< October 19	October 21 >

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISA World Junior Surfing Games Ecuador[edit]

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

This article is ostensibly about a junior surfing competition held in Ecuador in 2009, yet it barely mentions the event (and would not be titled that way anyway). Instead, the article is a collection of scattered facts about Surfing in Ecuador, which an article already exists for. There also seems to be a lot of WP:OR, not to mention that the "Surfing in Ecuador" section is plagiarized from the article of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ecuador. JTtheOG (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITQAN (Corporate Provider)[edit]

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

No refs and fails WP:CORP. Uhooep (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:A7 and WP:G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 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. – Joe (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Boulton[edit]

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

No inherently notable political position held. Fails WP:NPOL. Uhooep (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – she seems to meet WP:GNG. This Press & Journal article or this BBC article is certainly good enough (they cover the same event). This Press & Journal article should also qualify, and there's other similar articles in both BBC and Press & Journal which go into some detail about her. The best I can find outside those two newspapers is this from Aberdeen Live, which I think does contribute some, but the BBC coverage was already enough to push me over the edge. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She may fail WP:NPOL, but she passes WP:GNG, as proven by Skarmory. FatCat96 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG---Tumbuka Arch^★_★^★ 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG per existing references.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: though material from at least that BBC article really ought to be added (yes, I know...). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Collegiate Baseball League[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. There is no indication of independent coverage beyond routine game coverage. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, United States of America, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike some of the other collegiate summer leagues that have been nominated for deletion, the ACBL has a long and distinguished history dating back to the 1960s and has received tons of coverage, more than enough to pass WP:GNG. A search of Newspapers.com turns up more than 11,000 hits. E.g., this, this, this, this, this, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: Some of the other noms appear to have merit, but (as shown above) this one does not. Would you consider withdrawing this one so that we can place effort into more meritorious cases? Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pr sources mentioned by Cbl62. Spanneraol (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple sources noted here by Cbl62 constitute more than enough WP:SIGCOV needed. User:Let'srun 03:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources provided above by Cbl62 provide WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG, many times over. Suggest including newspapers.com in most WP:BEFOREs, would save everyone else a lot of time. Jacona (talk) 00:16, 27 October 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 Life TV Media. The other articles were not bundled and can be handled editorially or via another XfD, if needed. Star Mississippi 23:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Life TV[edit]

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Please state a true reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 21:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Not notable" is number 8. in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#REASON Chidgk1 (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still not acceptable; please properly expand your reasoning beyond that short statement. Nate • (chatter) 16:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, I would not oppose merging/redirecting Life TV, Life 24, Life Showcase TV, and Life One into Life TV Media. The articles sorely need references, and there are no hits for "Life TV Media" in ProQuest. Even Digital Spy has few references to offer aside from those in Life TV Media. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A fuller deletion rationale, beyond two words, would be appreciated, one that indicated that a BEFORE had been completed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other articles about the same company. There seems to be a few incidents of note on Ofcom's site that could be used to expand the articles too. TubularWorld (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Life TV Media per User:TubularWorld|TubularWorld]] Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 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. It does not seem like a consensus is likely to develop. No prejudice against re-nomination for deletion after a time. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Nous[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence that any of the sources are both independent and reliable. It really doesn't matter what the subject says about itself and no matter how many sources mention it or quote its contributor, that still doesn't make for notability. This feels like one person's promotion of (their own?) web-site Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Websites. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The WP:REFBOMBing is a strong indication that there are no references that have all three of the qualities we require. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I increased (and then, following the advice of another Wikipedia editor, decreased somewhat) the number of references so as to address the concern raised in the earlier (2021) deletion discussion. I don't think what I've engaged in is "refbombing." The refbombing page warns against citing esteemed sources in vague ways so as to create the illusion of notability. I didn't do that. Rather, I directly quote the New York Times calling Daily Nous "a popular philosophy news website" and cite Inside Higher Ed and The Baffler similarly. The references currently numbered 8-18 are specifically identified as examples of citations to Daily Nous in popular and academic writing, so as to substantiate the specific claims made in the text about how Daily Nous is used by others.

