability by readers. For instance the Financial Times article by Richard Waters is clearly behind a paywall and provides no clue as to content but for the title; the author is not even exposed in the available content. Am I missing something about citation style that I should know about? Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added the subscription tags on the refs. That is not the main issue here, those are considered reliable sources and getting around the paywall to access the information is not hard. They should not be removed on that basis. - Indefensible (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found that getting around the paywalls is not possible in many cases. Maybe I'm just not a skilled enough safecracker, though :-) . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Private Equity advising them of this discussion and asking for their advice, pro or con. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no there there. More specifically, I don't see any claim of notability separate from Accel (company) and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:34, 10 July 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmudul Hasan Azhari

[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan

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

This article demand Mahmudul Hasan Azhari is an Islamic scholar. But not fulfill WP:PROF2. Ref-1 is a promoted type of interview, others source are routine coverage. As a living people, this article does not pass the criteria of notability. DelwarHossain (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Bangladesh. DelwarHossain (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An article about this person (with a different title) was previously deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan. – Joe (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The present article contrasts with the deleted article. Here every work of his bears significant evidence. According to WP:RPDA this article has been recreat with aware of the issues on the previous page. But yes, a consensus must be reached. Ontor22 (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your comment was correct as previous format of this article.(DelwarHossain) I have now added more details and new information, added his Recognition section, which expresses the notability according to the criteria mentioned in the Specific criteria section of WP:PROF2. From 2012-2014, he was selected in the British Bangladeshi Power & Inspiration 100 as a Religious Figure. He was also a lecturer in International Islamic University Chittagong and University Of Chittagong. Ontor22 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous delete decision was tactfully avoided by rewriting the article. Overall Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or the WP:GNG DelwarHossain (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article was not created tactfully at all, rather the previous article contained details that did not reveal his notability, perhaps an editor's fault. See the previous deletion page, where he was called a journalist and that was incorrect information and there was some rubbish links. The present article is written with accurate information and significant references. Have you seen him being a scholar, imam of Essex and director of TV One Uk? A notable reference to his profession was on a UK government site. This article was initially created with the same name as the previous deleted page, the editor (Owais Al Qarni) was renamed it Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan to Mahmudul Hasan Azhari as the Orpahn template (WP:O) was added.[see] This article was reviewed by administator (Rosguill) after it was created. According to the last deleted article, the idea that WP:GNG does not fulfill this registration is wrong. Ontor22 (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the sources now, I'm afraid I don't quite remember how I came to the conclusion that notability guidelines were met two weeks ago. The introduction to the first Dhaka Post piece ([74]) has independent coverage that begins to establish a case for notability, but overall I don't think the current sources add up to GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you only consider Dhaka Post's link as significant? Have you not seen them?

1)This article by Echo News has direct coverage with his photo.[1] (Being an imam is clear). It will be more clear if you see this official source of Direct Essex. [1] There is also mention of becoming an imam, BBC News, Euronews.(Available in the reference list)

2) See these 2 coverage from The Kaler Kantho.[1][2] (Being his Muslim scholar and director of TV One is clear) Also available in gov.uk site. [1]

Apart from that today I have also added the PDF links of British Bangladeshi Power & Inspiration 100.[1][2][3]

How do you think GNG does not meet? Ontor22 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI have added strong news references while creating the page. I don't think GNG is imperfect. TV One's YouTube also bears witness. [1] Rayhan.author (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rayhan.author (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete- Does not pass GNG or the notability guidelines for academics.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Ontor22's decision. Other roles including academic are mentioned in independent source . GNG fulfills. ImMinhajUddinNadwi (talk) — ImMinhajUddinNadwi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have concern. Looks like canvasing is goning on somewhere. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than some passing mentions, routine news, I am not seeing any significant coverage. Ref 1 is interview (primary), 2 is passing mentions, 3-6 are routine news & aren't reliable, 7 is passing mentions, 8 is not reliable, 9-13 are passing mentions, 14-15 are parimary, 16-18 are not reliable & passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG, WP:academics. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also feels like canvassing. Vinegarymass911, DelwarHossain and আফতাবুজ্জামান are in same decision everywhere. Ontor22 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting i didn’t say you are canvassing. When someone has almost zero contribution and inactive for long time but suddenly shows up in a afd, It's always suspicious. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article Updated. Added Academic Career[1}. Added Ref and work of Jibon Jiggasha Islamic Q&A show on NTV.Ontor22 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly thoses sources are primary, self-published or from vanity sites. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously! How do you think that two links I've added recently are self published or from vanity sites??[1][2] Ontor22 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider bbpower-inspiration as a notable organisation, the list isn’t anything significant for which someone gets automatic notability on wikipedia. Otherwise with that logic, you should start creating articles about all the person included in that list. Also two lines in a 100 persons list isn’t significant coverage. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you only calculating bbpower-inspiration? This article is not based solely on bbpower! There are other links in the article. It is given, just to show a reference. Apart from that many Wikipedia articles count bbpower as a reference. Also, many editors consider it a reference even if you don't. [see this article] Ontor22 (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my first comment above. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More articles can be found on Wikipedia with same category, which are produced from more general sources. [[75]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontor22 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Added references from Janakantha and Daily Naya Diganta. [1] Ontor22 (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This person is an old scholar. Has been in the media for many years. Has taught in 4 institutions. He did a Q&A show on popular channel NTV. Famous in several other countries including Bangladesh, London. More famous for being the Khatib of the Essex Jama Masjid, as the organization's work is to build Muslim communities in different countries. Every year takes the seat of chief guest of a mahfil called Tafseerul Quran in Bangladesh. Currently working in several media. Shakal TV, TV One UK and QnS London Academy for education. There are several fund organizations he leads those are helping disabled people constantly. His name has been mentioned in independent and reliable newspapers for a long time. WP:N was not lacking. Mafmes (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide refs that aren't passing mentions, also significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for another week given the additional work done on this article over the last two days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added more references from Arab News, Daily Mail, Essex Chronicle, Daily Mirror. [see] Ontor22 (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but again those are just passing mentions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See this article from Kaler Kantho. This reliable source also proves once again that he fulfills GNG Rayhan.author (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source basically a interview (primary source). It's not significant coverage. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing something wrong somewhere. Gov.UK (1) called the site primary, but it is an independent source according to WP:INDY, which has begun to establish his notability. Also failed to call (this news) reliable rather it was reliable from Echo News. Again, this source from ABC News called to be passing, which was not passing because it was carrying a detailed identity rather than the slightest mention of him. Rayhan.author (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems certain that your doubts will not go away. But I'll be able to help more, if you see this coverage (Muhammad (SAW):1001 Universal Appreciations and Interfaith Understanding and Peace), it's published by Muhammad A. Lais where shaykh hasan got coverage on p.104 [1]

WP:GNG doesn't violate at all, even though it was established at first. Rayhan.author (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gov.UK profile is not SIGCOV. echo-news.co.uk is not reliable and also it's a passing mention. "Prime Minister Boris Johnson visits church where British MP David Amess was stabbed to death" has nothing to do with the article. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Gov.UK site itself states that it monitors company and individual information. It's not a profile at all, profiles are basically self-published or self-contained and Edit-worthy. But this is not it.

In my opinion, the gov.uk is SIGCOV that is carrying in WP:INDY Can you show me which page it says is not SIGCOV? Rayhan.author (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REMINDED AGAIN, It seems certain that your doubts will not go away. But I'll be able to help more, if you see this coverage (Muhammad (SAW):1001 Universal Appreciations and Interfaith Understanding and Peace), it's published by Muhammad A. Lais where shaykh hasan got coverage on p.104 [1]

WP:GNG doesn't violate at all, even though it was established at first. Rayhan.author (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I have something to do even if you don't have anything to do with the ABC News. Why are you looking at the headline only, just read the news. I have provided the link and screenshot for your convenience. [1] Wrote and copied, ( Members of Southend's Muslim community expressed their shock and sadness at the loss of their local member of Parliament.

Sheik Mahmudul Hasan, an imam at the Essex Jamme Masjid Trust, said Sir David was "our friend, our guardian, our very close person".

Mr Hasan said the MP had been supportive both on an individual level and within the community.

As part of the Metropolitan Police's investigation into the killing – which it described as terrorism – officers were searching two locations in the London area.

Mr Hasan said Islam was a religion of peace and if that link was confirmed, "we would be ashamed and shocked as Muslims.") Rayhan.author (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Agreed with Rayhan.author's opinion, another reliable source was found from Kaler Kantho and added in article's Note section.[1] Ontor22 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note I need to do something. I have looked at the complete sources and discuss the source categories again. Ref:1 is primary, from Dhaka Post. Ref: 2, From Kaler Kantho and independent from the subject which is reliable. Ref: 3-5 are useless and not reliable. Ref: 6 is from the official site of Essex and It's primary. In ref: 7, his name is mentioned, passing from BBC. Ref: 8, The Echo, independent and reliable source. Ref: 9-10 Primary, from Euronews. In Ref:11, he bears an identity and is doubted to be independent or passing from ABC News. Ref: 12 is Passing, from Echo News. Ref: 13, from Kaler Kantho. Does not focus on the subject and coverd him, it is also an independent and reliable source. Ref: 18, His identity from the UK Government site is reliable and independent. Ref: 15, 17 and 18 are primary. 19 is not reliable. Ref: 16 & 20-22 of British Bangladeshi Power & Inspiration 100 Publications, where he got coverage. Undoubtedly, he is remarkable and notable person! Ontor22 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you aggreed with me about what i said in my first comment. However i would like to also add that Ref 2 is a interview (primary). Ref 8 is a passing mentions. Ref 18 is a profile link from GOV.UK. Ref 16 & 20-22 is a two line coverage in a 100 persons list. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have some similarities with you, but not all. I can't think like you, sorry. See my comment more carefully, I have provided some independent and reliable sources. And I see, you are selectively saying passing source over my so-called independent sources, which I disagree with. Ref:16 & 20-22, Not only him but everyone is mentioned in 2 lines in BB Power. This is the rule of publishing their publication, perhaps you are unable to understand what this publication is about. Ontor22 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been a lot of back and forth between a handful of editors; but it would be beneficial to have yet-uninvolved editors weigh in on the quality of the available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, preferably quickly. Going in, I believed I was going to say keep due to the fact that it's referenced. However, the references are at worst fraudulent, at medium completely unrelated without a passing mention, and at best only establish his existence. Is it unreliably established that he exists? Yes. Is he notable? From my searches, from looking at the subject's work, and from the references given, definitely not. The fact that some of the sources given are probably paid (e.g., note almost exactly the same text, but different author attributions) or otherwise influenced made my opinion stronger. I have additional reasons, which I think might be obvious to other users caring to check, to believe that some editors in this discussion may not be following policy to promote their viewpoint. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment make for a very nice question, thanks. You indicated his about section on YouTube, news sites also have this text or sentence. I will be more than happy to clarify one thing for you. First of all, Bangladeshi news sites do not directly interview a person, but search the person on online , copy the identity from social media or other media. As you must know, Bangladeshis are lazy and so are its journalists or editors. Not paid or promotional at all. Apart from Bangladeshis, do you call promotional from other country's source? If he was not notable, his name would not have been mentioned in publications or book . Ontor22 (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A user has posted "Alhamdulillah by the infinite mercy of Allah, finally I was able to successfully create Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan Uncle's Wikipedia page by adding the correct reference in the second attempt. Brother Mufti Muhammad Minhaj Uddin was always there for cooperation and encouragement" along with a link to the article. In response to this, Muhammad Minhaj Uddin said "TABARAKALLAH, Really Great job, after so long effort and dedication finally...". However, this same person is credited on the subject's YouTube about section by the subject as writing the same text that appears in this article. This article is heavily cited on the page and also used to justify not deleting this article. The creator and main editor of the present subject's Wikipedia also attempted to create a page for Muhammad Minhaj Uddin, who is the author of anoter "reference" used to argue for the inclusion of this article, here.

YouTube: Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan is a renowned British-Bangladeshi Muslim scholar and media personality. He is One of the pioneers of the Preaching of Islam in Britain. Also he is well-known as a prolific writer-researcher and analyst.

Article: Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan is a British-Bangladeshi Muslim scholar. He is a Renowned media personality and One of the pioneers of the Preaching of Islam in Britain. He is well-known as a prolific writer-researcher and analyst too.

Youtube: He is currently the Grand Imam-Khatib and Principal of The Essex Jame Masjid and Academy in Southend-on-Sea, London. He and his comrades-in-arms were caused a stir by the purchasing of United Reform Church in 2006. Later he played a major role in the formation of the Islamic Complex there.

