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 Administration of territory in dynastic China. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of the administrative divisions of China before 1912[edit]

History of the administrative divisions of China before 1912 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is essentially an unsourced version of Administration of territory in dynastic China. If deleted, links and disambiguation pages will be changed to point to that article instead. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Administration of territory in dynastic China per nom. It's not clear that the pre-1912 article contains enough separate and distinct info to warrant a separate article. Patr2016 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Patr2016. SignificantPBD (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect. The two articles are covering substantially the same subject and we only need one of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 5 April 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. Salvio ^giuliano 22:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lahore (1764)[edit]

Battle of Lahore (1764) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page confuses the Battle of Qarawal for "a battle at Lahore" here. See [2]

Sources point to this battle being at Qarawal, and I had already made a page for the Battle of Qarawal. The infobox also has incorrect information saying that it was inconclusive, and that both the Sikhs and Afghans withdrew, to which, one of the main cited sources of the article says that the Sikhs were routed, and affirmed an Afghan victory, see here: [3] Noorullah (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, user @Javerine attempted to log a deletion request on the Battle of Qarawal itself without responding to anything here, or mentioned on the former talk page. (They also did not attempt to discuss it on the talk page either, or even open a deletion discussion). See here: [4] Noorullah (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SHouldn't you have discussed the matter before submitting my article for deletion without even properly studying the sources? Why didn't you have discussion in the first place before submitting my article for deletion? You article is Battle of Qarawal is clearly problematic, even the title itself.Javerine (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I..did study the sources, I pointed it out to you in the talk page of the article you created, I linked it multiple times and even said what the issue was here. So I am not sure why you are accusing me of not pointing that out.

You saying "the article is clearly problematic" does not refute any of the things said, especially with whats said in the source which you still for some reason tried to summarize it as "inconclusive", when the source clearly stated that the Sikh forces were routed.

I listed it for deletion because it is effectively the exact same page as Battle of Qarawal, except the page you created pushes forward that the battle was inconclusive, which is contradicted by the sources. Noorullah (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will come back to the problems with your article. Give me few mins. Javerine (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to furthermore add the second source for Singh does not mention that the Afghans withdrew as of nightfall either? And instead leaves the results vague and just after leads to Ahmad Shah Durrani congratulating Nasir Khan and warning him to stay away from frontline of battle.

This, meaning you completely made up the inconclusive remark. As none of the sources you had in the article mentions the Afghans withdrawing, and only Ram Gupta's mentions that the Sikhs were routed.[5] (Singh's account on the battle, is vague and doesn't mention the Afghans withdrawing) [6] (Ram Gupta's account, mentions the Sikhs being routed)

Alongside this, the "battle" according to Singh isn't even at Lahore itself, which you named the article. The source says "a battle near Lahore"[7] Noorullah (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So with this, the main two sources on the article clearly don't allign with what the page is attempting to potray. The battle can clearly be seen as not being inconclusive, but rather, an Afghan victory as the Sikhs were routed (See Ram Gupta's source). Noorullah (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This article Battle of Lahore (1764) is completely reliable compared to Battle of Qarawal which has issues starting with the title itself as Qarawal is not even a location. I will defend article Battle of Lahore (1764) based on this mistakes on Battle of Qarawal.
  

MISTAKES ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

MISTAKE 1: The source on the article Battle of Qarawal, clearly states that "When the army went to the battle-field, their camps, kitchens, families and servants known as Bahir-o~Bungah .were left in charge of a strong contingent, which was called Qarawal. * Jang Namah, 83." This is mention at the bottom on page number 201 [8].
MISTAKE 2: The article is strictly is based on one source which is basically a translation of various contemporary sources such as Jang Namah, written by Nur Muhammad who was brought along with his masters to record his master's campaign. And historian have called his source, though valuable, but bias, prejuidice, discriminatory, very one-sided and based on personal observation.
MISTAKE 3: Noorullah keeps repeating that the reliable sources on my article by accredited historians do not claim that "The battle ended with both parties retired at nightfall. Here are the source links for anyone to verify: Page 216 [9] by historian Hari Ram Gupta and here is another source, Page 299 [10] by historian Ganda Singh (historian).
So based on all above information, article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic and errors, including the outcome of the battle, which I have clearly stated as "Inconclusive" on Battle of Lahore (1764). User Noorullah clearly didn't study the sources on his article Battle of Qarawal and didn't make effort to study the sources on my article either. Also according to Noorullah, to discredit my article by the reliable source by historians, he states that "Historians make mistakes",[11]. A pointless reason. Javerine (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your point about the "Jang Namah" being an unreliable contemporary source also applies to every source you just listed? It is within the bottom of all the books you just posted that they follow the Jang Namah. As you can see with the following: [12] [13]

Also the same account is of Hari Singh Nawla's writing, though you are saying it as if it was another source, when it was the same writer. Noorullah (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not understanding. Its what the historians analyze that is considered reliable by studying such contemporary sources. Jang Namah is considered valuable as it sheds light on events but you can see that historians when giving their own analysis, ignore the brava and prejudice observations, of a source, serving the master. Such as historian Ganda Singh said, "lts true that the Jang Nama, presents only one side piccture and that too from a bigoted crusader’s angle of vision. But that does not detract much from its historical value. In spite of his strong prejudice against the Sikhs, whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dogs of hell, accursed infidels, unclean idolaters, fire-worshippers, etc., his description of the character of the Sikhs of the eighteenth century is invaluable to the students of history. And its value is immeasurably enhanced when we know that it is from the pen of one of their worst enemies, who prayed to God and appealed to the crusaders to destroy them root and branch. In short, the book has a great significance as a comtemporary historical document for the history of Ahmad Shah and the Sikhs". So that we is why instead of directly drawing from contemporary source, we have to use secondary sources written by historians who based their findings, study and analysis of such contemporary sources to draw conclusion.Javerine (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this "quote" come from? You have completely made this quote without any citation? If you are also jumping between arguments about the Jang Nama.. calling it firstly "one-sided" and implying that it could not be trusted, then to now it could be because of its historical value?