Let me add here something I said in another discussion, in case it is useful. I had previously included among the references a Quillette article that was mainly about a Daily Nous discussion. I see that this reference was removed by an editor in June because Quillette is not considered reliable; however, Quillette was not being cited to establish any particular fact; rather, it was cited as an example of an article about Daily Nous. I would argue for reinserting that reference.

More generally, as someone who doesn't do much on Wikipedia, I'll admit that I may be unfamiliar with some of its norms. But I would appreciate it if others refrained from making unsavory assumptions about the character of my actions . I'm putting forward a good faith effort to follow the rules and standards here in regard to a subject that I think is appropriate for a Wikipedia page. If I'm mistaken about that, so be it. But I'm not trying to trick anyone with misleading descriptions or illegitimate or too many references. Justin Weinberg (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources provided don't show that the subject passes WP:NCORP, the relevant notability guideline. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite a large number of references, they all appear to be either passing mentions or primary sources. I couldn't access a few of the paywalled sources; however, these are all supporting the claim that Daily Nous has been cited by writers and media outlets... and by scholars, which strongly implies that the references contain only passing mentions to the website. Happy to be corrected by anyone with access the these sources; until then, this fails GNG. WJ94 (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...however, these are all supporting the claim that Daily Nous has been cited by writers and media outlets... and by scholars, which strongly implies that the references contain only passing mentions to the website." That's correct. Those references (currently numbered 8-18) are only there to support the claim about how material at Daily Nous is used by others. With the exception of #11, they are not substantially about Daily Nous. Justin Weinberg (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. As the creator of the article (and, judging by your username, the editor of the blog), do you know of any additional references which discuss the blog in the level of detail required by our notability policy? WJ94 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm the editor of Daily Nous. I haven't checked for new articles lately, but there's this: https://archive.ph/20230503004909/https://quillette.com/2023/05/02/philosophys-gender-taboo-takes-cete/ and this: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html .

There may also be some academic works that do so but it may take me a few days to get the chance to look through them Justin Weinberg (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On p. 126 of Dan Demetriou, "Learning All the Wrong Lessons," in T. Allan Hillman & Tully Borland (eds.), Dissident Philosophers: Voices Against the Political Current of the Academy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 123-140 (2022), Demetriou (a philosophy professor) calls Daily Nous "a major philosophy industry blog." Roscopcoaltrain (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might as well recycle what I said the last time around: It is a high-profile website within the philosophy community (and is even cited in the more formal literature), but finding secondary sources about it and its history might be difficult. The academic citations to it, the mentions the news [1][2], and its use in 189 pages here all suggest that we should say something about it. In other words, it's plausible that a reader will come across the name of the website and want to know what kind of website it is, and we'd be serving the public interest if we had a few lines on the topic. Is there a viable merge target? University of South Carolina#Media seems like an odd fit, but not impossible. Category:Philosophy blogs doesn't have a main article, but if it did, this article could become a section in it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Wikipedia search results that XOR'easter provided show that the blog is useful as a source of philosopher obituaries and academic industry news, but as a subject it does not appear to be notable enough for an article. I would say this is one of many blogs that are well run and useful but not notable. I also tend to think of this in terms of WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Wikipedia is not a directory of blogs, and there's nothing that makes this article more than a directory listing, nothing worth saying or reading about the article's subject. Biogeographist (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This site is subject-specific notable to folks interested in academic philosophy. I would further submit for consideration that the notability criteria are perhaps being here applied with unusual stringency because the article was created – albeit, entirely transparently – by its editor. As far as I am concerned, however, WP:IAR trumps WP:WIKILAWYERING any day. The only people who find this will be people explicitly looking for it. (I have never met or communicated with the editor, nor have I ever published anything on the site except – I genuinely can't remember – perhaps to comment on someone else's contribution.) The number of mentions in major journalistic outlets and peer-reviewed journals establishes SSN even if no major publication has devoted a feature to the existence of the site. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PatrickJWelsh: said: This site is subject-specific notable to folks interested in academic philosophy. Well, that's easily refuted: I'm very interested in academic philosophy, and I don't see how Daily Nous passes the relevant SNGs; furthermore, there is no SNG "to folks interested in academic philosophy"—WP:ORG or WP:WEB would be the relevant SNGs. The number of mentions in major journalistic outlets and peer-reviewed journals establishes SSN: no, according to the guidelines, quantity of mentions is not the criterion. And I don't think the accusation of wikilawyering is helpful here: show us some qualifying coverage of the subject or award for the subject and I'll change my !vote; there's no "unusual stringency" here. Biogeographist (talk)

I guess I would just like to see this decision argued first in terms of the value (or the contrary) to potential readers and only second in terms of WP:ACRONYMs. (No disrespect to anyone involved, all of whom seem genuinely to be contributing to the discussion in good faith—only querying whether we are all starting with the right question.)