Article: Currently he is the Grand Imam-Khatib and Principal of this complex. Needless to say, He and his comrades-in-arms caused a stir by the purchasing of this Church. Later he played a major role in the formation of the Islamic Complex there.

YouTube: He is also Director of TV One UK, a popular satellite TV channel across Europe.

Article: The Grand Imam Shaykh mahmudul Hasan who is the Director of TV One UK (a popular satellite TV channel across Europe)...

YouTube: He traveled around the world with education, theology & socio-philosophy and the glorious message of Islam. Participated in international seminars and symposiums in different countries.

Article: He traveled around the world with education, theology & socio-philosophy and the glorious message of Islam. Participated in international seminars and symposiums in different countries.

YouTube: Nowadays Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan is popular author, religious speaker & Instructor; got followers across the world.

Article: Nowadays Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan is a popular author, renowned media personality, well-known Muslim scholar, religious speaker & famous Instructor; has got followers across the world.

Another article used as a reference and to justify the inclusion is this. Again, same exact text as the above, obviously either directly influenced or directly paid by the same persons trying to create this article. Dhaka Post is known to create fake news.

The first article is attributed to a different person than the YouTube description, and we know from the FaceBook post that the attributed writer of the YouTube description has also worked on this article. So who is the author of the article? It is the author of the FaceBook post, describing how he was trying to get this page created.

This isn't even all the conflicts of interest and editing close connections, but I have to stop writing somewhere.

The sources are fake, the subject is not notable. Since this page was already deleted once, perhaps some precaution needs to be put in place so it doesn't keep being created. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The matter seems interesting. I have known this man for many years, he is truly remarkable. However, maybe his fans are raising these doubts, in which Shaikh himself is being blamed. Ontor22 (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note Articles are being truncated, with some including the BBC being called poor sources.1 Looks like I have to get involved.Ontor22 (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Poor sourcing. That is, the BBC article that mentions Hasan in passing has no relevance to the preceding text which says "he is the imam and Principal of Essex Jamme Masjid in Southend-on-Sea, London". Chamaemelum (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note' Confusing readers with misinformation, I see Chamaemelum made a lot of changes and cuts. First of all, this article is being said that he is a Bangladeshi Imam, which is wrong information. He was born in Bangladesh but he is now a British. After this line of academic career (He also serves as a chief director of Olama kollan parishad, Chittagong.) there is a reference of qns Academy but there is no mention of Olama Kollanin qns link. Apart from the confusing source of dhaka post and Kaler Kantho, there existed a few reliable sources of the Kaler Kantho and other, which have been tactfully removed. I need to edit it soon. Looks like he was sent for the edi . Ontor22 (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kaler Kantho is very unreliable. Akin to a blog post. I did not write that he is Bangladeshi, but someone can be Bangladeshi while living in Britain. Chamaemelum (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think, you didn't focus. Kaler Kantho isn't a blog site. It is proven that have adopted a strategy, why did you remove the reliable sources and keep (thedailyshangu.com.,jagoronsangbad.com) them? Which are not wearing in any reliability. Are you trying to prove that this article now free from strong sources and is weak, bogus. Ontor22 (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed 1. references that are are associated with an obvious COI, and 2. references that did not support the preceding text. If I kept a source, it is because it was both not associated with a very obvious COI (still possible, though) and had at least some relevance to the preceding text. Chamaemelum (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is not totally convinced about the COI, I have more blatant proof that I'm hesitant to post because it involves a real name. Chamaemelum (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note Information about his YouTube match or social media, which was suspected to be promotional(COI), has been removed. He is not a Bangladeshi imam but a British imam,If he wasn't British he wouldn't be mentioned on the gov.uk site, because the site doesn't cover anyone from overseas. Strategically removed, sources, book section restored. He was not even held in recognition, which alos has been revived. Ontor22 (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COI aside (an issue that can be addressed at WP:COIN), subject fails WP:ANYBIO. I have looked at the references mentioned throughout this discussion and there is not enough to show how he meets notability guidelines under any criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and also WP:V, to wit, [i]f no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Spot checking refs reveals a very high level of nonsense here, such that I would be reluctant to trust any but the most conclusively reliable of sources. (E.g. this biographic citation to qowmipedia purports to be derived from a published book, মিম্বারের ধ্বনি (Voices of the Pulpit). Encouraging! But actually that book is authored by the article subject himself. And so on.) The problem with this level of promotional chaff is that as a practical matter, it results in even more and better sources being needed in order to be confident that we can provide a verifiably accurate article. And such sources do not seem to be on offer here. -- Visviva (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cropping will make all articles look like this. Hope very cunning steps have been taken to delete it. Ontor22 (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ontor22:, please be aware of WP:OWN. I believe you have made your contention several times already. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note Someone removed [76] the AfD tag. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With this being the second AfD and the content you described, would suggest a potential WP:SALT to avoid potential recreation. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with preventing them from remaking this page. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Okoslavia (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity It has created a lot of complications. Comments are intensely hostile. Wrong idea about the person, editing or deleting without checking the source. WP:VER is very lacking. An admin is essential this time soon! Mafmes (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I examined the 34 sources that are or were cited in the article and/or have been discussed here. Two URLs would not load for me, but there's nothing about them that suggests that the websites are reliable - that they have any reputation for accuracy or fact checking. There is a book, by a non-notable author from a non-notable and obscure publisher, not held by any WorldCat library, that appears to be a vanity publication. It has two pages about the subject, but also acknowledges him for his assistance in preparing the book, so it isn't clear how independent it is. The remaining 31 are a hopeless mishmash of passing mentions, non-independent (interviews, employer website), editorials (not reliable for facts), user-generated, indiscriminate, and don't mention him at all sources. Not a single one counts towards demonstrating notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the keep side there has been WP:BOMBARDMENT, WP:BLUDGEON, and removal of the AfD tag. When multiple editors with few contributions outside this AfD showed up to !vote keep, it was suggested that canvassing/meatpuppetry was going on, which was followed by unfounded counter accusations against experienced editors. There was also the offensive statement "Bangladeshis are lazy". Wikipedia deleted this topic under the title Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan just a year ago. Plainly there is a strong desire from some editors to push this subject into the encyclopedia. Alas, they have no grasp of Wikipedia's sourcing or inclusion policies. The subject has been a huge time sink. So that the community doesn't go through this again, I recommend salting both titles. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh I've been waiting for another editor for so long, today it's visible. Excellent review. since points to a community, so I've also mentioned some of its users, including DelwarHossain, who provided the afd. Another member of their community appeared today. Ontor22 (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ontor22:, I am not sure I fully understand your comment. Are you requesting other people come here to vote? --CNMall41 (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 What I am guessing, Ontor is taunting Wordbruce for their delete vote and accusing them from the party of the nominator. I may be wrong. @Ontor22 See WikiPedia:IDL. Okoslavia (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the community. see my previous comment of 23 June, 16:27. Ontor22 (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt No indication of being notable. Looked at the first block of references. Fails WP:BIO. No real WP:SECONDARY coverage. I vaguelly remember looking at this in the past, possibly recreated under a slightly different name. scope_creep^Talk 11:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Speedy Keep #1. Nomination was withdrawn; great collaboration to create a better target; merge & redirect to Mária Barta. (Decided to call it a speedy keep rather than a straight-out merge/redirect because the nomination was withdrawn. Effect is the same.) Joyous! Noise! 16:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

István Barta (painter)

[edit]

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

Update: Withdraw nom, this article should be Merged and Redirected to: Mária Barta per WomenArtistUpdates contributions and creation of an appropriate redirect site for merging the content. Netherzone (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find anything to substantiate the notability of this artist after an online search and an exhaustive WP Library resources/database search. The BEFORE only revealed a few auction house listings and a few works for sale from commercial galleries. (Note there is a notable water polo player with the same name, but that is a different person.) The article currently has one source for a name change he filed in 1902. There were three citations to FamilySearch which I removed as it is not considered a reliable source per WP:RSP. I have been unable to find any exhibition records, art reviews, museum collections, public art works or anything else that would contribute to an artist's notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Bringing it here for the community's feedback on whether or not it should be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Hungary. Netherzone (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - István Barta does have a listing at Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon - Internationale Künstlerdatenbank - Online via Wikipedia Library. Putting the text in translator, I can confirm birth and death, but cannot show notability. The English Wikipedia article appears to be a straight-forward translation of the Hungarian Wikipedia article with the same sub-standard references. I can't find anything to add to this article. Quick question - does listing in Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon - International Artist Database - Online confer notability? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you added that to the article, good find WomenArtistUpdates! If the Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon - International Artist Database (which I'm not familiar with) is the same as a Dictionary of National Biography then he would meet criteria #3 of WP:ANYBIO. Here is more info on the Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon at the Thieme-Becker article which describes it as a "German biographical dictionary of artists". I don't know if that is considered the same as a "National Biographic Dictionary" in the world-of-wikipedia. I recall some years ago an editor told me that using a "Dictionary of Women Artists" did not count for notability (I disagreed). So I really don't know. If Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon counts towards ANYBIO notability I will withdraw the nom. Netherzone (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think István Barta's listing in the International Artist Database is due to his siblings Maria and Lajos, either one would have been a better choice for an article in English. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I think he also went by the name Stefano Barta (which would make sense given the fact he was an Esperantist). See here:[77] Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the solution could be to have an article on Maria, with a paragraph about her siblings. Then redirect for the 2 brothers. I hope to find the time over the weekend to launch something, unless others want to straight-up delete. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great alternative, since Maria is notable but does not have an article on en-WP. A good solution! Netherzone (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone I created Maria. All edits welcome. Also any suggestion of where the article should live, like a move to "Barta Family". Or a case could be made to have Lajos Barta as the main subject. I still have no idea what type of source Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon is or if it confers notability. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn the nomination. Great work on this! Thank you, WAU. Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Netherzone! Should I turn the page into a redirect or shall I await consensus? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the correct procedure is, whether the AfD should first be closed or not. Hopefully an admin or super-experienced closer will come by soon and can shed some light on the right next step. Netherzone (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Mária Barta. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Aarhus Tech. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Gymnasium Christiansbjerg

[edit]

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

This article may not meet notability requirements. I have managed to find five decent sources which mention the school, 4 of which only briefly mention that it is now defunct following the establishment of Aarhus Tech (here, here, here, and here). The last source is a short paragraph about a class outing (here). Uffda608 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Aarhus Tech. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above comment. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of micronations. ✗plicit 00:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wirtland (micronation)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has gone to AfD twice, last was keep a decade ago as it meets CORP. I've reviewed the sources, none of which seem to be RS or significant. There is no coverage to be found for this micronation. Not even sure it meets the requirements for CORP. It was also voted on in 2009, then moved to the article with the current title (see the talk page for the article). Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there has been no participation here yet. Oaktree b, can you provide a link to the second AFD because there is only one listed here. Or was this an informal discussion on the talk page? We really should develop some policy on micronations as I see them pop up in Draft space all of the time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link [78] Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or merge into the Micronation article, supporting references are quirky but do seem to exist. There seems to be precedent for keeping it as well. - Indefensible (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sentence or two about the currency into the entry that is already at List of micronations. Joyous! Noise! 17:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of micronations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This decision is influenced in part by the nominator informally withdrawing his desire to see this article deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-revisionism

[edit]

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

This article is a mess of OR and has been for some time. It consists almost entirely of a long polemical essay, with a list of political parties, all without a single citation or even a pretension to cite reliable sources. The external links are entirely to non-independent sources on Marxist websites. I tried searching for reliable sources on this subject, but couldn't find anything that wasn't from a Marxist website or magazine.