Furthermore.. in those other sources it was just the Jang Nama cited? So how does that prove anything other then the contemporary source was used? The other part of Ram Gupta's source was a 1908 British Gazetter.

Regardless, I am not gonna respond further and let whoever handles the deletion requests to deal with this. Noorullah (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you trying to make an effort as I already provided the link before. Historian Ganda Singh's opinion on Jang Namah is on page 420 [14]. Yes its better for others to make decisions. Javerine (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide the citation or link to that page whatsoever during the course of this dispute. Noorullah (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the link before in the discussion with Ganda Singh's book. All you had to do was run a search. Javerine (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Run a search", for what? That's not the purpose of the argument, your supposed to back up what your saying with citations. Noorullah (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Noticed something very sneaky while the above discussion was going on. So Noorullah copied the source from article written by me Battle of Lahore (1764) and falsely attributed it on the article written by him Battle of Qarawal where it states that Qarawal is a location and where it states that "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." Here is the change he made [15] and here [16], when its clearly mentioned in the source that "It was a bitter contest and came to close only by nightfall". Here is for everyone to verify the source [17]. Also no where does the source mention Qarawal as a location, so why falsely attribute the source during this above discussion. I rest my case. Javerine (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't "copy the source", you complained about there not being enough sources on the page of Battle of Qarawal, as a result I added Singh's citations in the appropriate areas, including the area where it said about a nightfall. The former was Ram Gupta's.. and then Singh's SFN for the battle concluding at nightfall. I'm not sure why you are pretending this is something sneaky to slip in?

  It says "A Place Near Lahore" in the article, while Ram Gupta mentions reinforcements were sent to Qarawal, how is this falsely attributing? You are meant to assume good faith rather then put out accusations to such matters. Noorullah (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And so I quote "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." The then cited sources were Ram Gupta and Singh. Noorullah (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are numerous problems in both articles. I'm actually inclined to delete both since they are both so biased; the authors that do not have the experience to write articles about controversial subjects.

Both authors are obviously POV pushing for their chosen side. That these articles were created at the same time (~40mins) shows a battleground mentality the closing admin should note for AE subject.

@Noorullah and Javerine: can you list the best two sources (per WP:RS, WP:V) that show what you believe the name of the article should be? No need to explain, I can read and just need the reference. Battleground is definetly a part of this so there is no need to respond to the other parties two sources. I intensely hate walls of text and POV refbombing.  // Timothy :: talk  13:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Noorullah, your two sources are:
• Javerine, your two sources are: Page 299 [18] by historian Ganda Singh (historian) and Page 216 [19] by historian Hari Ram Gupta. Javerine (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:TimothyBlue, replied with two sources you asked for. Javerine (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (with the usual redirect). The consensus above seems to be that the two battles are one and the same. If so, there should be a single article on it. I know nothing of the subject, but an AFD is not the right place for WP editors to seek to resolve conflicts as to precisely what happened. That is a matter to be resolved by reference to published historical works (being RS). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments regarding merging (and if so to what?), redirecting, or simply deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per prior relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment TimothyBlue thank you for intervening. I agree that it sounds like we are talking about two versions of the same battle as Peterkingiron noted. I suggest Dispute Resolution, or failing that that the two editors work on one disputed item at a time starting with the name of the battle. That is going to be a DUE weight question where the NPOV.board could be helpful.
• Keep both articles for now, until this is resolved. Draftify if necessary, then merge Elinruby (talk) 10:33, 2 April 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. Salvio ^giuliano 22:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qarawal[edit]

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

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

The article Battle of Qarawal is on the same topic as Battle of Lahore (1764). The article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic which relies on only one source which basically is a translation of a contemporary source. Even the title of the article is incorrect as Qarawal is not a location but a strong contingent as mentioned in the source of the article itself. Also there are reliable sources by accredited historians that claim that the battle ended with both parties retiring at nightfall. Therefore, there was no victory for either party. Rather the battle was inconclusive. Javerine (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User @Javerine has went on a spin-off argument from the main deletion page request for his page at [20], Please read there for whoever handles this deletion request. Noorullah (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources do not mention what User Javerine is trying to potray with his page of Battle of Lahore (1764), further explained on the talk page of the Battle of Lahore itself,[21] and the deletion request I put up for it. Noorullah (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MISTAKES ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
  

MISTAKE 1: The source on the article Battle of Qarawal, clearly states that "When the army went to the battle-field, their camps, kitchens, families and servants known as Bahir-o~Bungah .were left in charge of a strong contingent, which was called Qarawal. * Jang Namah, 83." This is mention at the bottom on page number 201 [22].
MISTAKE 2: The article is strictly is based on one source which is basically a translation of contemporary source Jang Namah, written by Nur Muhammad who was brought along with his masters to record his master's campaign. And historian have called his source, though valuable, but bias, prejuidice, discriminatory, very one-sided and based on personal observation.
MISTAKE 3: Noorullah keeps repeating that the reliable sources on my article by accredited historians do not claim that "The battle ended with both parties retired at nightfall. Here are the source links for anyone to verify: Page 216 [23] by historian Hari Ram Gupta and here is another source, Page 299 [24] by historian Ganda Singh (historian).
So based on all above information, article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic and errors, including the outcome of the battle, which I have clearly stated as "Inconclusive" on Battle of Lahore (1764). User Noorullah clearly didn't study the sources on his article Battle of Qarawal and didn't make effort to study the sources on my article either. Javerine (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your point about the "Jang Namah" being an unreliable contemporary source also applies to every source you just listed? It is within the bottom of all the books you just posted that they follow the Jang Namah. As you can see with the following: [25] [26]