I take myself here to be echoing XOR'easter.

That said, this is not a hill upon which I care to die.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question; I don't currently see the value of it for readers. I think someone said it well in the previous deletion discussion: if we don't have good sources, what could we really say about the blog that its about page doesn't? Apparently nothing, but I'd be happy to see someone show otherwise if possible. Biogeographist (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everything here is subject to deletion if not sourced, which is not the case on the site's "About" page. Likewise, any unflattering coverage could be expected to be reported here in a way that it probably would not on the site.

I'm not claiming this is a knock-down argument. At present, however, this article is just an overly sourced, innocuous stub. I stand by my vote in favor of leaving it be. It would be nice to be able to Wikilink to the article if the site were ever used as a source for other articles (which it probably already is). Also, if the site publishes anything independently worthy of coverage, it would be good to have a base from which to elaborate.

I've added a banner flagging it as created by someone with a close connection to the subject and also inviting criticism along this line on the talk page. That's where I would leave it.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we cite something on Daily Nous (which we conceivably might, per WP:SPS), we could link to an article here in ways that we can't link to an About page over there. We can also include negative information that their About page wouldn't (say, if a particular story they run draws a lot of controversy). And we can keep track of changing information in ways that they might not bother to, e.g., changes of editorship. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's a shame that there aren't more sources discussing the blog, but at this point there isn't much to support a full encyclopedia article. If there are sources available, an article could be made for Justin Weinberg himself and Daily Nous mentioned there, or it could be merged into University of South Carolina#Media per XOReaster. Are there any other possible merge locations? I think information on this somewhere would be useful for readers, even if it doesn't have its own standalone article. Shapeyness (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shapeyness I take this comment in good faith and don't mean to aim my reply at you specifically, but at this line of thinking in general: this weird sleight-of-hand we often do to try to find the most plausible redirect target when there really isn't anything reasonable is something we do for nonsense bureaucracy reasons and not out of good editorial sense. People are far more likely to be looking up Daily Nous than they are to be looking up Justin Weinberg. (Sorry @Justin Weinberg - but you'd agree, right?) Almost certainly no one will find themselves thinking "hm, what was that philosophy blog called, that one that's hosted by the University of South Carolina?" I'm all for condensing topics into one article where that's really the best way to handle them, but this ain't it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem asilvering. I get your point but I think I disagree. People are probably more likely to search for Daily Nous than Justin Weinberg yes (and definitely University of South Carolina media!), but those people are no less well-served by a redirect which takes them directly to a section that contains the information they're looking for in a broader article. Indeed, they may be better served. If, for example, searches for the Daily Nous were redirected to a section in an article on Justin Weinberg, now readers are no longer just getting a few sentences on how the Daily Nous is a popular and well-regarded philosophy blog with citations in and outside of academia, they are also getting some background information on the editor of that blog, his expertise and work etc. This could be included in this article, except for the fact that there is little information on the blog itself to include and the article would end up disproportionately leaning towards details about Weinberg himself. I would also like to disagree that this is all merely bureaucratic - how and where to present information is an ordinary editorial decision that all encyclopedias must make. And many encyclopedias do have "redirects" whose entries merely point readers to another broader subject. I don't see any problem doing the same here given the lack of information which could very easily be included elsewhere. Shapeyness (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have no issue with redirects. It's redirects to the "smaller" topic (eg Weinberg) that I find bizarre. -- asilvering (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned above in comments, this is a well-known source that we may well cite in Wikipedia articles, and it is helpful for readers to have an article, even a stub, to be wikilinked to. The references on the article clearly demonstrate notability in the normal (ie, non-wikipedia-specific) usage of the term; I doubt you'll find many people in academic philosophy who haven't heard of it. I don't find "not enough information for an encyclopedia article" to be a persuasive argument, since stubs exist both here and in traditional encyclopedias. -- asilvering (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Scholar results indicate that it is cited in the academic literature and recognized as a place where discussions about the philosophy profession happen. XOR'easter (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Site is significant in academic philosophy, and its notability is evident in mentions across journalism and scholarly journals. as per WP:SPS Google Scholar recognizes it as a hub for philosophy discussions,1, 2 etc. Dcotos (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted in a first AFD two years ago but this time there is no Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above by Dcotos. It is a notable topic. Deletion is not appropriate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:41, 27 October 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 Capital intensity#Capital-intensive industry. Star Mississippi 23:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capital intensive industry[edit]