The previous AfD discussion resulted in a keep, conditional on the article being cleaned up. But 15 years have since passed and no clean up has occurred. As such I'm proposing that this article be deleted or redirected to a better-constructed article (maybe Revisionism (Marxism)?). Maybe someone can rebuild it better at a later date, but at minimum, I think this current iteration needs to be blown up and started over. Grnrchst (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. Grnrchst (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely a TNT case for me: it's an unsourced, OR mess even if significant coverage in RS were found. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is clearly a notable phenomenon, and is by no means impossible to construe a good quality article with references. I pruned it to remove the whole essay. --Soman (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: Do you know of there being significant courage in independent reliable sources? Just asking because I couldn't find anything that wasn't from a Marxist publication. -- Grnrchst (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is certainly material for expansion and referencing. And 'Marxist publication' is a very broad concept. As Anti-Revisionism isn't monopoly of a single organization, so 'independent' isn't really an issue. I'd have no problem using a Chinese equivalent of Great Soviet Encyclopedia to extract a definition of Anti-Revisionism, as long as the source is clearly attributed. --Soman (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Europe and China in the Cold War: Exchanges Beyond the Bloc Logic and the Sino-Soviet Split (pp. 93-97) has a chapter on emergence of anti-revisionism in Chinese interactions with Western Europe, but stops short of providing an encyclopedia definition of anti-revisionism. --Soman (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a poor quality article that needs much work - not least to broaden the subject to cover Irish Republican anti-revisionism [79] and Israeli anti-revisionism [80] as well as "traditional" post-Khrushchev anti-revisionism, e.g. [China Review https://www.jstor.org/stable/26838897]. There are plenty of WP:RS sources here, academic and otherwise. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an obscure political communist movement that was in vogue in the 1950's. Unfortunately the article is a mess and needs a proper rewrite. It been needing done for more than a decade but worth keeping until it can be researched and expanded. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Soman's edits have served to drastically improve the article from a long OR mess to a rather short but informative stub, backed by reliable sources. I'm still unconvinced that it's distinctly notable from the subject of revisionism, but that's a topic for a merge discussion, rather than an AfD. Anyways, my concerns when I raised this AfD have been addressed, so I'm no longer opposed to this article being kept. Nice work Soman. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Grnrchst. I think the anti-revisionist communist movement (encompassing CPC, PLA, their sympathizers and some others) is a distinct phenomenon, that is difficult to fit into the Revisionism (Marxism) article. Now two issues - on one hand 'revisionism' is a pejorative globally in the communist movement. No communist would admit to being a revisionist, and there have been several 'anti-revisionist campaigns' (like in early Soviet Union) that aren't exactly part of the post-Stalin anti-revisionism. I suggest drawing a hard line at 1953, including no stuff earlier than that. On the other hand, there are several other movements dubbed 'anti-revisionist' (Jewish, Irish, Balkans, etc..), which cannot be fitted in here. So at some point it might make sence to move the article to Anti-Revisionism (Marxism-Leninism) or Anti-Revisionism in the International Communist Movement after 1956 or something like that. --Soman (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Have I Got News for You episodes

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is with a heavy heart I bring this to AfD. The whole list is not shown to be verifiable, the only citations being the viewing figures (and even then, only since 1998). The whole list is filled with original research, as shown by all of the trivial, unsourced footnotes. Everything I see goes right against core verifiability policies and I would love and hate to see it banished. If it can all be sourced then I'll be happy to withdraw this. But I simply cannot see that happening anytime soon; Dailymotion (itself virtually the same thing as WP:RSPYT in policy terms I guess) is not a source I would like to use; and yet in a quick search, that poor source appears the only thing to give the list any credence. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Politics, and United Kingdom. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if there was some way to verify the information, we don't need to host it WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two sources in the external links section (the British Comedy Guide and the BBC episode guide). They’re incomplete, but I think they show that the list is, in principle, verifiable. Are they primary sources? Possibly, but I think there’s a potential application for something like WP:PLOTCITE here, where the episode itself (or the BBC’s own listings) can be the source for uncontroversial statements of fact - in this case, who the guests were. Arguably the episode itself is a source for who won.
In terms of notability (which should be the main discussion here), WP:NLIST is met by articles such as [81] which discuss the series over time. It’s clearly a notable and well-defined grouping.
OR in the footnotes is a cleanup task. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Youtube or Dailymotion are sites hosting the original content. Either can be referenced accurately using APA or other reference system. You cant get more accurate than the original material so i dont see any issue [sorry, cant log in on my phone] 2001:44C8:4654:44F7:1:0:8CC5:A9CD (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSPYT Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. YouTube and Dailymotion links can work as direct sources for information about the guests and the final team scores. If it's the viewing figures that are the issue, we can just remove those columns. The page has 14415 views in the last 21 days and serves as a fairly important reference to a culturally significant show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeidenschaftlichSchnell (talk • contribs) 13:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:RSPYT Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is bizarrely obsessed with standalone episode lists but WP:TNT applies. If there’s a demand for it, it can be undeleted and overhauled by a dedicated editor or team; otherwise the only thing we’re losing is a lot of poorly sourced niche data. Dronebogus (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nomination does not seem to be in good faith, if there are concerns about verifiability of information then there's the BBC's own Programme Index, and as mentioned video footage of the episodes themselves. Cwmxii (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RSPYT... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop bludgeoning Dronebogus (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Literally every episode is on YouTube and I have never seen a listing here that was wrong. This is an invaluable source of reference for the show and its guests. 173.84.63.219 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Okay controversial opinion; Is it encyclopedic? Yes. Will Wikipedia be worse off for deleting this? Yes. However .... everything here needs to be sourced and unfortunately having searched 3 random names from the list and got blanks it would be apparent that the majority of what's here cannot be sourced and verified, and neither can the scores either (who's to say some IP didn't change a number 5 years ago that's gone undetected?)

Fails SIGCOV and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I picked some random names (1993 Alan Coren John Simpson) and got tons of sources including British Comedy Guide and the BBC Programme Index.Sheila1988 (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's possible to add sources.Sheila1988 (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there are additional reliable sources out there for this article, could those arguing to Keep provide a few more examples for consideration and evaluation? I'm sure we still have some editors who are undecided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The basic information of host and contestants is easily referenceable to British newspapers and TV guides. The show attracts a fair amount of press every series.[82][83][84] Some of the content is more dubious - the scores are unlikely to be covered in reliable sources, and are more suited to a fansite. But just because some of it can't be referenced, doesn't mean the rest should go. Episode lists seem in principle to be considered important enough to keep based on repeated AfD and precedent, assuming basic info can be referenced, as here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT and, if no additional sources exist, maybe GNG - there's no clear reason why we can't have a list of episodes (considering it is a valid article for other shows with sourcing), but the current sourcing is awful, and the format with the scores appears to violate original research. SportingFlyer T·C 20:18, 9 July 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!} 20:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mass Missile

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. NN band, fails WP:BAND. UtherSRG (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm worried that I may be missing Japanese-language sources, but searches in both Japanese and English turn up nothing indicating notability. No in-depth coverage or reviews in reliable publications. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the information provided by Dekimasu is convincing and they appear to meet WP:NBAND. Changing my support to keep and striking my delete comment. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NBAND #2, as their single "Ima made nando mo" went to #22 on Oricon, on the chart for seven weeks. Also passes WP:NBAND #10, since that song was the theme for a popular television show. Non-advertising coverage (WP:NBAND #1) includes this fairly substantial article, which could definitely be used to improve the Wikipedia article. The article is not in great condition, but a WP:BEFORE that included searches in Japanese (as WP:BEFORE asks for) would have found this sort of information, and the #10 claim was already in the article. Please perform WP:BEFORE searches in Japanese when necessary, and check Oricon. Dekimasuよ! 00:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this information could have been verified already by reviewing the previous AfD, which ended in keep after it was noted that they pass WP:NBAND #2 and #5. They also had a second television theme song in 2013. Dekimasuよ! 00:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 4 July 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!} 20:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mosharof Hossain

[edit]

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

UNICEF Meena Media Award is not notable award (you can even nominate yourself, on 2021, 22 person got this award) for which someone became automatically notable for wikipedia. All of sources are routine coverage or promotional.

Quoting one line somoynews.tv "স্বেচ্ছাসেবক হিসেবে নির্বাচিত হয়ে সাক্ষাৎকারের জন্য বাংলাদেশ থেকে ডাক পেয়েছেন শেরপুরের মোশারফ হোসাইন" (rough translation: Mosharraf Hossain of Sherpur has been called from Bangladesh for interview after being selected as a volunteer.)
Another one: "Jago News feature writer Mosharof gets Meena Media Award" written by Jago News Desk.

All of the sources are like this. There are zero significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Journalism, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Journalism, and Cricket. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nothing close to notability here. Chamaemelum (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I did PROD this article, but never realised the PROD had been removed. Quite astonished that someone considered this individual notable and to have WP:SIGCOV. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and others. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 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. Can't be bothered arguing so wrapping this up. I did like with every AFD perform a BEFORE search and didn't find anything substantial. If Wikipedia wants an unsourceable indiscriminate list article kept then so be it. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by CBeebies

[edit]

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

Non notable list, has been largely unsourced since its creation (2014) and I'm unable to find any evidence of any notability for any of the programmes, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIR WP:INDISCRIMINATE Dronebogus (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article gets tens of thousands of page views each month and has over 3,000 edits to the page so I'd like to see more editor support for deletion before even issuing a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. CBeebies is the major channel broadcasting to pre-school children in a country with a population of about 66 million. Of course a list of its programmes is a subject an encyclopedia should cover. I'm afraid I simply don't believe the nominator's statement that they couldn't find any evidence of any notability for any of the programmes. Very many of them are rightly blue-linked. And there's nothing directory-like or indiscriminate about listing them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 4 July 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!} 20:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Sierra Leone doctors strike

[edit]

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

Not notable in 2023. It did not have lasting impact that significantly altered the course of the country's history or its healthcare system. Most of the changes were short-term responses to immediate concerns.

Information about the strike should be incorporated into a more comprehensive article about Sierra Leone's healthcare system/labour disputes. No need to have standalone articles about past COVID strikes unless it is a really notable strike with similarly notable lasting consequences. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Events, and COVID-19. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to WP:GNG, notability is not temporary. Most strikes and protests do not alter a country's history or a major system. Luckily, impact is not the standard by which we judge notability. For an event in one of the poorest countries in the world to be coverage by multiple source in an in-depth manner (which this event was) should indicate that it is notable by Wikipedia's standards.--User:Namiba 20:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears amply covered by major international news outlets, arguably one of the major stories coming out from Sierra Leone that year. --Soman (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sympathetic to incorporating this article into existing/larger articles about labor disputes in Sierre Leone, but as they don't exist, this is effectively an important start of such an article. This should remain, and when there are opportunities for a merge, let's go there. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shushugah's logic LoomCreek (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shushugah says it best. Meanderingbartender (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sierra Leone informing them of this AfD --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shushugah.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:27, 11 July 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 Plants vs. Zombies (comic)#Characters. ✗plicit 00:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Blazing

[edit]

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

Article relies completely on unreliable sources discussing reviews of the related Plants vs. Zombies comics, and digging deeper for WP:BEFORE there doesn't seem to be any material here. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt by tagging it for notability and encouraging the lead editor, but the response was to just remove the tag and add wikilinks. I feel Crazy Dave may also be in the same boat but honestly wasn't sure how well a dual nomination would have gone as they tend to trainwreck. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect. There are nothing to merge valuable stuff since it relies mostly on unreliable sources. Really doubt that a Plants vs Zombies character can be notable. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a Redirect or Delete it entirely. There is no reason for Patrice Blazing to have its own article. Crazy Dave is somewhat reasonable for an article, even if the sourcing mostly from reviews but at least it comes from reliable sources. Patrice Blazing is nonsensical. NegativeMP1 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Dave isn't notable either. It has zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Plants vs. Zombies (comic)#Characters, although their being integrated into the games may merit a character section in the series article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plants vs. Zombies (comic)#Characters per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ - That article is not in the best shape itself, but as it actually has gotten reviews and awards nominations, it actually passes the WP:GNG. The same cannot be said for this character, though. Rorshacma (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person who made the article just redirected it, making this discussion moot. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is not moot, as far as I know, a page creator can only voluntarily delete the article if it had few or no edits besides theirs. The article also had edits from Kung Fu Man. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The creator didn't even register their support for redirection in the AfD page. Redirecting even before it was closed would likely be out of process. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kung Fu Man did that to nominate the page for deletion after deleting half the sourcing; that is not the same thing. Correct protocol would be for this nomination to be withdrawn in lieu of the redirecting from the article creator, me. DNAVIRAL (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that isn't the right approach to this, as it'd remove the record of this discussion and the final results and imply what was there was fine. Honestly never had that happen during a AfD...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, DNAVIRAL was just checkuser blocked, so you can disregard them moving forward. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plants vs. Zombies (comic)#Characters, yet another video game character article with no actual notabilty. ULPS (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plants vs. Zombies (comic)#Characters.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:28, 11 July 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. ✗plicit 12:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Magnus

[edit]

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

Single-source BLP, and the source is not independent. NN musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 4 July 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!} 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qing Madi

[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. She is still an up-and-coming artist who has released only two singles. None of her songs have charted on any country's official music chart or been critically reviewed. Majority of the sources cited in the article are a combination of press releases and primary sources, which aren't independent of her and cannot be used to establish notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find sources establishing notability, and the ones in the article do not. Perhaps in the future, she will be much more widely-known, but that isn't the case now. None of the points in Versace1608's musician link apply. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understand she is an upcoming artiste. I believe a notable source is where she is being named an ambassador to one of the top streaming media services in the world SPOTIFY due to the accomplishment of her songs. Tobiladun (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bar is a bit higher. For singers, we look for things in the tier of:

Has had a record certified gold or higher
Has won or been nominated for a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