Also the same account is of Hari Singh Nawla's writing, though you are saying it as if it was another source, when it was the same writer. Noorullah (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not understading. Its what the historians analyze that is considered reliable by studying such contemporary sources. Jang Namah is considered valuable as it sheds light on events but you can see that historians when giving their own analysis, ignore the brava and prejudice observations, of a source, serving the master. Such as historian Ganda Singh said, "lts true that the Jang Nama, presents only one side piccture and that too from a bigoted crusader’s angle of vision. But that does not detract much from its historical value. In spite of his strong prejudice against the Sikhs, whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dogs of hell, accursed infidels, unclean idolaters, fire-worshippers, etc., his description of the character of the Sikhs of the eighteenth century is invaluable to the students of history. And its value is immeasurably enhanced when we know that it is from the pen of one of their worst enemies, who prayed to God and appealed to the crusaders to destroy them root and branch. In short, the book has a great significance as a comtemporary historical document for the history of Ahmad Shah and the Sikhs". So that we is why instead of directly drawing from contemporary source, we have to use secondary sources written by historians who based their findings, study and analysis of such contemporary sources to draw conclusion.Javerine (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this "quote" come from? You have completely made this quote without any citation? If you are also jumping between arguments about the Jang Nama.. calling it firstly "one-sided" and implying that it could not be trusted, then to now it could be because of its historical value?

Furthermore.. in those other sources it was just the Jang Nama cited? So how does that prove anything other then the contemporary source was used? The other part of Ram Gupta's source was a 1908 British Gazetter.

Regardless, I am not gonna respond further and let whoever handles the deletion requests to deal with this. Noorullah (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you trying to make an effort as I already provided the link before. Historian Ganda Singh's opinion on Jang Namah is on page 420 [27]. Yes its better for others to make decisions. Javerine (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide the citation or link to that page whatsoever during the course of this dispute. Noorullah (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the link before in the discussion with Ganda Singh's book. All you had to do was run a search. Javerine (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Run a search", for what? That's not the purpose of the argument, your supposed to back up what your saying with citations. Noorullah (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Noticed something very sneaky while the above discussion was going on. So Noorullah copied the source from article written by me Battle of Lahore (1764) and falsely attributed it on the article written by him Battle of Qarawal where it states that Qarawal is a location and where it states that "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." Here is the change he made [28] and here [29], when its clearly mentioned in the source that "It was a bitter contest and came to close only by nightfall". Here is for everyone to verify the source [30]. Also no where does the source mention Qarawal as a location, so why falsely attribute the source during this above discussion. I rest my case. Javerine (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't "copy the source", you complained about there not being enough sources on the page of Battle of Qarawal, as a result I added Singh's citations in the appropriate areas, including the area where it said about a nightfall. The former was Ram Gupta's.. and then Singh's SFN for the battle concluding at nightfall. I'm not sure why you are pretending this is something sneaky to slip in?

  It says "A Place Near Lahore" in the article, while Ram Gupta mentions reinforcements were sent to Qarawal, how is this falsely attributing? You are meant to assume good faith rather then put out accusations to such matters. Noorullah (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And so I quote "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." The then cited sources were Ram Gupta and Singh. Noorullah (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is just an observation but this AFD discussion has only existed for a couple of hours and it's already preoccupied with you two bickering. The more you argue with each other, the less likely that other editors will want to participate in this discussion. You need to offer your opinion and then step away and let other editors look over the content and sources and weigh in with their opinions. You need to make space for other participants. If this "discussion" just becomes you two talking to each other, it's likely to close with no decision being made at all. So think of what your goal is and act accordingly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd redirect to the 1764 battle as mentioned. No comment on the above "discussion", but please keep it related to the AfD being reviewed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since both articles don't need duplicate discussions, I have commented at Battle of Lahore (1764).  // Timothy :: talk  13:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments regarding merging (and if so to what?), redirecting, or simply deleting. Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lahore (1764).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per prior relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:35, 31 March 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. Aoidh (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Singh[edit]

Paul A. Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject appears not to meet WP:GNG. Previously prodded, and draftified and returned to mainspace without substantial improvement in source quality, so per WP:DRAFTOBJECT taking to AfD. All currently-cited sources comprise passing or trivial mentions. I was unable to find additional coverage of Paul Singh in academic sources or in news coverage (e.g. the British Newspaper Archive). Despite plentiful sources on the history of dashcam adoption, the subject appears not to have received significant coverage in those sources. Suriname0 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and United Kingdom. Suriname0 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Suriname, Happy to help out with your cutting research. I've just been over press cuttings in the Press Reader system, and there are several more press cuttings on Paul Singh which couldn't be included to the wikipedia references because they were print only.

  1. Yorkshire Post, Sept 2015 in an article entited "Footage Admissible in Court Due to Special Software" refers directly to Singh's SmartWitness camera footage which was now admissible in court as proof of fault in accidents and in insurance disputes. This was a major breakthrough for motoring disputes.
  2. Western Mail, May 2016 - reports on Singh's call for cameras to be compulsory for autonomous vehicles.
  3. Daily Star, reported Singh's findings that British trucking firms had been fined £60m in fines for having stowaways onboard coming back into the UK from the continent.
  4. Daily Express, July 2018 reported on Singh's findings that July 21, would be the busiest day on British roads and that motorists should be careful to avoid accidents.
  5. Daily Express, Oct 2018, reported on Singh's evidence on growing incidents of commuter road rage, especially between motorists and cyclists. I am happy to send you copies of all of these print cuttings if you like, or you can see them in the Press Reader search here - https://www.pressreader.com/search?query=%22paul%20singh%22%20smartwitness&in=ALL&date=Anytime&hideSimilar=0&type=2&state=2 So as you can see Singh's work on road safety goes back over years, and these sources are independent, varied and all refer to Paul Singh in person.

  Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Sean Matthew Obrien, unfortunately, none of those sources constitute significant coverage. The Yorkshire Post article doesn't mention Singh at all, and the other newspaper articles are trivial mentions. Per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Sources 2-4 would be perfectly acceptable reliable, secondary sources for verifying that Singh was CEO of SmartWitness, but don't meet the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note these five print newspaper sources are in addition to the other 12 digital sources cited. Also road safety and dashcams are seldom the topic of national newspapers so it's remarkable that there is this much coverage. Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the currently-cited digital sources have the same problems: not addressing Singh directly, or being trivial name-checks. One common piece of advice at AfD is WP:THREE: much less impressive than many low-quality sources are 2-3 high-quality sources with a depth of information. You're more likely to persuade commenters to vote Keep by giving them a small list of high-quality sources that demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Daily Star and Express aren't RS. Yorkshire post is meh. I don't see much more for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources for you. The Independent ran a piece on the SmartWitness campaign for children's road safety in 2016 . [31] AutoExpress ran a story about how SmartWitness was helping motorists with the steep rise in cash for crash incidents in 2014.[32] Another cash for crash incident was reported in Surrey Live in 2014.[33] Paul Singh also did research into how cash for crash hotspots were affecting car insurance premiums which appeared in Daily Mail. [34] and Fleet News [35] in 2014. I'm happy to add these to the wiki entry.

There are quite a few stories in Daily Mail online also about road safety, but I believe Wikipedia does not recognise DM online as source material. [36] Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These would be great, if they discussed Paul Singh directly and in depth. (Singh is not mentioned in any of the linked sources.) Are you aware of other reporting that directly discusses Singh and his role in this important research? Suriname0 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suriname0, all the work and campaigns of the SmartWitness company were driven by Paul Singh and were created by him. Some pieces quote him by name, but not all. That's journalistic style unfortunately but the company and everything that it did was driven by him. Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sean Matthew Obrien left an additional argument in favor of keeping the article on their user page. See here: User talk:Sean Matthew Obrien#Nomination of Paul A. Singh for deletion. Suriname0 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Oaktree b's assessment. It's not a matter of "journalistic style", significant coverage by reliable sources is very common for notable subjects. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^giuliano 21:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malaysian football transfers 2010[edit]

List of Malaysian football transfers 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable, sourced only to facebook and a blog Avilich (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Avilich (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, there's a whole category of these articles: Category:Lists of Malaysian football transfers. Ajf773 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this topic of football transfers can be notable, but this one doesn't look to be. GiantSnowman 10:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unreliable sources, one being a blog, the other Facebook. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if WP:RS aren't covering this specific topic, neither should we Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 7 April 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 undeletion of these articles. Salvio ^giuliano 21:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Claxton Shield team rosters[edit]

2008 Claxton Shield team rosters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

2009 Claxton Shield team rosters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Follow up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Claxton Shield team rosters. Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:NLIST. Non-notable list of players. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Australia. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only is this a non-notable list of players with zero sources cited, it includes a long list of DOB (date of birth) information for non-notable individuals, which violates their privacy and does not belong on Wikipedia. (The "External links" may suggest that that is where the information comes from, but this is also not easily verifiable when you look at those sites; in any case, the team rosters themselves aren't notable, and I would also note that the parent page 2008 Claxton Shield lacks sources as well and have tagged it as such.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:46, 7 April 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Mazurkiewicz (footballer)[edit]

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

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

Another draft objection. Thought he might be notable, as the one obit is of nice length and from a secondary source. The other 3 sources consist of a primary source and 2 database entries, so doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG. As I said, was sent to draft, but returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep 90minut.pl isn't a database (although it has one), its a news website, sport.pl is also a notable source. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Abcmaxx. Also definitely has offline sources, having played 10+ years for one of mosts successful Polish teams in the fully pro Polish top flight. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Offline, perhaps. I looked for Polish online sources (mentions in Google Books) and got nothing. Also, no pl wii article? (There's a draft, worse than ours: pl:Wikipedysta:Brudnopis gościnny/Andrzej Mazurkiewicz (piłkarz)). Current sources are stat pages and obituaries. I am not impressed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is sufficient coverage to show notability. GiantSnowman 10:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage is significant and passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of games containing time travel[edit]

List of games containing time travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:LISTN, a really poorly cited list of trivial WP:CRUFT. Recent discussion at WT:VG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pure overlistification, time travel is too common a trope to keep a comprehensive list of games featuring it. Pointless lists with a scope this large put a drain on Wikipedia editors' time and resources, when a category can accomplish it better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, covered in reliable sources, meets WP:LISTN, per the first nomination, and lists and categories should never be "put up" against each other but officially complement each other. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On what grounds are you asserting it meets LISTN? You've got to advance a rationale in how or this is just a WP:ITSNOTABLE stance. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", which this list fits well. And removing this list does not maintain Wikipedia, a policy requirement. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the normal application of LISTN. I do not find it persuasive. Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What? The application is one of the recognized routes listed in WP:LISTN. There is no "normal" and "not normal" application of these routes, they are all normal. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Usually LISTN is proven by providing reliable sources that cover the list grouping in significant detail, not just super-focusing in on the subjective claim that "it's useful" for navigation. And if vague allusions to "you can't delete this because deletion goes against maintaining the encyclopedia, which is policy" (or whatever you were trying to say at the end there) were valid, it'd be conceptually impossible to delete anything on Wikipedia. You could say that about virtually anything that isn't blatant vandalism. It's simply not how it works. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why editors are repeating the claim that this list topic is not covered in significant detail by reliable sources. Gamerant, CBR, TheGamer and ScreenRant are unquestionably RS, as far as I know, though I am less sure about Game Informer and Gaming Scan. In any event, the assertion that the topic of the list doesn't meet WP:LISTN seems to me not to be based on the actual deadline.