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

Mostly dictionary definition and completely unsourced Chidgk1 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly move to draft. The article currently is obviously not suitable, but a cursory JSTOR search gives plenty of papers mentioning the concept, so it is likely notable. I don't have the energy to rewrite it at this moment, but it is something that can be done. Fermiboson (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Capital intensity#Capital-intensive industry. Rewrite can begin there spun out if necessary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capital intensity#Capital-intensive industry, where the term is given coverage. It seems rational to cover this topic within the scope of an article on capital intensity; should the coverage become too large, it can be split back out into its own article, but right now it's better covered as a section of an article on the broader concept. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:21, 27 October 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 Accusation. RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal accusation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just a dictionary definition Chidgk1 (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear-cut case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. TH1980 (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to accusation, which already covers this topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated by TH1980, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jacona (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, Merge to accusation is also an acceptable outcome, IMO. — Jacona (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to accusation per Thebiguglyalien and WP:ATD. The current content of the article is a dicdef, but the concept can be developed in greater depth. BD2412 T 03:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to accusation per Thebiguglyalien Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:04, 27 October 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 Big L. ✗plicit 01:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

L Corleone[edit]

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

All sources used are unreliable according to WP:RSP. These sources include MusicBrainz, Album of the Year, Rate Your Music, Last.fm, Genius, and other, non-trivial sources.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'd redirect to the article about the singer; most coverage is now about his estate launching a line of clothing, the album is mentioned. I can't find critical analysis of the album. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big L per WP:ATD. I was unable to locate nothing but passing mentions on this album.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse-based turn system[edit]

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

Might be original research Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject likely fails WP:GNG. Searching for sources is made slightly difficult by the game with the name "Impulse"; however, even with extensive searching I was unable to find any secondary sources that discuss this game mechanic. (There is discussion about it on BoardGameGeek, however, per WP:BGS, that does not constitute a reliable source, as it's user-based.) There are game mechanics that have secondary reporting -- see what is a deck building game and what is an area control game. Greatpopcorn (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure there has been meaningful sourced discussion on the pros and cons of impulse-based "initiative" systems. I've certainly had those discussions a number of times (with different people) and I recall reading about them back in the 1900s (that's fun to say). But I can't find anything. Of course, I played Champions, Car Wars and SFB, and I imagine the intersection of folks that played all those is vanishingly small... Hobit (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only found the term used in game descriptions. Lacks SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the only sources I've been able to find are other wikis and forums; doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:31, 26 October 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. Star Mississippi 23:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Dust (band)[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not pass WP:BAND under any criterion. Does not pass GNG either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Christianity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Cross Rhythms and CCM (magazine) already referenced in the article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources. This piece is clearly significant coverage here. Havent done a full search yet, imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:BAND and for GNG, coverage must be multiple. Have you found anything beyond that Cross Rhythms coverage? I didn't. (I don't think the CCM review counts as it is not clearly independent nor significant). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the CCM source isn't great, other coverage here,here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A analysis of sources brought into this discussion by Atlantic306 would be helpful in determining whether or not this band passes GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 20 October 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. Star Mississippi 23:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Cravity[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO under any criterion. Not a GNG pass either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Christianity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the inclusion of "Believe" at number 37 on the Hot Christian Songs chart valid for notability? WP:MUSICBIO suggests that a chart position on a national chart is a point for notability, and Hot Christian Songs is listed as an "acceptable" chart on the chart notability page.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an acceptable chart for a mention in the article, yes, but it is not a country's national music chart. So no, not a notability pass per WP:MUSICBIO. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was, we still need RS to arrive at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep haven't done a full search yet but he does have an AllMusic bio here which shows that he was contracted to Universal Music as a songwriter. Regarding the charting as well as the Christian charts the most significant charting is position 11 on the billboard heatseekers chart which covers all music genres and is just below the main Billboards album chart, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage here, here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't access the AllMusic site through our vpn at work, this from Billboard is not extensive, but it's something. [3] Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything extra for this person. I don't think the three sources above are RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. An examination of further sources on this article subject mentioned by Atlantic306 would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the nom, I am not sure my view will be enough to swing this from a quiet no consensus. But looking at the sources, there are four proposed.