The Spotify ambassador assignment is more like a PR stunt for Spotify, it's not recognized as notable or selective. Chamaemelum (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON for now. Discography is limited with only a few releases. Batmanthe8th (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER.Upcoming but not notable at this point a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:40, 11 July 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!} 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Village Capital

[edit]

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

Non-notable business, sourced only from PR items. Nothing found for sourcing in RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Georgia (U.S. state), and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some WP:PRIMARY stuff but referencing is likely sufficient to support notability and quality in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indefensible, can you provide links to specific references (ideally pointing to para numbers too) that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think Bob Pattilo's article should not have been deleted, there might have been some coverage of this subject there as well. But coverage like this NextBillion article, Vox, TechCrunch, and Bloomberg. Like I said before there is some WP:PRIMARY material like quotes from the subject in the articles, but in my opinion the coverage is still independent and significant enough to support encyclopedic inclusion. For example the Vox article is not just regurgitating primary information from the subject, they are critiquing and providing their own analysis by saying things like "But I don’t think either is likely to happen." They are secondary at least from good sources which are considered reliable per WP:RSP, which should be enough. - Indefensible (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Comments like the one you've highlighted is insufficient to meet ORGIND/CORPDEPTH in my opinion, it's only a sentence. I've assumed they're all WP:RS, etc, just looking specifically at NCORP criteria which I don't think they reach. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those 4 are full articles on the subject though, not just a passing sentence. I think it should be enough, the referencing still has room for improvement but my view is that Wikipedia is not going to be able to meet the goal of having available "the sum of all knowledge" if the standard is excessively high. - Indefensible (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't look at the volume of articles or combine different articles together to form a whole. Take a look at WP:SIRS which says that *each* source must meet *all* the criteria. Can you point to a specific paragraph/section within any one of those four references where you can say that it meets NCORP? I've checked, in my opinion none do. Once you remove the information provided by the company, there's insufficient information remaining that you can say containg WP:CORPDEPTH WP:ORGIND "Independent Content". Whether the standard is "excessively high" or not is really an issue for consensus on guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, as I wrote before if the standards are excessively high then Wikipedia cannot meet the goal in the vision statement. Excessive removal of information damages the encyclopedia. There is negative material like spam which should be removed, but not information like this. - Indefensible (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, you're entitled to !vote however you like, just highlighting that your !vote is not in line with and goes against our guidelines. Your opinion is that this is information that enriches the encyclopedia. Consensus is that we've decided on guidelines in order to make such a decision, based on the existence of published in-depth "Independent Content" and not just regurgitated company-produced information. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, the coverage is critiquing the subject and cannot be said to just be "regurgitating" promotional material. The articles should be considered secondary, not primary (there is additional primary stuff out there which I did not cite). I do not see this article to be advertising or promoting the subject, just providing coverage in an objective manner which is helpful to readers. If the consensus headed to deletion, then I will request the draft to continue improving on it. - Indefensible (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to wilfully ignoring consensus agreed policy, something I notice you seem to doing in several other Afd's, or more accurately willfully misunderstanding policy in a way that indicates WP:CIR, to satisfy some nebulous concept that you state in your user page. The coverage isn't critiquing the subject in any depth or in manner. All of it is PR and can't seem to recognise it. You don't seem to understand why the WP:PROMO policy exists in the first place, yet your appear in dozens of Afds stating the sames kinds of non-argument that ignore this very policy. I think it is a WP:CIR issue. scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

You seem to have a recent history of mistakes too from my observation and have been warned for behavior in the past. We can agree to disagree. - Indefensible (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references (those in reliable sources) in the article range from simple mentions-in-passing (fails CORPDEPTH) to executive profiles/interviews (fails ORGIND), nothing meets GNG/NCORP and I'm unable to locate anything that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked at the first two references blocks since the first block only had seven references in it. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND. The references are stonkingly bad. scope_creep^Talk 22:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Matters Capital

[edit]

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

Non-notable financial company, all sourcing used is PR pieces. Gnews only has funding announcements in PR pieces as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Education, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV, what else is there to say?. User:Let'srun 20:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and I'm unable to locate anything that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 6 July 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. ✗plicit 12:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip "Doc" Martin

[edit]

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

While I'd love to keep an article about the dental saxophonist, coverage is non-existent. He charted, but that's not enough for NMUSIC, we need further coverage of the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randy S. Grossman

[edit]

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

Non-notable Federal lawyer; article reads like a resume. Nothing found making this individual any more notable than others in his position. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both his predecessor Robert S. Brewer Jr. and his nominated replacement Tara McGrath have articles. There is enough sourcing coverage to support notability. - Indefensible (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found some announcements from when he was appointed, but they are brief and they all say the same things - probably provided by a PR source. Other than that, his name appears in newspaper articles, sometimes including a quote, but these are all just normal statements when a person holds such an office. The only thing that would mean a 'keep' for this would be if all persons holding this level of office are considered notable. I don't know of such a policy. Lamona (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This office appears to generally be notable enough to qualify the incumbent, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney#List_of_current_U.S._attorneys'_offices. This subject's nominated replacement also has an article which is up for AfD and looks to be temporarily sent back to draft per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suggestion_for_judge_nominee_articles until she is confirmed, but for this AfD we are concerned with the current incumbent who already holds that office. - Indefensible (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. No indications of being notable. Fails WP:BIO. The fact the somebody of the same rank and position have an article doesn't count. Articles are in their own enclosed state. They must have coverage to satisfy WP:V. Even the Google CSE search find nothing in reliable sources. There is nothing. scope_creep^Talk 11:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is yet another example of a article being created beacause of WP:ILIKEIT. Subject does not meet WP:GNG and although I found numerous articles namedropping him, none have the needed WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 22:16, 11 July 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 as wrong venue - since this is a draft it should be nominated at WP:MFD instead. Hut 8.5 17:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hartley Boats Supernova National Championship 2023

[edit]

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

don't find any reliable source from news. Angiemcc2023 (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Angiemcc2023 (talk) 17:10, 4 July 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!} 19:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star East Airline

[edit]

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

Really no content in this article, math in the table doesn't add up. Cherrell410 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any significant coverage about this two aircraft airline. The best I could do was this routine industry news item which indicates Smartwings wet-leased a Star East aircraft for peak travel coverage which is well short of what would be needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:48, 10 July 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!} 19:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crossfire (card game)

[edit]

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

Article was created in 2007 and left without sources for 15 years. The only source I've been able to find that confirms the game exists at all is http://www.catsatcards.com/Games/Crossfire.html, but this anonymously curated card game site is not a reliable source, and has only existed since 2015 - it cites no sources itself, and (aside from their observation about a four player version being possible) may just be drawn from this Wikipedia article. Belbury (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Belbury (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems to be a non-notable card game. When doing reasearch I could find other games called Crossfire, but not the actual game described in the article. It could possibly be WP:OR. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this game at all. The only thing is the web site used as a reference in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:21, 10 July 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.

Whpq is correct though, notability for those in his field doesn't rest on the number of films he has worked on or the fact that he has retired. If that was true then we wouldn't have any articles on people who have died, either! It's about SIGCOV and apparently he hasn't received that yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Armstrong

[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Based on his own Linkedin page, he received praise for Azhagu Kutti Chellam. For cinematographers to be notable, they should have sources or have worked on fifteen plus films (like other Tamil cinematographers). Furthermore, this guy retired. DareshMohan (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - working on 15+ films or being retired are irrelevant to notability. What is needed is significant coverage about the person and none of the references provided represent significant coverage. Most are just providing a credit of him as cinematographer. The only refernce that provides even a smidge of coverage is this one and it is literally only one sentence. My own search for sources turns up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of maths,computer science -University Guelma

[edit]

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

Incomprehensible, no context, promotional content. WP:TNT? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, Mathematics, Computing, and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been so many drafts and moves and redirects in this mess that I've lost track. Which is not a reason to delete anything. Neither is the draft being badly written (which it patently is). What is, however, a reason to delete is that this draft has no evidence of notability, even after all this to'ing and fro'ing. And while universities might make some claim for inherent notability, individual faculties, schools, departments, etc. do not, and indeed are seldom found to be notable. Which, I believe, is the case also here. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meeting the relevant standard is an uphill struggle for units within universities; how often does anyone other than the university itself talk about a department as such? When is there so much to say that a page is warranted? I see no evidence that this is an exception to the general trend. XOR'easter (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. It is both incomprehensible and not notable. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Also, I don't see much point in redirecting to University of Guelma. Deckkohl (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nijat Mammadov (footballer)

[edit]

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

I could not find any in-depth coverage of Mammadov in English or Azerbaijani. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayolee

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot see the copy of the previous version of this article but I don't think that nothing much has changed since April, 2023. It is flooded with unreliable, music download websites thus fails the general notability guidelines. Also, be weary when reviewing the sources. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tifesheldon, of the 60+ refs in the article, which are the 3-5 best per WP:GNG you can think of? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the best four.

https://sunnewsonline.com/i-see-hear-feel-music-beyond-my-physical-boundary-mayolee/

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/04/mayolee-samples-nigerian-made-audio-interface-sokay-cs-22/

https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/in-awolowo-mayolee-blends-creativity-and-skill/

https://spurplayafrica.com/entertainment-%26-culture/f/from-the-studio-and-soon-to-the-stage-heres-mayolee

These are other notable sources i just found

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/04/mayolee-samples-nigerian-made-audio-interface-sokay-cs-22/

https://independent.ng/i-owe-the-world-a-lot-music-prodigy-mayolee/ Tifesheldon (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this one too about his forth coming album but i think will be considered promotional so i didn't include it. https://independent.ng/mayolee-to-drop-new-album-tomorrow/ Tifesheldon (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope this meets you well. In details i narrated my reason for re-creating this page to the users who nominated the previous page for deletion. Both of them gave me a go ahead saying I am free to recreate it if I'm sure the subject is notable and has been poorly represented as i claimed. The article was formerly created by a certain Hillsmedia, so I am unaware why it was deleted.

I agreed with the users on their decision to nominate the page for deletion as the subject was represented poorly and only as Mayolee, plus the article had multiple issues, from grammatical errors to non existent and repeated links. Some of the writing looked promotional as well and I related that to the users. However the subject only took just the name Mayolee last year when he released an album but has been known since 2013 by the names Oluwole/Mayo/Mayo MuziQ and now Mayolee. I am a Christian and I live in the same region as this subject, the songs Jesus (You Are Able) by Ada, Joy Overflow by Joe Praize and Way Maker by Sinach are quite popular and go to songs in churches both in Africa and around the world with sufficient evidences on Youtube. I found it inaccurate to say the record producer behind these songs is not notable as a Nigerian record producer, hence i took the time to consolidate in my article the major notable songs he's produced and every record he is being credited as producer. The afore deleted article only covered subject as Mayolee, which like i said was not enough.

In one of the comments, one of the users said the person is not notable because he only produced Way Maker, has one review on his album and tried to sue the artist, besides that nothing else. I found that kinda inaccurate because Way Maker is not just any song, all songs don't get to have a Wikipedia page.

I got to know of the subject when i was making a research on EndSars. I saw a reportage by DW News and one of the notable Nigerians interviewed is Mike Oluwole (https://www.dw.com/en/nigeria-marks-independence-in-shadow-of-endsars/video-59384511). I included the reportage on the End Sars wikipedia article and afterwards googled Mike/Michael Oluwole and the other two persons. As I searched for Mike Oluwole, my research led me to Oluwole/Mayo/Mayo MuziQ and Mayolee. This is the reason i decided to create a page for this subject as i was surprised he is behind some of the most popular christian songs out of Nigeria.

In my conclusion, the difference - i would say - between this page and the one that got deleted is that this page is able to establish that the subject didn't only produce Way Maker by Sinach, He produced Jesus (You are able) by Ada and Joy Overflow by Joe Praize which are notably popular Christian songs out of Nigeria, and to the effect i do believe qualifies him as one of Nigeria's notable record producers.

Also I am new around here on wikipedia and realised that i made a big mistake not knowing i should send this article to more experienced editors to look at it and guide. So, I am more than happy to be guided on how this works from a more 'experienced level". Thank you! Tifesheldon (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tifesheldon, a thousand and one articles interviewing the subject is not independent. Reliable? Yes. Independent? No. That’s all. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean…doesn’t equal independent truly. My reason howbeit for looking for any and everything song this subject is credited on as producer was because I thought if editors could see how much he’s done alongside the notable pieces of music he’s produced, they might understand why i believe he’s notable. Not because I thought the more citations the better, definitely not. Just didn’t know better as a new wikipedia editor.

Another thing I like to bring forward is the fact that the media will not give much attention to behind the scene creatives like engineers and producers, except these creatives have a paid PR team. It’s safe to say that even most ‘notable’ artists have paid PR team who interface with news media and all. So the issue of reliability/independent source is still subjective to an extent.