  (If editors are misunderstanding LISTN as saying that sources contributing to the Notability of the list topic must all be listing exactly the same set of entries as the WP list article - well, that just isn't the way Wikipedia list articles actually work.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, context matters - I was asking Randy to clarify his stance in this conversation thread, where, despite multiple responses, he's yet to present any examples. As for your sources, well, define "unquestionably reliable". See WP:VG/S. Game Informer is good, but many of the are tagged as "cannot be used to demonstrate notability" (GameRant/TheGamer) for churnalism/ low quality issues. Not exactly a batch of sources you want to write an article around. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I would think that Game Informer and CBR represent suffficient sourcing all on their own to meet WP:LISTN. I am curious to what extent either the nominator or any of the Delete !voters actually complied with WP:BEFORE. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ScreenRant is generally speaking fine when it comes to pure facts about entertainment (release dates and so on), but pretty much garbage when it comes to analysis. ScreenRant has never been a source to base an article on. TompaDompa (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect. LISTN states "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and this one also has independent notability (everyone, please read the first deletion attempt, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are suggesting that this serves a navigational purpose. I don't see it. Generally speaking we are talking about lists of things that would be too large for an article on a specific subject to include in that article. For instance, a list of games released on a video game console would be fine mostly because it has a defined notable tie between these items. If we include items in a list that are just items in a list like this, we might as well have list of video games with eggs in them or similar. Things having a similar plot device might be suitable for a category, but not a standalone list.

  Whats more, we all "travel through time" every day. I get that we are talking about having the ability to manipulate time in some way, but even the title doesn't make sense. Even if this were a navigational list (which it isn't), LISTN only says we can retain such lists - not that we should. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, categories and lists are two complementary ways of navigation on Wikipedia, and are mandated by policy to stand together and not be either-or (please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). The navigational purpose is obvious - games which contain time travel (and you know what this means, not that we travel through time every second but moving from one recognizable point in time to another by skipping other points in time). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What you say is true; they are complementary. However that doesn't mean that there must be a list for every category, only that there can be one. LISTN says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." and the notability of the grouping (ie "games containing time travel") still has not be demonstrated IMO. Nigej (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - obviously anything unverifiable should be stripped off the list (and I believe it has) but the topic itself meets LISTN and represents a good use of standalone list functionality. Newimpartial (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  what sources actually talk about this as a group for it to meet WP:LISTN?

  Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not seeing the relevant references in the current version of Time travel in fiction but I have read them before, so they exist. Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But every entry in the list is currently unsourced...? Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's possible that Newimpartial saw the version of the article that'd been culled of uncited claims, which were replaced by Randy Kryn as an April Fools?. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My point was that unverifiable claims needed to be excluded. Uncited != unverifiable. Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They are sourced at their links. If every blue-linked item on Wikipedia had to be sourced there would be few lists - Wikipedians are volunteers not employees and on blue-linked lists do not have to work to move a source from each entry to the list page. WP:COMMONSENSE. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NLIST. No indication that the topic (games containing time travel) "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Seems too general a topic to me. We could have all sorts of other daft "List of games containing ..." articles. What about ""List of games containing mentions of quantum physics". The list is endless. Nigej (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, noticing a kind of theme or trope in media, non actual WP:SIGCOV. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, except for the actual WP:RS on the topic of this list (such as the Game Informer and CBR sources I linked above), which do establish list notability. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. A video game Wiki would be a better home for such a list. TH1980 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Speaking only for myself, I recognize and appreciate that this list has a description column that explains exactly how time travel figures into each game's plot. This helps me distinguish between games that use time travel solely as a plot device, compared to ones that incorporate them into game mechanics. This is barefacedly an "WP:ITSUSEFUL" line of thinking, but it's also something that gives this list an advantage over a category. It's also completely true that most of the descriptions are WP:JUSTPLOT and virtually all unsourced to boot. Thus, I'm conflicted and uncomfortable falling on either 'keep' or 'delete'. I don't see a path forward for this list unless the 'keep' side is willing to put in some elbow grease to actually find sources that discuss time travel in games as a concept, rather than simply gesturing around and declaring that they exist (and y'know, also adding sources to each entry too, per WP:V, can't skip that either). I don't really have the bandwidth right now to do an in-depth search so I suppose here's a start: Critical Distance had time travel as the theme for their January issue. The rest I found are of the "listicle" type, although from quite reputable publications: RPS, VG247, Paste Mag, Inverse. Hope this helps someone. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed with the arguments above that this fails WP:LISTN as there are no reliable sources that discuss the concept as a group or set. I am also unconvinced that the number of blue links means its a valid navigation list, as argued in the No Consensus AFD from 15 years ago - you can essentially make any kind of "List of X that contains Y" that has a bunch of blue links, but that doesn't mean that it should be done or that such lists actually serve any actual navigational use. As the information here is extremely poorly sourced, then merging any information to any other related topic, such as Time travel in fiction, would not be recommended. Rorshacma (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are literally several links to sources that cover the topic in the sentence preceding your comment. Of course this serves a navigational purpose, for readers interested in video games about time travel. How else do you define "navigation" than providing links to similar topics? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The only link to an actual valid source that isn't a listicle or a literal game guide is the first one, which contains two articles on two very specific games - that is not a discussion of the concept as a group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I see a category fulfills this role. In this case, no source elaborates this topic as a whole, and the list just reads like a cherry-pick of the pages in this category, omitting a lot. MilkyDefer 14:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, sources exist and are linked above. Categories and lists officially complement each other on Wikipedia and in discussions shouldn't be set against an either-or atmosphere. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neither useful as a navigational tool nor informational. I believe it might be possible that an article about time travel mechanics in video games could be built, and then having a list atop that prose may be possible, but that prose-based article needs to exist first. --Masem (t) 15:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is both useful and informational for people interested in games about time travel. How is it not useful for those readers? (seriously, please explain, I don't get that mindset) Deleting a good list page because a prose article could also be written throws out the baby without bathwater even being in the bath. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining. Time travel is common in fiction, and even more in games where the player might repeat sections. Maybe there are sources for an article about time travel in video games, but the list would be far too long, subjective, and indiscriminate. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overly broad. Also, I politely suggest that Randy Kryn reads WP:BLUDGEON. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the politeness. In this case I've addressed specific reasons people are using to delete the page which, if they had read this page, the sources found during the discussion, and the important comments present in the first deletion attempt, they may not have used their particular lines of argument which, I believe, have been adequately countered. Sometimes, not always or even often, that approach is needed in a deletion discussion in which a point-of-views exists that believes that maintaining the encyclopedia would be better served by keeping a page and, if so, that policy instructs us to do so. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of time travel works of fiction: While this list doesn't currently seem viable as a standalone entry, I think it would be better served as a section of that article. A prose article about time travel as a game mechanic may be viable, and for that reason I believe this list's contents should be kept around in some form. At the very least, I would support draftifying it. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment and then I'll leave this page to its fate. RadioactiveBoulevardier, please, in good faith, come back and re-read the page (unless you read it all, understood the flow of the discussion, noticed that sources had been found and cited, read the first deletion discussion which were pointed to within this discussion, and typed your comment within a two-minute window). Editors at deletion discussion are the jury of pages which fellow Wikipedians created and worked upon. Deletion juries should really take the time needed to study the viewpoints and evolving discussion before going on to the next deletion discussion. Okay, I'm outta here. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I’ve read it.