There is no consensus on reliabilility of All Music [4] at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The piece is a short bio. If this was generated off a publicity drive it wouldn't be independent. I am not convinced it is significant. I don't believe this one counts towards SIGCOV.
[5] appears to be a Wordpress blog, and I am not familiar with it. However, it lists 4 staff writers which may speak to an editorial process. All the same, the review here does not come from a staff writer, although they have provided a number of the reviews and one might guess based on names that they could be related to a staff writer. I don't believe this meets SIGCOV threshold.
[6] Cross Rhythms is specialist in the sub culture, but reliable. Except that Stephen Curry's review there has a disclaimer: "The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms". That suggests a submitted review.
[7] I don't know this site, but there are a lot of reviews and effort has been taken over it. They don't describe their editorial poilciy, but I note that they tak review submissions: [8] saying "let us review your Music." If they only review aftter a review submission, then the review is not independent.

So in summary, I am not sure any of these count towards SIGCOV, but even if we let Cross Rhythms pass, we would not be in multiple territory. The fact is that anyone touring the Christian Music circuit will solicit and thus garner a few reviews in Christian music sites, but these are not the sources that demonstrate notability per WP:MUSICBIO. What we need is an independent publication that sat up and took notice. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with @Oaktree b: as all of the sources I provided are reliable sources. The three christian music sources are listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources and AllMusic is regarded as reliable by most music editors hence its inclusion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Also. it no longer seems to have an entry at the perennial sources list. In any case the fact that the artist charted on a non-genre Billboard chart should give him some leeway in my opinion,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding WP:NMUSIC he clearly passes criteria 2 with a charting on a national music chart particularly one that is not genre specific. Also I don't see any mention that genre specific reliable sources should be ignored or not counted, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Music is still there. See WP:ALLMUSIC. No consensus on reliability doesn't mean it is unreliable, but those who advocate for it tend to argue that substantial reviews by staff writers are what count as notable. This is not a substantial review, and it appears to be by a singer and not a staff writer. Thus I don't think that one is notable. What I said is not all about the reliability or otherwise of the sites. I took the time to explain why I don't think those can be used for SIGCOV based on the specific reviews. MUSICBIO specified a country's national chart as being a determiner for a presumption of notability. Number 11 on a specialist chart for new and developing acts is not sufficient. But really what it comes down to is whether there is sufficient material to write an article about this artist. He has released two EPs in the last 10 years, and that is all. This does not look like a notable singer to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 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 Ivory Coast women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 23:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandrine Kouadio[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Ivory Coast women's international footballers. The subject played for the Ivory Coast women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Just passing mentions like 1, 2 and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Ivory Coast. JTtheOG (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 08:58, 21 October 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 due to lack of participation after three relists. Daniel (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saadiya Kochar[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV found, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Notability issues not addressed since October 2020. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Worldiswide (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Subject likely meets WP:ARTIST#4. There are a ton of snippets of coverage about her work, and about her work being featured in various galleries. Here are some examples of coverage for ARTIST#4

Multiple occasions of coverage of work in Hindustan Times [9][10]
Multiple occasions of coverage in The Hindu. We only have abstracts through ProQuest [11][12]
A mention of work in NYT [13]
India Today has a profile of work [14]
Featured in a museum in Belgium [15]

—siro χ o 17:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep per Wikipedia:PHOTOGRAPHER#4. _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 11:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lawrence (author)[edit]