Creatives like record producers, mix and mastering engineers don’t get as much media coverage as the artists they collaborate with, and truth is most of them don’t even think it’s necessary. They just focus on more work and more credit.

I think editors should consider notable works and a fair amount of reliable/independent media sources for creatives like engineers and record producers. I definitely believe this subject is notable, as one of the music he produced has gained global notability with several records to show for it, alongside that he has produced other notable songs which i tagged in my first comment. I think those with a fair reliable/independent media sources, his page should not be deleted. Tifesheldon (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tifesheldon, do you firmly believe he is notable even when I’m proven those sources (save for The Guardian are interviews? Or do you wish for it to be draftified and accepted via AfC when it meets the criteria for inclusion? Best, Reading Beans (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just took time to read the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability and i perfectly get what you me by independent sources. Thank you @Reading Beans . I am happy for you to move it to draft. As time goes on, if i find such sources about the subject, I'll include them in the article. Thank you! Tifesheldon (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Reading Beans, when later reliable sources are found on the subject, should the song credits remain or be removed? Tifesheldon (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Whinyharedy (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the above comments, the subject has 166 monthly listeners on Spotify. (Nigerian musicians often have a YouTube channel, none here.) Monthly listeners is a poor metric, but it's just so many orders of magnitude away from what notable musicians have. Out of the "best" sources, one is an ad for Sokay Technologies, one is broken, a few are self-reported info, etc. Chamaemelum (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Al-Kaany

[edit]

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

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any sportsperson to have their own article. This article has 5 references but 3 of them are database sources, one is Facebook and the Al-Arabiya source doesn't mention the footballer at all. My own searches yielded only sources like Al-Watan, a trivial mention, and Al-Sharq, a squad list mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the editor has many articles nominated for deletion for lack of notability. Vyvagaba (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Farnham

[edit]

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

NN advocate, fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to failing WP:ANYBIO, any RS mentions on him are quotes on public policy debates. Nothing to indicate that he had a significant influence on impact on the topics he was involved in. Longhornsg (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Popular culture, United States of America, and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Early marijuana activist, but no sources found discussing this person. Not seeing notability for BIO. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some coverage in Jstor from 1969 and 1981, about him giving speeches. I don't consider it extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 4 July 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. ✗plicit 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Kaminsky

[edit]

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

Article created due to playing 16 minutes of professional football before playing briefly as a semi-pro and then retiring. I was not able to find any examples of WP:SIGCOV either on the Belarusian Wikipedia article or when searching the Belarusian or Russian versions of his name, which isn't surprising given how brief and uneventful his career looks to have been. The Russian searches gave me plenty about an actor of the same name, who might well be notable, but nothing about this footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 4 July 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!} 05:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PTC India

[edit]

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

The available sources do not establish notability per NCORP; some links are spam Tls9-me (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Key player in India’s power market. It is a WP:LISTED entity with significant non-controlling interest from major Indian PSUs along with LIC and mutual funds. Deletion should never be an option, since a lot of public money and public interest in involved, inevitably tying it to the Indian economy. It along with it's NBFC subsidiary (PTC India Financial Services which is categorised as a systemically important NBFC by the Reserve Bank of India[85]) have been in the focus of a lot of misgovernnace related issues. [86][87]. Few excerpts from a very detailed article in The Ken, "In domestic short-term power trading, PTC India had 45% market share at the end of the year ended March 2022...", "PTC India claims a 47% market share in international bilateral power trading between India and neighbouring countries."[88]. A lot of scope for expansion. — hako9 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added more refs, should be notable per Hako9. - Indefensible (talk) 17:45, 4 July 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. ✗plicit 12:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rah Ahan F.C. seasons

[edit]

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

Not a valid WP:SPLIT, as the list article is just duplicating content at Rah Ahan Tehran F.C.#Season-by-season. Therefore, no need for the separate list article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Iran. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a complete duplicate - more than 30 extra seasons in this article - and it's a valid split. SportingFlyer T·C 15:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of those seasons should be added into the article (right now the main article is a WP:RECENTISM by only showing results from 2000 onwards). Such a short article doesn't need a split. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect back to parent article, why do we need a split? Giant Snowman 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the team’s article. The chart in the parent article could be removed or trimmed down to the last five years, as is done for some other teams. Frank Anchor 21:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty standard stuff for teams around here.KatoKungLee (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Republican soldier in Barcelona

[edit]

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

Article about a photograph, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for artworks. As always, every photograph is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists, but has to show that it's been the subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it to establish its significance -- but this literally just says that the photograph exists, and is referenced solely to a catalogue entry on the self-published website of the museum that holds it (which is not support for notability at all) and a brief glancing namecheck of its existence in an obituary of its photographer (which isn't enough coverage to single-handedly vault this over GNG all by itself if it's all this has). And the French and Spanish interlangs (both of which were also created within the past three days by the same editor who imported it here) are both also based entirely on the exact same two sources, so there's nothing else that can be pulled over to improve this with.
I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived French or Spanish media coverage than I've got can find enough to salvage this, but just existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have considerably more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, France, and Spain. Bearcat (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and is otherwise only one sentence long, not even including said picture itself. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is an Apollo magazine article that talks about the photo, but it is implicit that it is just an example of Gerda Taro's work and approach. It does not seem to have an explicit title, so "Republican soldier in Barcelona" appears to be misleading. Anyway, it's shown in Taro's article, and that's enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not properly sourced, one sentence long, and does not include the photo being referenced. Simply it fails WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also can't help but note that the title is misleading, as there is another image of a Republican soldier in Barcelona from the same era in the history of photography: [89] Deckkohl (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eureka home video releases

[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOGUE, poorly sourced (mostly from Amazon and other buyers' sites) fancruft Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Television, and Science Fiction. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another piece of poorly sourced catalogue cruft Dronebogus (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft. Lorstaking (talk) 06:44, 11 July 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 without prejudice to creating a redirect. There was clear consensus that the article at this title was not notable, and with discussion consensus developed that the proposed redirect target was unrelated. This means that the original purpose for redirecting the article - an alternative to deletion - cannot be met. Since no consensus developed as to whether to perform the redirect, anyone is welcome to create it as a regular editing decision, and deal with it as an ordinary redirect should there be any controversy. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Rugby League Federation

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was that the article was unreferenced.

There is no mention of this federation on the International Rugby League website, so it was either never recognised as an official body by the IRL, or it merged with the Asia-Pacific Rugby League Confederation at some point. Either way, I don't think it is notable enough for a stand-alone article. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asia-Pacific Rugby League Confederation per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. The article's first revision shows that it was originally about Asia-Pacific Rugby League Federation. Cunard (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the article history, and a helpful to the reader solution. Star Mississippi 13:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't redirect. As far as I could determine there's no relation between the entities. The oldest version in the article being a copy of the other article was probably just (the bad practice of) the creator copying existing content to use as a temporary skeleton for a new article. Zero search results apart from business directory listings, which curiously show that the company later became a cafe business before closing down.[90] --Paul_012 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Asia-Pacific Rugby League Federation currently redirects to Asia-Pacific Rugby League Confederation. One of the sources in Asia-Pacific Rugby League Confederation is this article from The Age, which says, "A newly formed Asia-Pacific Rugby League Federation has been established, with its headquarters in Auckland, and each of the seven full-member nations will get a seat on its board." The article's discussion of Asia-Pacific Rugby League Federation refers to Asia-Pacific Rugby League Confederation.
As it makes sense for Asia-Pacific Rugby League Federation to redirect to Asia-Pacific Rugby League Confederation, I think it makes sense for Asian Rugby League Federation (with only the "-Pacific" omitted) to redirect to Asia-Pacific Rugby League Confederation.
I agree with the analysis that there is no relationship between the Brisbane, Australia–based Asia-Pacific Rugby League Confederation and the Singapore–based Asian Rugby League Federation, but I think a redirect based on the history of Asia-Pacific Rugby League Confederation's previous name still makes sense.
Cunard (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Point noted, though I must disagree. Despite the name, the Asia-Pacific organization actually covers the southern hemisphere; redirecting would only add to the confusion in my opinion. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asia-Pacific Rugby League Confederation, do not delete. Fails WP:NSPORTS per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that Asian Rugby League Federation merged with Asia-Pacific, the article is unreferenced and the "official" website given doesn't actually exist, and the IRL do not list it as ones of its 4 confederations. Mn1548 (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views are split between deleting and redirecting. More discussion on the suitability of a redirect needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my earlier comment, redirecting would be highly misleading, as they were clearly different organisations that had nothing to do with each other. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Star Mississippi, who !voted before the facts were clarified. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:42, 4 July 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Raider

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating after restoring this from soft delete per WP:REFUND. In addition to the GNG/NACTOR issues brought up at the previous AFD, I'm adding that this is an AUTOB. UtherSRG (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. UtherSRG (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All are bit parts, nothing for long-term characters. Working actor. I don't find any extensive sourcing for the person either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article includes reliable sources and meets the criteria for general notability as Raider has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, and stage performances. He's also notable for being co-artistic director of a theater with James Roday Rodriguez who himself was lead on 2 very successful TV shows that ran many seasons. Without an article it is not clear who Rodriguez partnered with for his theater company. Itsdannyg (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — Itsdannyg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - per the good sources that this has and that had many meaningful roles in TV shows and movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only substantial sources that I found (Ph.Inquirer and VoyageLA, both in the sources) are primarily interviews. Looking at IMDB, he's mainly done indie films, none of which have made it big, and has had non-starring parts in a few movies and TV shows, although there was one TV show in 2000 (The Trouble With Normal) where he had an ensemble role, but the show was panned and it only lasted one season. There may be movie sources I have missed, so I will check back, but this seems to a working actor but not one that meets GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Bamidele Davies

[edit]

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

When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished? The specific list of things to warrant an article for the academics notability guidelines does not apply to Davies. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of the citation impact that we're looking for in WP:NPROF C1 (FWIW, Google Scholar profile is here [91]), nor of the other NPROF criteria, nor of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The almost-unsourced claims of research impact at the end of the "Career and research" section are the only indication of importance saving this from an A7 speedy deletion, but they turn out to be based on nothing. The Google Scholar profile linked above lists five publications, three uncited, and two with 12 and 4 citations respectively. Of these, 4 and 3 of the citations are actually self-citations by CHT Wang. This falls far short of WP:PROF#C1 in what is a high-citation field. There is no evidence of any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not think there is evidence of the level of notability that would justify an article, and agree with the comments above. Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the subject of the article clearly fails WP:GNG and all criteria in WP:NPROF; there is no significant citation impact. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:37, 7 July 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. ✗plicit 12:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh Varkey

[edit]

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

Not notable person and doesn't meet WP:GNG Monhiroe (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Kerala. Monhiroe (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 4 July 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!} 06:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International biennale of miniature graphics and drawings Bitola

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT, and is unsourced. I couldn't find any sources for the article. I had previously placed a PROD, which was removed and replaced with another malformed PROD. Schminnte then added another properly created PROD tag, however because of the removal of the original PROD I think the right thing to do is bring it to AfD. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons in my PROD: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. During a WP:BEFORE I found absolutely no sources. On an aside, I added the PROD tag because the original PROD was never contested, only replaced with another PROD (?), so I applied a little ignorance due to the fact that noone had ever objected to deletion. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't certain what to do, however I have seen PROD nominations being accidentally removed or removed due to vandalism be considered as contested PROD. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't look like the person who removed the person was challenging it, but rather it got mangled by no surprise the visual editor. Star Mississippi 19:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visual editor can be a pain, but it can be so useful sometimes. I still use it for article writing even through I made myself learn the source editor! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but it's the reason we get extraneous No Wikis all over the place, which break templates as they did here. Star Mississippi 22:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused as what they were trying to do. Removing my PROD so that they could place their own? Or was it an accident? No clue. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing possibly endorsing it? I never do ((prod2)) myself but I know some do. Definitely not something a new user needs to worry about. As far as the article itself, a redirect to Vlado Goreski is probably unnecessary but would be fine. I actually think a red link might be helpful if editors have enough language familiarity to write the Biennial up. It could be notable, but this isn't worth saving so I'd advocate for deletion. Star Mississippi 01:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd (sort of) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 17:50, 10 July 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. ✗plicit 06:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Matar

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Apparently won a minor award, but there is no SIGCOV of it or of anything else. The creation note I know all the links are to the rally driver, but this guy was in an art book of mine and won an award fails to justify the article's creation. Can only find one article in French about him. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Poetry, and Lebanon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any reliable sources about the Lebanese painter and poet. I am not finding anything that shows notability. Most (all?) Google hits are commercial art sites. Not to be confused with multiple other Joseph Matars, including race car driver and boxer. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Sidney Hillman Foundation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hillman Prize