By the way, I’m only an occasional visitor to AfD and generally don’t go through the lists one by one and “move on to the next”.

The no-consensus AfD is from fifteen years ago, and since then, perhaps a clearer community consensus has developed about notability and other things. The arguments there seemed ever so slightly amateurish in how they were phrased.

As for the articles you cited, I don’t see how they’re different in purpose from “The 20 Best Games Containing Princesses/Knights/Castles/Whatever”.

I think that subjectively this is a borderline case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I also agree with Masem, Milkydefer, and Shooterwalker. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per my above comments on NLIST. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for a variety of reasons. I don't feel like the sources provided are ideal to demonstrate grouping games this way (as Randy put it, it tends to come off as listicles or just articles about time travel as a game mechanic). Another issue is that the article is likely going to be gigantic, as the parameters allow for many games that aren't already listed. Off the top of my head, there are two Yoshi games with time travel, Tracer from Overwatch can time travel as a core mechanic, and basically any DBZ game that has Future Trunks deals with time travel. It's about as notable as "List of video games featuring princesses." It's a good category, but not a good list. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^giuliano 21:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian (mixed ancestry)[edit]

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

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

Article makes a strong start by getting the definition for Eurasian wrong in the very first sentence and never recovers from there. I don't think this article is worth saving. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this article is at best a wp:synth disaster—blindlynx 19:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Synthesis-laden article about an archaic term, which was not notable even in the era when it was in common use; nothing substantive to be found. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a note to preserve some sort of version to be used as a textbook example of when TNT is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  should i revert my blanking of the disastrous Central Asia section of the article so we can keep it as an example? —blindlynx 20:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  we can just grab the version from prior to your salvage attempt if we want to, so I don't think that's neccesary. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TNT. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as absurd. A bizarre concoction of multiple unrelated topics, laced with the remnants of racist pseudoscience, thrown together by contributors (sadly, there seems to have been more than one) who have taken Humpty Dumpty's approach to the alleged topic: When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. "Bizarre concoction" indeed sums it all up. And there is nothing salvageable even in the case of genuine social groups that formed as a result of racist colonial policies in the past (e.g. Filipino mestizos or Kristang people), because we a) already have useful articles about them, so there is no need for pisspoor content forks (those galleries!) plus b) assembling them here into a broad article only works under the POV of racial essentialism, as these groups are not "biologically" linked. –Austronesier (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The premise of the article (The term has been used in anthropological literature since the 1960s.) can't be supported by a source from 1960. It seems bizarre and inappropriate to list all of these living people with their photos as examples of what appears to be a long-obsolete racial category, Rjjiii (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's too much inherent WP:SYNTH in the premise of this article for it to ever be coherent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• User-draftify and salt There is no way this exact page should exist, but there is a lot of sourced information that may be useful at one of the many articles noted as main articles for subsections of this one, such as Anglo-Indian people or Multiracial people. Sennalen (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting variation of "Merge", since it means to distribute the salvageable material to various articles. I don't disagree with that if there's really something that is still lacking in the main articles. I only looked at the SE Asia part and couldn't really find anything, but it might be different in other sections. Draftifying without the option of restoring the page might help to prune through it without haste. –Austronesier (talk) 19:26, 4 April 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 Bangladeshi cuisine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylheti cuisine[edit]