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

This article about a novelist, screenwriter and television story editor has been tagged as needing more citations since 2007, and as an unreferenced BLP since March this year. His name makes it difficult to search for him, but I have carried out WP:BEFORE using his name plus "Geale" (alternative name given in article), the names of his books and the name of his collaborator. I can't find any sources to support the article. I therefore don't think he meets WP:NWRITER, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. (Included in deletion sorting lists for Colombia because the article says he lives there, and for the UK because I think he is British, or at least went to university in the UK.) Tacyarg (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that the article was PRODed and deproded in June this year. Tacyarg (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, Comics and animation, United Kingdom, and Colombia. Tacyarg (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Probable self-promo. Jdcooper (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero sources listed. Fails WP:BASIC. --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't find coverage that convinces me that the article meets any of our standards of notability. I do find some non-reliable sources that could point towards something though, so I am willing to reconsider if someone could find some references to back those up. Jacona (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Church, Harur[edit]

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

Insufficient sourcing to pass WP:NCHURCH, most of the sources are primary or lists that do not confer notability, BEFORE did not bring up better sources. Sohom (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, India, and Tamil Nadu. Sohom (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi-Nephi[edit]

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

I am nominating "Lehi-Nephi", also known as the "Land of Nephi" for deletion. It does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Specifically, it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Also, as it was only ever mentioned in the Book of Mormon itself, and there is no generally-accepted correlation between Book of Mormon lands and known geographical locations, it is unlikely to ever receive any further coverage. Lastly, it has had a "Religious text primary" tag up since 2011(!) without any notable improvement in that timeframe. Trevdna (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 20 October 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. Daniel (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ak47 (rapper)[edit]

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

Does not have sources that indicate notability (two Youtube videos and a link to his storefront, plus a dead link that is not archived). I can't find any reliable sources that discuss him in any significant way. (Apparently there is more than one rapper that goes by this name.) The original article gave his real name as Ibrahim Kouacou, of which I can also not find any significant discussion. ... discospinster _talk 21:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland. ... discospinster _talk 21:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ivory Coast-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do not confuse with another rapper of nearly the same name in Do or Die (group). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator. I can also find nothing informative about this rapper's one album or the record company that he supposedly founded. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:34, 23 October 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. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seta Baker[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this rugby player from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can this page please not be deleted as I have been working hard to create pages for provincial players to grow the provincial game, this player has a lot of potential and will likely make Super Rugby next year so page is not worth being deleted.

Delete Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. There's not enough coverage yet for a WP:GNG pass. Coverage may exist in the future, but I'm not sure whether or not their would be enough in the next 6 months to justify draftifying. No suitable redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 21 October 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 2022 Arizona wildfires. Daniel (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Crooks Fire[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No injuries or deaths and appears to be a run-of-the-mill wildfire. Noah, AA^Talk 20:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2022 Arizona wildfires - Merging would be more appropriate than deletion. Noting that this is a WP:BEFORE !vote, given that article exists and this is a split from that article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2022 Arizona wildfires would indeed be the wisest choice for this article. TH1980 (talk) 01:06, 22 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric K. Adae[edit]

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

The person does not meet WP:NPROF. My WP:BEFORE has not uncovered SIGCOV. Lightburst (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His GS profile is [16] with only a handful of citations; certainly fails WP:PROF. Needs a check of his books for reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. It should be noted that much of the language of this article can be found at Draft:Eric Kwame Adae, which was rejected due to lack of notability and also an WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear case of WP:TOOEARLY, the citation count only goes back to 2021 and he is an assistant professor with an h-index of 4. No hits in JSTOR of any reviews of his books. --hroest 18:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no pass of WP:PROF or any other notability criterion. Local awards do not rise to the level of notability. Despite his Ghanaian origin, as an academic at a US institution I don't think there is any likely issue with Wikipedia:Systemic bias in this case, but even if there were we would still need some evidence of notability beyond what we have here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 25 October 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. But this outcome may need reevaluation as political circumstances change. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan language[edit]

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

Same as the Romanian Language and there is no difference between the languages its not even a dialect let alone a different language its just a different name of the same language and should be deleted or merged with Romanian Language article. Isla 🏳️‍⚧ 19:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Moldova. Isla 🏳️‍⚧ 19:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, because we have a separate article on Moldavian dialect, and someone putting "Moldovan language" in the search bar might be looking for that. Moldovan language should be a disambiguation page if we decide not to keep the article.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they search "language" trying to look up the dialect, they are simply doing a wrong search. I don't agree with this analogy. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear border between language and dialect, so it's a reasonable thing to have a disambiguation for. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 09:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean. This could be appliable on cases for language varieties that are sometimes regarded as languages. An example could be, IDK, Bavarian language. However the Romanian spoken in Moldova is just the same as the one spoken in the rest of Romania and it is universally regarded as Romanian by linguists. It does not even constitute a variety of its own, the Romanian in north of Moldova has more in common with the Romanian spoken in the north of Western Moldavia than with the Romanian spoken in the south of Moldova. This all at least to traditional linguistic views.