[edit]

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

I'm not really seeing all that much independent coverage of this award, and I think that a blank-and-redirect to the relevant section of The Sidney Hillman Foundation would be most appropriate given the award's relative dearth of independent coverage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Awards, and United States of America. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to nom's destination seems right here. It seems to be a prestigious indursty award, but there's not much on the award itself. There's a bit of coverage on winners (much of it not independent). We don't lose anything in a merge, and if someone desires and is able to write up a longer article at some point it could be split. —siro χ o 07:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to foundation per nom and siroχo. -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - same lack of independent sourcing as the just discussed "Sidney Award" from the same foundation.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Sidney Hillman Foundation There's nothing to merge. The information is already at the target article. Joyous! Noise! 17:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article per above; very similar case as The Sidney Award. - Indefensible (talk) 04:53, 11 July 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 Fictional music. I'm going to go with the nominator's suggestion and redirect this page. This allows the preservation of content should anyone want to proceed with a Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional musical instruments

[edit]

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

I don't see how this meets WP:NLIST. Perhaps redirect to fictional music, which mentions the concept? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Merge into fictional music with a bit of a collapse (no need for sections) seems reasonable. I was surprised not to find any good sources for NLIST on this one. There's a lot of scholarly literature on fictional musical instruments but none that addresses such a grouping from existing fiction. —siro χ o 07:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to fictional music. Not everything should be a list; in fact most things shouldn’t. Prose is generally a vastly superior format. This is a short list with little meaningful content, so it’s perfect for nerging. Dronebogus (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if merging would be ok with MOS:TRIVIA... the current list has no analysis, it's just a list of examples. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't any WP:SIGCOV for this topic. The list items don't even pass the low bar of having notable articles. I would accept a very selective merge, but most of these are unsourced or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs even a section seems like WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tre Barry

[edit]

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

Two appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bahamas. JTtheOG (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some research and cannot find a reason for notability. Additionally, I cannot find a source that has a bio about him, only sources that include him as a player that was on the roster. Ultimately fails WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Buldhana bus accident

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. No lasting impact, was resolved very soon after the incident. All sources say the same thing, so the coverage, albeit present in various news outlets, is not in-depth or diverse. Anarchyte (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tend to take the same view when it comes to similarly tragic news reports, however sad, that ultimately fail WP:NOTNEWS. Although being too soon to determine if there will be any lasting impact or notability, early indications wouldn't suggest anything other than present coverage only. It's usually common practice to wait a little while longer though before nominating. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not just a random road accident in India that occurs every day. The accident resulted in the death of 25 people. It is one of the worst bus accidents in the Maharashtra state in the recent years making it a significant event. According to WP:EVENTCRITERIA and WP:COVERAGE, events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. The accident was widely covered across all the major national medias. It was even analysed and discussed on the sunday special edition of some newspapers. Accidents resulting in the death toll of double digit number is considered as a significant event. Passes our WP:EVENT criteria. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" -- WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot know whether this will have a lasting effect because it's only been four days. Anarchyte (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thilsebatti. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thilsebatti. This resulted in 25 deaths. It is clearly notable. Besides it has got international coverage [92] implying that it is not just a routine incident . 117.254.34.205 (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Keep !voters are incorrectly counting primary sources toward coverage and incorrectly presenting the number of casualties as a factor toward notability. This fails WP:LASTING as it has yet to produce any independently notable effects, and it fails WP:GEOSCOPE as it has not had a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This passes WP:LASTING. See the latest report [93]. The Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Department has requested the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) to conduct a thorough review of the design and safety measures implemented in sleeper coach buses. The move came after the last week's horrific tragedy on the Samruddhi Expressway where a sleeper coach bus caught fire causing the death of 25 passengers. This is a lasting effect enough to pass WP:LASTING. Also refer to [94]. Another report published yesterday. 117.254.35.28 (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are 7k results[95] so there's certainly a lot of traction with this however as pointed out above there's been no global coverage apart from AlJazeera. It's caused a storm in India for sure but outside of India there's not been nothing. Fails NOTNEWS and to some extent WP:LASTING. –Davey2010^Talk 20:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disagree with you. Why are we talking about global coverage when we have more than enough national coverage. WP:EVENTCRITERIA says national or international. But to satisfy you, let me add more international coverage. What about these from Reuters and The Guardian [96], [97]. Random crashes in India are often not covered by Al Jazeera, Reuters, or The Guardian because they don't generally care. This accident was well covered in major Indian newspapers such as The Hindu and The Indian Express. These newspapers even had special coverage about this accident;discussing its cause and after effects. What I feel here is that it is not possible to have article about an event in wikipedia unless it is covered in some western medias. I have already shown coverage from 3 international publications. I think it is more than enough to keep this article 117.254.35.28 (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both the Guardian and Reuters didn't show at that time otherwise I would've !voted keep, I certainly agree with your points and had mentioned that above re traction. My understanding is that there should be more than just WP:LOCAL coverage however in this case as you've kindly proven there is indeed national coverage so I'm happy to keep this. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ready available sources and Thilsebatti. gidonb (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now This nomination seems like a violation of WP:RAPID. It appears that there are investigations that'll help determine whether or not there's lasting notability. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was broadly the view I expressed above, in that it's usually common to wait a little while before nominating these kind of articles. Typically it seems these articles are kept because the event "may" become notable in time, although we are asked to !vote on whether the subject of an article is notable right now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Not sure if there's a Wikipedia policy covering "Too soon to delete". If there isn't, perhaps there should be. Ah, yes, indeed there is — thanks Blaylockjam10 for pointing out WP:RAPID, which I hadn't seen deployed at AfD till now. Although within the remit of WP:NOTNEWS this is a major, widely reported incident with some international coverage. Should be kept for now and re-evaluated at a later date. Rupples (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Guardian coverage and others make it big enough, I think. Deckkohl (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, should have enough to support for inclusion. Similar case to 2023 Kericho truck crash. - Indefensible (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Weekly Group

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Existing sources either predate the formation of the group or are briefly quoting of one of the publications produced by the group. I'm not finding robust sources either in the form of ghits (largely populated by databases), gnews (non-independent source), or a newspapers.com search focused on England. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in February 2022 I combined the article with Travel Weekly as both of them did not have that many sources. I tried to find sources but could not find much. Sahaib (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree this doesn't pass WP:NCORP. While there are mentions in newspapers about Travel Weekly, haven't found indepth coverage of the company. Quite rightly The Caterer has its own article, but the company, can't derive notability from that WP:NOTINHERITED. Rupples (talk) 02:49, 9 July 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!} 03:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathi Seifert

[edit]

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

There are no normal references. The person clearly does not meet the criteria for significance and is probably written to order — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyWeAll (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does not look as if the unsigned editor did WP:BEFORE. She can be found on This 2001 Forbes list of America's Top Businesswomen, one of just a handful in the top three executive positions of her company, with eleven paragraphs about her. I can't pull up the 2002 :Fortune "Most Powerful Businesswomen" listing, but the same sources that pointed me toward the Forbes list indicate she's on there. The article does need cleanup and better referencing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:36, 2 July 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...} 03:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - High-powered career. 41 articles in the Wikipedia Library mention her and most are reliable sources although none are in-depth. The lengthy 2001 Forbes write-up found by NatGertler bears close scrutiny per WP:FORBESCON (bad reliability) and WP:FORBES (good reliability). For people reading this comment, I recommend taking a quick look at those.

The writer, Matthew Herper, is listed as "former staff" not "contributor" ("contributor" is a WP:FORBESCON red flag) but does he count as "staff" (that's a WP:FORBES flag). Presumably he's trusted like staff.
Herper's LinkedIn page indicates good credentials and a solid journalistic career. Nothing about doing PR type writing.
Herper appears on this whitelist of reliable Forbes editors at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 2#Forbes
Herper articles are cited as references for at least 100 of our articles.
The URL does not start with "forbes.com/sites" -- a sign of Forbes.com "contributor" articles
The article gives in-depth profiles of multiple women so this is not a sponsored article.
Siefert is tied for 3rd place on the list.
- The article says "Rankings according to Market Guide" (who or what is "Market Guide"?), although the profile is by Herper.
- Nevertheless, whoever compiled them, the rankings appear very reasonable based on who was who in 2002.

I'm inclined to rate the Forbes article as reliable and in-depth. Combined with the Wikipedia Library stuff, I believe Siefert meets WP:BASIC and, due to her high Forbes ranking and listing on the Fortune list, also meets WP:ANYBIO.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of "former staff" is "was staff at the time he wrote the article", which means the article gets the full Forbes backing. The whole "Forbes contributor" system wasn't introduced until 2010, so it cannot be a concern for ths article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reasons listed above. Agree with everything Nat Gertler said. Hkkingg (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish MacDonald (author)

[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Could not find any significant coverage for him. No major awards and only links to one article 2006 in Scotland. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources about him at all. There are no sources and this article may not meet the notability guideline. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Scotland, and Canada. AllyD (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article certainly needs updating as the author has transitioned to primarily comics from the novels and short stories listed here.
Responding to @Grumpylawnchair, if you found no sources then it would seem you can't have looked, a cursory 30sec search just now pulled

his goodreads page at https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/527328.Hamish_Macdonald

his last novel Idea in stone reviewed in the Skinny:

https://www.theskinny.co.uk/books/book-reviews/idea-in-stone-hamish-macdonald-self-published

Blackwells and Waterstones' catalogue pages (obviously unavailable as out of print):

https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Idea-in-Stone-by-Hamish-MacDonald/9781599714905

https://www.waterstones.com/book/idea-in-stone/alistair-hamish-macdonald//9781599714905

I could go on but hopefully that addresses the "can't find any sources" because a cursory search brings up plenty, and an overhaul of the page to update it and cover the more recent comic books (https://hamishmacdonald.com/shop.html) should include these references.

I'm not a fan of the notability criteria - it's a significant part of why I edit wikipedia less these days. "notability" itself is highly subjective and often used (as here) to remove minor content of niche interest simply because an editor isn't interested themselves in the content. Whether an author had received awards or not wasn't a criteria for who we studied when I was gaining a Masters in English, the originality and content of their work was.

MacDonald's career as an author was certainly short and by many measures unsuccessful, but both his approach to self publishing (literally doing it by hand at home and distributing via bookshops and his own site in the early 00s) and the content of the books (dealing with LGBTQ identity and national identity) have merit as subjects for the page. It's overdue for an update but should not be removed. Splateagle (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prob Delete - it is hard to find sources that meet the WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR when the person concerned is mostly known for self-publishing books. Also there appear to be several other people with the same name which complicates searching for sources. With regard to the comments above; Goodreads is not a RS. Bookseller catalogues do not count towards notability. Self published blogs are not independent, so I think we can dismiss all of those. Possibly The Skinny counts towards the GNG, but we would need to look a bit deeper into it. JMWt (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA - even if we decide The Skinny is a RS, it would be a bit weird if a very negative two paragraph review was the only ref which tipped the notability of this subject! JMWt (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, as the newly located sources have been dismissed as user-generated content and blogs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I did find some intriguing mentions of this author NY Times, Smart Cities. I only found these, however, because I searched on his name and the book title "Finitude" because there are other folks with his same name who are more well-known. The one substantial review is the Taipei Times article which is already in the article. I didn't find anything significant while searching on his other book titles. His books are all self-published and AFAIK haven't gained press attention other than those few I mention. Lamona (talk) 20:09, 7 July 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!} 07:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huijuan

[edit]

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

Same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mengjie and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baoshan (given name). This is not an article about a given name – rather, it's a list of people with different given names, which happen to be transliterated the same way in pinyin. This combination of topics clearly does not meet GNG, and the article is not useful for navigation as discussed at the two AfDs linked above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 03:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mengjie and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baoshan (given name), the extremely brief summary of which can be expressed as: not an actual encyclopaedia topic. Folly Mox (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was PROD'd so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems valuable as a disambiguation page, if there's real WP:SYNTH concerns, remove the sentence about the transliteration. —siro χ o 08:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point about disambiguation was discussed at the two previous AFDs that I linked in the nomination; the consensus was that pages like this (combining multiple Chinese given names) are not useful for navigation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The way these names are grouped together is non encyclopedic and serves no practical purpose. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:35, 5 July 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 see enough of a consensus now to feel comfortable closing this discussion as "Delete". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second American Civil War