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

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. None of the sources in this article point towards a distinct Sylheti cusine; rather they talk about certain dishes which originate from the Sylhet district or happen to be popularly eaten in Sylhet. There is no source which mentions Sylheti cuisine to be notable in its own right. The article is also poorly written, and mentions unrelated content such as pop culture and information about nutrition. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: @Guffydrawers: has also noted the numerous issues with the article, particularly the vague phrasing and inappropriate and misrepresentative usage of sources. A similar article by the name of Chittagonian cuisine was also deleted for similar reasons here. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: I propose that any valid, relevant & sourced information be merged into Bangladeshi_cuisine#Sylhet_Division and that the article Sylheti cuisine then be trimmed to only contain a redirect to the Bangladeshi cuisine article (not the subsection, as that may change). Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per norm. Mehedi Abedin 21:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 14 and Bangladesh. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Assam. Skynxnex (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can those who have !voted discuss their positions further? @UserNumber: Are you okay with merge as an WP:ATD? @Guffydrawers: Any input about which information might be valid, relevant & sourced? @Mehediabedin: What "norm" did you mean, or did you mean "nom" (although they recommended delete)? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The google translation from Bengali of the title of the second ref is "Fisphas Kitchen - Sylhet Cuisine," so There is no source which mentions Sylheti cuisine to be notable in its own right is false. I haven't checked the translations of the other Bengali refs, but I've fixed a few of them because there's quite a lot of link rot. small jars tc 21:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the fixes. To be fair, the title you mentioned[37] is of a self-published blog by a non-expert, so not a reliable source. I've removed it from the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Worldbruce: Sorry for my mistake. Actually I told to merge it because what the nominator suggested. And yes it is "nom" but I wrote "norm". But I didn’t suggest delete because maybe many pages have link with this article. Mehedi Abedin 02:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Worldbruce: "input about which information might be valid, relevant & sourced" I'm gradually working my way through the article, checking refs, simplifying and correcting. What remains when I'm done should be worth considering for retention. I'm trying not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so care rather than haste. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have completed a rework of the article to remove junk, dead or irrelevant refs, enforce encyclopedic tone, translate relevant text from Bengali sources into English and more. The article is a lot thinner, so I continue to propose that what is left be merged into Bangladeshi_cuisine#Sylhet_Division in order to make this article a redirect to there. Sylheti cuisine is IMHO worthy of a section within the article on Bangladesh, but not so different to merit a separate article on English WP. Regards Guffydrawers (talk)
  • ...but I see the Bangladeshi cuisine article has some of the same issues that will need addressing before we have a rounded and robust treatment of the subject.Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Salvio ^giuliano 21:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rozalia Sultangareeva[edit]

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

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

Can't find enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There isn't an article in Russian? No, but there is one in Bashkortian! I didn't know the place, or language existed, let alone that it had a WP! Now I do - and I also know that outside very specific limited interest to a Bashkortian audience, the subject is not notable and does not pass WP:GNG. But interesting, nevertheless... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bashkir folklore appears to be a very low-citation subject, but if you search Google scholar for Султангареева rather than Sultangareeva you will see 185 citations for "Семейно-бытовой обрядовый фольклор башкирского народ" and 116 for "Жизнь человека в обряде: фольклорно-этнографическое исследование башкирских семейных обрядов" (as well as many less-cited works). I think in this subject that may be enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article would certainly benefit from some cleanup, but generally I do not have any problem. The subject seems to have an impact in their field, got some coverage on the state level, some media coverage, got an article by an academic publisher entirely covering her activity, looks good enough for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 2 April 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 Richard Marazano. Aoidh (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.M. (comics)[edit]

S.A.M. (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This comic is not notable, and the article does not include any source. The page is also barely unorphaned, with only the author and the disambiguation page Sam linking to it. BenzoAid (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. BenzoAid (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author’s page, which admittedly doesn’t look that great either. If there are any sources for this they’re probably in French which makes improvement difficult and unlikely even if they’re found. Dronebogus (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. BenzoAid (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I was asked to give my view on this as I haven't been involved in the article. But according to WP:NBOOK it's notable if it's "has won a major literary award". According to the article it has won two awards. I don't know if they are notable or not. But there are no sources listed and that's a problem. // Liftarn (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you were automatically invited to the AfD discussion because you made the 2nd edit on the page, back in 2004. Sorry for that BenzoAid (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the Angoulême International Comics Festival award, while the festival itself is major, the award is not, and shows 0 results on Google. The 2nd award does not give any results either, meaning the awards are likely very minor. They're both from the same year as well. So I can't find any sources, and original research is forbidden per WP:NOR. So yeah... BenzoAid (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Richard Marazano. I failed to find any suitable sources to support an article, only ones that confirm this existed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Funny thing is that Richard Marazano is in AfD because Marazano wrote his own article. It also looks like a promotional article or phising scam. So if both AfDD's pass, then the redirect will be broken. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 09:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd redirect this article but the target article is now also at AFD so I'm relisting in case anyone has a Plan B.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Richard Marazano per above.  // Timothy :: talk  04:44, 8 April 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 English cricketers (1826–1840)#L. Salvio ^giuliano 21:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lenton[edit]

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

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

I cannot find anything that pushes this person over WP:GNG. It's possible that sources are hard to find because he passed away in 1870 and played in the 1820s-1840s, but I can find little to attest to notability or to much of his life other than his playing cricket and some associated statistics. I would normally PROD, but I feel that there might be something out there that leads to this person being notable only because his playing a first-class cricket match in both 1828 and 1841 as attested to on cricinfo means he has a shot at notability as a 14 year playing career isn't normally for players who barely played, but cricinfo only has him playing 2 matches over those 14 years. TartarTorte 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. TartarTorte 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of English cricketers (1826–1840)#L Doesn't seem to be enough to pass GNG (although there may well be coverage in past papers). However there is a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Rugbyfan22. RobinCarmody (talk) 12:42, 1 April 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 Indian Premier League. Salvio ^giuliano 21:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies involving the Indian Premier League[edit]