Someone wanting to look up the Romanian dialect, spoken both in the Republic of Moldova and in Romania's Western Moldavia, will look it up as "dialect" (grai in Romanian). Someone wanting to look up the artificial political concept argued to be spoken in the Republic of Moldova will look it up as "language" (limbă in Romanian; this last one is self-fullfilling because people who believe Moldovan is a language will really stress on calling it as such). If they switch things up, they simply are confused about the concepts. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova would be a better target. I don't think it's the time yet to discuss the status of articles like these. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep. The article is not about the same thing as Romanian language, because this is about the term Moldovan language/the status of what's spoken in Moldova. The article seems well-sourced and there are sources specific about the topic. However, a better name might be needed. But it also seems like something that could be merged with Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova (I can't really judge if the content is already covered). //Replayful (talk | contribs) 09:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have a fair amount of articles with similar scopes. Moldovenism is another. To sum it up quickly, Moldovenism consists on the notion that Moldovans are an ethnic group of their own with their own language. Perhaps a merge between these articles is possible in the future, but if this article is kept, I think the current title is pretty appropriate. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a good point and context. Maybe there's some work to do in working out the relations between these many article. That could indeed lead to a merge (or multiple). As long as the source-supported content is generally covered somewhere, I'm fine with any outcome/reorganization. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 20:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait for Transnistria to derecognize the language or for it to stop existing and for Moldova to unite with Romania. If you'd like to have the non-nationalistic version of this message, just wait for the first one. Having no entities recognising it will give us much room to maneuver. Otherwise it's harder to argue against the article's existence. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename - I'm definitely against deletion, and I'm not sure if a merge to Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova is really the correct choice. If we want to avoid confusion between Romanian language, Moldavian dialect, and this article, I propose a rename to Romanian language in Moldova, leaving the current page as a disambiguation. Frzzl talk; contribs 14:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are other cases where a language officially recognized by a state as a separate language is not too different linguistically from another (e.g. Montenegrin language). But linguistic criteria are different, and political status in itself creates enough notability. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Suitskvarts. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While a case has been made for why a redirect isn't a viable ATD, there is no case made for removing copy from the article on Rapace. That, however, is also not integral to this AfD and the discussion can close while that conversation happens elswhere. Star Mississippi 00:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Price (unreleased film)[edit]

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

Both PROD and ATD-R options have been disputed, so sending to AfD per the most recent objectio for outright deletion. Rationale: No actual production news was reported to meet WP:NFF. The production info was being forecasted or reported a scheduled start. Being unreleased, it also has no reviews to contribute to notability. -2pou (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying Steel1943 and Mushy Yank for previous involvement. -2pou (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noomi Rapace#Filmography, where it is mentioned and where the sources currently in the article can be added. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Noomi Rapace#Filmography, fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 21:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (oppose redirection) since other subjects with articles, such as Michael Shannon and Matthias Schweighöfer, are also mentioned in this article. To redirect to one notable subject of multiple subjects attached to a project makes no sense and puts WP:UNDUE weight on one subject over the others. In fact, the link/mention of the nominated subject should be removed from Noomi Rapace, given that the subject is not mentioned in neither Michael Shannon nor Matthias Schweighöfer. Steel1943 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Except that the film is mentioned in Rapace's page and not in that of any other member of the cast FORAGOODREASON as she plays the lead role (see synopsis), and her character is the main focus of the story; and the project is/was centred on her. Yes, it does make sense.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this film is not an biographical film about the actress Noomi Rapace (not the character she plays), your comment in no way invalidates my comment. For example, Michael Shannon is a well-known actor, and the fact that he is/was attached to this project could reasonable result in people searching for him in relation to this film. Again, redirecting this title to Noomi Rapace is a heavy batch of WP:UNDUE. The mention of the film should probably be removed from the article as well. Steel1943 (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I had understood your !vote, which I thought was clear from the start, and obviously respectfully disagree. If one of your concerns is that other actors would not be mentioned anywhere, I had planned to add their names in the line I said I was willing to add or in the table. Sources prove that the project was centered on Rapace not on them, and their roles are less important (even if they are notable actors, that is not the point) so that the redirect would only reflect reality duly and not unduly at all. Should anyone share your concerns, List of abandoned and unfinished films could be a target but I still think Noomi Rapace is the best target. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I'm not sure where it can be assumed I did not understand your point. Anyways, here's precedence for my stance on this via WP:RFD discussions to delete such redirections:
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 1#The Formula (upcoming film)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 30#Bade Miyan Chote Miyan 2