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I noticed this article due to it being discussed on WP:FTN. This article may have originally had some merit, but regardless it has been shaped by SPAs and IP users into a frankly terrible article that presents a fringe perspective as fact by selectively cherry picking sources. I don't really see any way to resolve this other than to apply a heavy dose of WP:TNT. As mentioned at WP:FTN, I think the "In popular culture" section could be moved to a separate "Second American civil war in fiction" article, but the rest of the article is imo irredeemable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The first nomination was for April Fools Day. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I’d concur with the separation of an “in-fiction” section, but the article as a whole seems a bit redundant and fear-mongery. PeacockShah (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Oh no. 964kB, most of it some form of WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, WP:REFBOMB... but it seems to me that before TNT is invoked we might attempt to cut out the most unfixable sections? The entire "remarks" section should probably be tossed, to start... -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete, but note: If any part of this is kept and moved, the edit history must be retained per the WP:GFDL. I don't think the entirety of the article should or can be deleted, but there is certainly a great deal of problematic content that should be cleared out. BD2412 T 02:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT - First of all, we already have Second American Revolution. The one linked above seems more like an on-going saga of current events as they crop up. But what we have now is television spoon feeding it to us everyday. The separate events have their own articles if they're worthy of writing about. As attention-getting as the individual news outlets pull the audience one direction or another, I counter that much of the 1960's - if not the entire decade - was much more violent, with assassinations of political leaders in the United States. There were the Weather Underground and other groups bombing buildings and institutions. Second American Civil War is excess of what Wikipedia is already covering in individual articles. — Maile (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add to my own concerns about how something like this could be subject to input from factions who want to manipulate the public. This article looks like it's crafted that way. When I see the evening news on any TV station, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, any of them - they pounce on anything related to this subject matter, any event that happened that day, is the sole topic of the day-week-month spoon fed to their viewers. They just twist and reword the day's events to their specific audiences. Which whips the public into a furor of their particular political stance. Anybody can vote here, anybody - or IP - can say they are anybody. The big networks are paid to keep things whipped up like that. Let's keep Wikipedia neutral ... and this article really isn't that. — Maile (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A serious offence against WP:CRYSTAL and really, the thing reads like a rather bad version of the kind of speculative analysis published in the likes of The Atlantic. Mangoe (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the idea of a Second American Civil War is notable, almost all of its article's content is a violation of our policies regarding fringe theories and news-related content. It needs to be completely destroyed so that it can be rebuilt. Considering the nature of the topic, this problem needs to be resolved quickly. Of course, the fictional depictions of the event should have their own article, as it is a reoccurring motif in fiction. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, as while there are some parts of the article that have merit (i.e. attempts to overturn the 2020 election or voter suppression, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and political polarization), but they have their own thorough articles. I'm not as familiar with violent far-right movements (i.e. the Groypers, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or some far-right individuals) but they're lone wolf actors in my opinion.

The article has lost relevance after the 2022 midterms (including Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization) and Trump's indictments not setting off mass riots or violence in the U.S. even comparable to the 2020 racial justice protests. The 2024 election and Trump's indictments have their own pages. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like SYNTH, trying to link many items together to push a certain narrative. Events in the post 1865 era aren't connected to Donald Trump... Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the April Fool's deletion was actually on the mark, not CRYSTAL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept is coherent and there is significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. How can there possibly be reliably sourced content about an event that hasn’t happened and might never happen? Quite easily: the prospects, fears, potential causes, avoidance mechanisms and impact are all discussed in multiple mainstream sources. CRYSTAL is about editors’ own speculations. If sources and the media at large are speculating, that speculation can be notable. Compare to World War III or Kessler syndrome. The article in its current state does have NPOV issues. There’s a lot of wishful thinking(?). It needs a good prune. Many parts could be merged into Political polarization in the United States. But that’s all cleanup. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do feel that a substantial effort to remake this article is more worth it than starting all the way back from square one. Even with the egregious policy violations in mind, I highly—yet just as respectfully—disagree that this article is nearly or completely irredeemable and that it should thusly be completely destroyed, even if to rebuild it later. I have many points, but for brevity's sake I will list out only a few; even if this article does get demolished, I would at the very least like to mention the following points if it'll help to improve and enhance the existing article or for its next "life." For one, the very presence of a political science research section ("Research regarding a second civil war") in this article as it pertains to the topic at hand is a good mainstay. In my opinion, only citing mainstream news articles about this topic would leave the article half-cooked, as many of such news articles oftentimes don't go very in-depth, sometimes even those involving interviews with experts in democracy, civil war, and/or in-general political violence. As relatively rare and hard-to-find as such research on this topic still is—understandably so—I think the sourcing and in-general structure of these sections can be improved. It also doesn't help that this very topic is largely still—and could just as well indefinitely remain —in its speculative phase, but I digress.

Another point that I wanted to mention and expand upon was the article's references of right-wing radicalization within the U.S. Military, as it pertains to this topic. The section(s) about the January 6 United States Capitol attack and how it interplays with the previous point and the topic itself, should also remain. I do agree with putting at least some of those polarization-related aspects into the Political polarization in the United States article that aren't already there.

And finally, I also agree with the suggestions of a meaningful shapeup of this article as, among various other reasons: the flow is off-putting; the excessive back-and-forth of "X said '___', but then Y said '___'"; and the continuous adding of recent political events, with their various degrees of relevance, has become a bit excessive. 68.134.238.132 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much speculation (i.e., predatory publishing) and original research. There are also a lot of forced analogies, like that with the Years of Lead in Italy. As usual, it is an incomprehensible article for a general public, moreover, right-wing libertarians (and related realities: sovereign citizens, the Tenther movement, and anarcho-capitalists) always come out clean. One cannot seriously talk about the militia movement without mentioning these ideologies and positions.--93.45.229.98 (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article is mostly speculations and gossip. Obviously, Wiki is WP:NOTGOSSIP and not WP:FUTURE. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there are really, functionally, three articles here. 1) There's the "reinterpretations" section, which details the use of the term "Second American Civil War" to describe or re-frame historical conflicts. Then 2) there's the speculative section, which covers speculation about either a potentially impending civil war, or an already-happening "cold civil war." Finally, there's 3) fictional depictions of America undergoing a second civil war. I think sections 1 and 3 might have some value, but 2- by some distance the largest- is worthless, as it's a big compilation of predictions and analyses from a million different angles, synthesized with more or less related information, and falls afoul of WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, etc. If an actual generally-recognized civil war breaks out, maybe parts of it would be useful for a "Background to the Second American Civil War" article, but right now, it's junk. The solution I'd favor would be to purge the speculation/synthesis stuff, and then split this into two articles: one on the historical and contemporary use of the term/idea "Second American Civil War," covering the historic use of the term, and the idea and term as used by contemporary historians to reinterpret past events (the Coal Wars and Business Plot sections need better sources, though); and the other on notable fiction depicting imaginary Second American Civil Wars. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH - seems to consist of an unending raft of speculation with disparate sources tied together to push a (dystopian) narrative. WP:TNT---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article gets deleted, some of its content could be moved to other articles as there is still a lot of useful info in the article that could be moved elsewhere. X-Editor (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't recommend it. Wouldn't that just transfer WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH and other issues listed above, to other articles? There's too much questionable with content and sources, and we don't need to copy and paste it to other articles. — Maile (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Anyone who thinks a Second American Civil War is less likely than the Potential breakup of the United Kingdom or Hypothetical dissolution of the Russian Federation hasn't spent very much time here since Trump was elected 7 years ago. Every morning as I commute to my office I drive past a sign in front of a veterinary hospital announcing "Eighty-one million votes, my a$$." People can tell themselves the election was stolen for only so long before they decide it is their duty to kill everyone who voted for the "wrong" candidate because those people outnumber people like them.Amyzex (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those articles should exist either. The first in particular has a long list of tags suggesting that it has all the same issues we've identified here. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FUTURE This article we are discussing here violates OR and speculation about the future. Again ... every decade has some crisis to survive - the 1960s saw the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Assassination of Malcolm X, the Selma to Montgomery marches, the militant terrorist group Weather Underground. etc. etc. And then there was the resistance to the Vietnam War. Followed into the next decade by groups like the Symbionese Liberation Army. The Ku Klux Klan has been active in America since 1865. — Maile (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article for World War III, another hypothetical future conflict is well-established. The concept of a second civil war is well-established in pop culture, in recent journalism coverage, in political polling, etc.

I would suggest parts of the article being edited down (it seems excessively large and detailed for a hypothetical situation) to be more in line with World War III, but full-scale deletion is unnecessary and risks occluding the frequent coverage of the scenario in media. Generalissima (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet, this might be closed as No consensus but first I'd like to give the discussion a bit more time. Other closers, feel free to take action as you see fit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in for a strong delete. Despite the care many editors have put in, this article has grown into something that does not belong in Wikipedia. It may be possible to write an article with this title or a similar one after WP:TNT. But the current state is a nightmare of WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTAL, and so on. To build upon what other editors have said, I think there are at least 5 distinct articles here. I'm not sure which of them would be worth including in the encyclopedia.
1. A "fictional depictions" one - those have no place in this article, as they're not depictions of "this" hypothetical event.
2. A "historical events that have been considered a second civil war". There may already be a good article on this but can't find it, but this section in this article adds a level of WP:SYNTH.
3. A "Documented attempts at igniting a civil war" one. This may be WP:SYNTH depending on how it's been covered in reputable sources and scholarly research.
4. A "2023 American political climate" one that might include the "cold civil war" or "Troubles-like-era" topics. This seems to be promising as there's a decent amount of sourcing for it because it can focus on secondary sources' descriptions and analysis of actual events.
5. A "How a war might start and happen" one. Runs into WP:CRYSTAL problems but there may be reliable sources to pull from.

To reiterate, I'm not actually advocating for any specific article to be included here, just pointing out how many different topics have been squeezed into this article. —siro χ o 07:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good summary of the problem. -- asilvering (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with your summary; there might be talk of such an event, but I don't think it's ever been serious enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An excellent post indeed, @Siroxo

In my opinion, perhaps the best path forward is a mix of subjects 3, 4, and 5 - of course, without yet again running afoul of said rules mentioned throughout this dicussion.

The topic as a hypothetical scenario is indeed notable enough to primarily feature those 3 subjects in its (next?) article. Some background information (this time with a not-too-lengthy discussion of only the most relevant current events (such as the 1/6/2021 insurrectionist self-coup)) as well as political science research on the United States' contemporary polarization crisis (I.E.: to help the reader to understand the "whats" and "whys" of such an article) would make for a much-improved article framework, as this topic--again, as a hypothetical future scenario--is no longer of the groundless, reality-defying variety often disseminated from the fringes of the internet. ...Depressingly enough.

I am still stumped on the potential placement of the historical claims aspect of this article; framing it as both a historical "in-hindsight" past event AND as a hypothetical future one at the same time and in the same article was/is...a bit much in my opinion.

(For the admins: my "keep" holds steady, if you were curious.) 68.134.238.132 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is full of WP:CRYSTALBALL and contains hints of WP:SYNTH. It's full of speculation, and isn't encyclopedic. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This article fails WP:CRYSTAL and has WP:FALSEBALANCE in many portions of it. There are parts of the article which are useful as is, but too much cleanup is required to fix this one up.User:Let'srun 20:14, 4 July 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. JFHJr (㊟) 04:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Marc Edelman

[edit]

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

Twice-deleted unreferenced article. No indicia of WP:GNG or cites to WP:RS. This appears to be the result of relentless self-promotion. JFHJr (㊟) 02:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of of this anthropologist in WP:Prof#C1 with 13 papers with over 100 cites each and h-index of 40 in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
The citation metrics section in that guideline makes it clear (see bullets 1 and 4) that reliance solely on these indices is not reasonable. There should be unrelated, third-party citations to support the biographical text and whatever assertions of notability. JFHJr (㊟) 03:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a little less than 9673 unrelated third party citations to his work: see WP:Prof, which is the proper guideline for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - I just added one source, which was pretty easy to find. A glance through, looks like there is probably sourcing for all of this, including each of the books listed. The problem is that whoever created this didn't do that, or maybe never even knew it was a requirement. The creating editor has this sub page User:Danielonthehudson/sandbox that indicates they were just a student working on this in 2019. We could probably tidy up, source, and save this article. — Maile (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cite to his employer, its profile for him on the university website. It's not uncommon for professors to write their own bios for university websites. It indicates he exists. It doesn't indicate his significance or notability though. JFHJr (㊟) 03:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing on this is a work in progress right now. Do you think you could back down a little and let me research?. There is considerable online info and interviews about this guy on the web. Don't be so hasty to kill this. — Maile (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is NOT the Marc Edelman of sports law whose articles were previously deleted, as can be seen by looking at those deletion discussions. This Marc Edelman has been the president of the American Ethnologial Society. JFHJr, the criteria for academics is WP:NPROF and is followed at AfD. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll continue the bibliography above, checking each ISBN against the Library of Congress and/or others, tomorrow sometime. This particular academic published a lot. I think we can save this one. — Maile (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a full bibliography, just a handful of the most important ones. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Not the same person... That's most convincing. I'm withdrawing the nomination. But please don't let that stop anyone who's gathering cites. Anything third party. It would be helpful to support the biographical content and identify his most important publications. The long, long list led me to believe it was the same subject as the first two AfDs. Thank you, StarryGrandma, Maile66, and Xxanthippe JFHJr (㊟) 04:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus because, amidst all of the commentary here, I don't see a "rough consensus" on what should happen to this article. If the nominator is still seeking deletion, I suggest a fresh AFD with a better focus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rupayan City Cumilla