Controversies involving the Indian Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is just a random collection of things that have happened, not a NPOV, encyclopedic article. The "Other scandals" is in violation of WP:BLPCRIME, by accusing people of things that they haven't been charged for, the "Rule Break" section is just a couple of minor, arbitrary incidents, "Incidents of physical assaults on players" section is about players and not really related to the IPL itself. Any encyclopedic content can be added to other IPL articles, but we don't need this article with tons of absolutely non-encyclopedic content. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose How can you say that the assault and bullying controversies are individual and not related to IPL? The player's sequrity is IPL's responsibility amid IPL, It was happened during IPL. If you don't agree with sub-headings you can change it. main article already too lengthy and if we merged this stuff in it, it'll be more lengthy.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A selective merge of a very small amount of encyclopedic content would be fine. Must of this article is WP:NPOV junk that should be deleted. WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME override WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Very selective merge to Indian Premier League. There's some information here that can be merged, but most of it is excessive and violates WP:NPOV. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Hi, If anyone feeling that something in this article breaking WP policy, then you should open a discussion here on talk page. We'll remove or alter it after reaching analysing. I think the intrested editors do not that someone is trying to delete or merge this article in IPL. You should paste notices at 'Wikiproject IPL, Cricket, IPL article about it. Let them know, many of them will discuss, vote here.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been appropriately listed in Sports, Cricket, and India, and appears in the article alerts for WikiProject Cricket: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Article alerts. Hi, If anyone feeling that something in this article breaking WP policy, then you should open a discussion here on talk page. We'll remove or alter it after reaching analysing. is not how AFD works. The article has to demonstrate the need to exist, as per WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT, and the WP:BLPCRIME issues in this article are also unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Liz's suggestion of a very selective merge to Indian Premier League. This article has no good reason to exist. By shoving all the "controversies" over here, we give undue weight to smaller ones, and may keep larger ones from receiving proper coverage in the main article. Also relevant to this discussion may be the guidelines on point-of-view forking. Wracking ^💬 22:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Now I also think it should be de deleted or merged.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:52, 7 April 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. Salvio ^giuliano 21:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3D Control Systems[edit]

3D Control Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage of the company itself (rather than its product called 3DPrinterOS). MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 31 March 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake[edit]

List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The aftershocks listed in this article are not notable as a group as required by WP:NOTESAL, a few individual events are but the vast majority are not and neither is the group being discussed in sources, apart from mentions in passing of the sort "there were x aftershocks in the first y days after the mainshock". All earthquakes that are at least moderately large have aftershocks, so nothing unusual about that. The project has only two such lists, List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and List of aftershocks of the April 2015 Nepal earthquake, both much shorter than this one and their notability has been questioned. The notability of any such lists was considered in the RfC in 2018, Talk:Lists of earthquakes/Archive 2#Are lists of earthquake aftershocks ever notable?, the result of which was summarised as "Lists of aftershocks selected by any arbitrary criteria are deemed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of trivia and generally discouraged, unless the list itself, as established and discussed by a reliable source, is notable" Mikenorton (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Syria, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of aftershocks of the April 2015 Nepal earthquake

List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake

If we're gonna delete that, then lets delete these too and any other aftershock lists for any other articles.

Lets just delete every list page too while we're at it. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, my stance is as follows:

The aftershocks always got significant media attention.

Significant information is being lost by removing this.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be invoked to justify deleting Wikipedia or any other page.

A person could read this and get a bigger picture or y'know, if you think it needs more info, then add it.

The other articles are precedent and that they have not been deleted despite numerous "questionings" of their notability by minimalists is proof in and of itself of its notability.

Information is being lost by removing this, or the others, and significant information at that.

Strongly oppose. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but limits to 5.0. I think the 7.5 and the 6.3 aftershock are notable in its own right as the 6.3 aftershock in February 20 has some RSs covering it. However, most of the aftershocks (4.0->5.0) are not notable, and the 43 aftershocks which is 5.0+ is enough to be notable for the article. Thingofme (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Lets change it to 5.0+ then DarmaniLink (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. [1] meets NLIST by amount of coverage in the press. [2] Legitimate SPINOFF of 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake. [3] Do limit to magnitude 5.0 and greater, as Thingofme suggests. This way something good will roll out of the nomination. gidonb (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage establishes that WP:NLIST is met, and splitting this content from the large article about the earthquake itself is worthwhile. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^giuliano 22:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Accessibility Specialist[edit]

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

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

Not notable. A stub since it was created in 2005, probably a permastub. It was apparently an orphan from its creation until 2018, and the only incoming links now are from a "see also" section and the disambiguation page Ras.

No plausible redirect target. Un assiolo (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Texas. Un assiolo (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete All I find are articles that use the title when describing a person. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's basically just a dicdef, there's simply not much to say about the subject beyond "it exists". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essentially a run-of-the-mill dictionary definition of a job title. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Secard[edit]

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

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

Despite her admirable efforts beginning at the age of 8 to solve human suffering, Secard seems to have almost entirely avoided receiving in-depth coverage to meet GNG, with the possible exception of one article in an iffy paper that seems to have ceased publication by 2008. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I cast a large net for sources on EBSCO, Newsbank, and Newspapers.com. She comes up in a number of passing US newspaper mentions as "She's hosting a book signing" with zero commentary about herself, basically just advertisements for her appearances. She also appears as a passing mention in this article about how she lobbied the local arts district in her town to paint some stairs ([38]). A clear !delete. Nomader (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any sources other than those already discussed. (Which is a shame, because I really wanted to find out what she hoped to accomplish with the lions.) Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promo. Large blocks of unsourced text and flowery wording, I can't find much of anything about this individual. The name is too common to find anything for her alone. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since the text is nothing more than a promotional piece of work, with a sprinkle of vanity prose. Whence notability? Nowhere. It certainly does not grow in monoculture trees. -The Gnome (talk) 18:10, 5 April 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} 08:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David McIlroy[edit]