[edit]

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

meets WP:G3, Needs to be deleted to pretend vandalism M.parvage (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. M.parvage (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
whats wrong with the article? FNH004 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @M.parvage: This isn't vandalism, nor have you presented any evidence that the subject is fake. In fact, I can find a source pretty easily [98] that shows this exists. Could you explain yourself? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look on the sources @JML1148

Source: 1. From facebook video, No mention for Rupayan City Cumilla

Source: 2, Source: 3 & Source: 5 No mention for Rupayan City Cumilla, except Rupayan Group

Source: 4 Nothing is mentioned about Rupayan City Cumilla & not even Rupayan Group

Source: 6 & Source: 7 Metioned the team name is Rupayan Group Cumilla, not Rupayan City Cumilla

These refers pure vandalism. M.parvage (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else previously moved the page from Rupayan Group Cumilla to Rupayan City Cumilla, and as the source I linked displays, this topic exists, and isn't vandalism. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism doesn't refers to the name only. It refers to the content also. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism and then also read the page. This page is also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV M.parvage (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M.parvage, it's probably best to focus on what you think needs doing with the article, rather than labelling the quality of the editing. Are you stating that the article is entirely based on trivial references and therefore should be deleted on grounds of no notability, or are you stating that the sources refer to the subject by a different name, and therefore the move (spotted by JML1148 was incorrect and the article should be moved back? Elemimele (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that some links refer to Rupayan City Cumilla, whereas elsewhere on the internet, it is Rupayan Group Cumilla. Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine the original name as it has no significant coverage.WP:SIGCOV

As for Vandalism, much of this article is fictional (example: Head coach), which also counts as advertising.WP:IBA

Hope you understand @Elemimele. Thanks M.parvage (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elemimele may or may not understand, but I don't. I have not looked into whether this article should be kept or deleted, but it is certainly not vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know whether Wikipedia needs an article on this topic or not, but I join the chorus in saying that the nominator's deletion rationale makes no sense. I assume they meant "prevent" rather than "pretend" vandalism. But this plainly isn't vandalism or a pure hoax, which is why their speedy deletion request was declined. The topic isn't fictional or pure advertising. Any such element in the article can be dealt with through normal editing. The nominator is advised to withdraw the nomination. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Although the nomination rationale makes no sense, they do make a good comment that it doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. I couldn't find anything that met SIGCOV for either team name mentioned above. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's been some communication issues in the nomination which propose WP:G3 without proper basis, further arguments presented in discussion do essentially allege that notability guidelines are not met, which is a valid rationale for an AfD nomination. Further discussion should focus on the quality and availability of sources, rather than whether there is any vandalism afoot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Do we have a notability guideline for hockey teams?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion about whether or not this subject is a hoax but we need opinion on what should happen with this article. For those of you who participated in this debate, could you please make your "vote" known?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on above discussion there are possibly major issues. However this seems to be a member team of a new professional sports league. There are match reports for this team out there, eg [99]. Many Bangladeshi sources have covered them, but I am not equipped to evaluate them. I can't find any resources on reliability. I guess it feels counterproductive to delete, but it's hard to recommend keeping. Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON. —siro χ o 07:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 01:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I sincerely apologize for my misunderstanding regarding vandalism. But I would recommend to delete now also. Actually this topic has no significant coverage and unfortunately, it didn't meet the criteria for being a stand alone article.~PARVAGE ^talk! 06:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

are these references not enough :1, 2, 3, 4???? FNH004 (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FNH004: I've gone through eache references. I understand, these references are enough to prove that, this is not a hoax. But not presenting any notability. PARVAGE ^talk! 19:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The justification to delete (vandalism) is flawed. We default towards keeping WP:ATD and so the absence of a logical deletion rationale leaves me arguing for keep. CT55555(talk) 01:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm trying to figure out if this is a vandalistic hoax as the nominator has alleged. I note that the 3 primary editors are prolific contributors: FNH004 (creator) - 14686 edits but also a 2021 sockpuppeting block, Jit Saha255 (1067 edits), and 103.138.145.249 (219 edits), a likely static IP [100]. FNH004 has created 106 articles only one of which has been deleted. Conclusion: not a hoax. I need to investigate further as to whether it's notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I admitted that, this is not a hoax. And also I raised my concern about notability. Thanks PARVAGE ^talk! 19:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops -- I didn't see that.

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:30, 8 July 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 Horror films of Cambodia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Horror

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Cambodia. Dan arndt (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering it may meet this criterion for film notability: "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.' : but these indications in English might be hard to find (see this for instance; or this, which are not great). If not, redirect to Horror films of Cambodia .— MY, OH, MY! (mushy yank) — 17:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, are there any reliable independent secondary sources to support your contention. Noting that blog sites, such as WordPress are not acceptable or reliable sources/references. Neither are the film production's website which is a primary source. Also mentions in passing are not considered significant coverage. Dan arndt (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a .kh web search, many links pointing to Le Bokor Palace, it appears they might have filmed the movie there. But I can't find anything we can use for sourcing. Will keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. Even in French, I can't find any mentions of the film. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input and a more solid consensus…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Chamaemelum (talk) 09:49, 4 July 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 Perfume discography#As lead artist. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omajinai Perori

[edit]

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

No indication this passes WP:NALBUM, much less WP:GNG. No references. UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Perfume discography#As lead artist as ((R from song)) per WP:ATD. This is a plausible search term. ✗plicit 14:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUM. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirection to the artist's article is always preferable to deletion. This happens with most PROD'd album articles, as you know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I expressed an opinion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist seems ok, I can't find much for this album. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources cited to support the claims in the article and a quick search returned with only music download websites. Noneate (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Xplicit, a more acceptable fate in itself. (Never charted on Oricon, so that option's the only one left.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how it can notable, or sufficient reason for a redirect. It is so obscure. Its been on the cat:nn for 13+ years with a tag and its never been adressed. Too obscure to be worth redirecting. scope_creep^Talk 06:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure how? ✗plicit 00:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist for further input…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perfume discography#As lead artist as suggested above. Redirects are cheap and this article gets ~150 views a month; no reason to penalize readers here. Dekimasuよ! 07:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Xplicit. Seems to be a cromulent redirect. -- Visviva (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Perfume discography#As lead artist. No valid argument against redirection. Cavarrone 17:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the target suggested immediately above. The article itself would be fine if any sources are found so preserving the history for un-BLARing is the best option. Skynxnex (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most Holy Rosary Church (Padre Garcia)

[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Historical significance (as mentioned in the deprod edit summary by User:Necrothesp) needs to be demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage that I could find on this church did not extend beyond trivial database entries. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Necrothesp's contesting of a PROD without giving any evidence as to the notability of the church and with a basis of "historic church, poor article" leaves a poor impression, in my opinion. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You and the nominator clearly misunderstand the usage of WP:PROD, which is only for uncontroversial deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think this is an issue of misusing PROD; I didn't reasonably expect anyone to object to deletion of this article. The fact that someone did object doesn't indicate anything wrong per se. I think JML1148 would have preferred more detailed reasoning for the objection, which is always nice. But of course PROD can be objected to for any reason or without reason, nobody is contesting that. It says that quite explicitly in multiple places. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I have a very similar line of reasoning. I was not expecting the PROD to be contested, and I was expecting a more detailed policy-based explaination when the PROD was removed. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Prodding is increasingly overused for articles that should be taken to AfD. Only blatant rubbish should be prodded, not articles on historic buildings and the like. It's not a way to get round taking articles to a proper AfD discussion. It's for articles on topics that aren't worth our time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. It is a Classified Historic Structure of the Philippines, as a look at the official cultural heritage map will establish. And that is precisely why one should not assume the deletion of articles about historic buildings is uncontroversial and why they should therefore never be prodded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This structure is not "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level", as set out by WP:GEOFEAT. It is a classified historic structure, just like (quote from link above): "all [other] Colonial Churches and other Houses of Worship". This is not one of the categories listed in the guideline that Necrothesp refers to, nor is it a "protected status on a national level" for the purposes of this guideline. All this classification means is that it's recognised as a house of worship or colonial church, it does not imply significance or protection (as far as I can tell).

There is also a second requirement of that WP:GEOFEAT criterion: "for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available". There doesn't seem to be any such information, neither here in the discussion nor in the current version of the article. The map Necrothesp linked to only lists its location and the legal basis of classification.

For these two (distinct) reasons, GEOFEAT doesn't apply to this church. I agree that articles about historic buildings are important and should usually not be proposed for deletion, but nothing here establishes the historic significance of the church, and I don't think that every church has inherent historic significance. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've explained it better then I ever could have. In addition, if the church was to be a site of "cultural heritage or national heritage", it could be argued that it still fails WP:GEOFEAT due to a combination of the second part (I could not find anything about the church besides basic statistics) and the fact that the church only has a heritage listing because it is lumped in with all other colonial churches. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two sources to the article that provide far more than basic statistics. And it clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT, despite the efforts to claim it does not. As would most other 18th century churches in most other countries with proper heritage listing. I am frankly mystified why there is such enthusiasm from a couple of editors to delete this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source additions. IMO the second source seems to be basic statistics. The first source has a good amount of information, however it is an official website. I think Actualcpscm has done a very good job at explaining that it is recognised as a historic structure, but is not classified as cultural or national heritage. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I closed this as no consensus, I didn't realize the date of the second relist, reopening for the intended week. Note, it's now at Most Holy Rosary Church (Padre Garcia) per @Necrothesp:'s move, which I think is fine and doesn't need to be undone for this discussion to continue. If others feel differently, feel free Star Mississippi 19:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not an old building. It's locally protected, not nationally protected so it fails WP:GEOFEAT. It also fails WP:NBUILDING. According to this article reference, the original building was burned during the Philippine–American War. Its replacement was destroyed in World War II. The current building was built 1949.

According to the spreadsheet I downloaded at the "Download the Local Inventory of Cultural Property" link, this church's description by the Philippine Registry of Cultural Property is:

"Declared as a Municipal Historical Landmark by virtue of Ordinance No. 05-2019, "Ordinance Declaring the Most Holy Rosary Parish Church as Municipal Historical Landmark and Providing Measures for its Conservation."

"The church was burned twice during the American-Fil war and Japanese occupation. Some parts of its structure, particularly the bell tower were also destroyed because of previous earthquake"

The authorizing ordnance was issued by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Padre Garcia city.

The church's "official Filipino name" is "Parokya ng Santisimo Rosaryo"

Searching for "Parokya ng Santisimo Rosaryo", I found there was an at least a mention somewhere in an August 2018 issue of The Varsitarian, a campus newspaper, but I don't understand the Tagalog language. That was all I found.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't fault A. B.'s analysis above which confirms the view expressed earlier by two editors that this fails WP:GEOFEAT, and that it also fails WP:NBUILDING. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While it does appear that it is not nationally protected, it is locally protected and appears to pass WP:GNG, so I maintain that it is notable. Also remember that just because the current building may not be that old doesn't mean the church itself doesn't have a long history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think. I feel that I may be missing something, but I don't see any third-party sources in the article or in this discussion (apart from the above-referenced spreadsheet), nor am I able to locate any myself. I'm surprised that a church that has been through this much wouldn't have some nontrivial coverage (and I agree with Necrothesp that previous church structures would properly be part of the same encyclopedic topic). But we can only work with what we have, and I'm not seeing anything that would come close to clearing either the GNG or any relevant SNG. -- Visviva (talk) 01:00, 6 July 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!} 02:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karakhanid-Samanid war

[edit]

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

Pure WP:OR article. Sure, these two entities were in conflict (more than once in fact), but scholarship does not designate it under this name. I guess WP:NHISTORY and WP:GNG applies here. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iran. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the article should be moved to the most commonly used name for the conflict, then, rather than being deleted. I wonder whether the Persian Wikipedia might have some details about this conflict that could be added here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A name like "Karakhanid–Samanid wars" would seem to be a valid descriptive title. The article, however, is a pointless stub. Draftify or delete as not improving our coverage. Srnec (talk) 16:09, 4 July 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.