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Upcoming film redirects targeting subject related to director or actor

I can probably find more as I found a mess of these redirects at points during the past few years, but that's all I could find at the moment. Also, see WP:XY for more explanation on why the redirection to the actor is unhelpful: Potential ambiguity. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I oppose the redirection to List of abandoned and unfinished films; per the list of incoming links to List of abandoned and unfinished films, there are no other such redirects that target that page (see WP:PANDORA). Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where it can be assumed I did not understand your point. Probably when you replied saying it was not a biographical film about Rapace, but never mind. You will note that if the Rfds you mention are relevant or comparable, 2/5 had been kept as redirects to main actor/director. But there's no need to look for other redirects kept or deleted, as again, in the present case, sources tend to prove this film project is strongly associated with Rapace and this redirect being useful, I will leave it at that.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...No, you misunderstood my point since the reason why I stated that is that is the only situation which would result in my supporting this title being a redirect: If the film was biographical and targeted its subject. And again, no, targeting Noomi Rapace is not useful here since the title could potentially target multiple subjects as a redirect, and is thus ambiguous. And yeah, I'm also tired of talking in circles. Steel1943 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 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 Vijay Deverakonda as an ATD. Please feel free to retarget this redirect to the director or anywhere else if more suited. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Family Star[edit]

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

Disputed Draftification. Fails WP:NFILM. Potentially WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Note that references used on the page fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and should be removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF. NaanReady (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vijay Deverakonda: Fails WP:NF K-Pop contributor (✍️•📚) 08:14, 25 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derick Chimebere[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, doesn't pass any WP:SNG. Sources cited are mostly referring to Diamondz Africa (his brand) and not him specifically. No significant coverage and promotional puff. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is notable with reliable sources. Chimebere is also called “Diamondz Africa”. He named the brand after his professional name. Mevoelo (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The short version: There is no evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as none of the cited sources is substantial coverage of Derick Chimebere. Also all of them are all either avowedly telling us Derick Chimebere's opinions or else written in such glowingly promotional terms as to cast doubt on their being independent sources, with several of them having all the appearance of press releases.

The longer version: I have checked all of the references in the article, and they are as follows:

1: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/07/30/diamondz-africa-reveals-secret-behind-acceptance

An article telling us what Derick Chimebere says about his own company. Neither an independent source nor significant coverage of him.

2: https://thenationonlineng.net/entertainers-doing-most-for-economy-diamondz-africa-ceo/

A three sentence account of what Derick Chimebere says about actors and entertainers. Neither an independent source nor significant coverage of him, nor in this case even of his company.

3: https://independent.ng/how-we-have-sustained-diamondz-africa-brand-chimebere/

A page about Derick Chimebere's company, which is full of such language as "truly outstanding and original craftsmanship", "the most magnificent jewellery possible", etc etc, and which uses the word "we" in its headline. Neither an independent source nor significant coverage of him.

4: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/03/celebrity-jeweler-diamondz-africa-vows-to-maintain-quality/

Again, about his business, not him, and again full of such language as "providing customers with just the greatest service", etc etc.

5: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/08/diamondz-africa-becomes-choice-of-highly-profiled-celebrities/

Another page on the same website as the last one, and very much the same in character.

6: https://leadership.ng/celebrity-jewelery-brand-diamondz-africa-becomes-toast-of-all/

Much the same again: glowing praise, including a quote from Derick Chimebere, about his business, not him.

7: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/02/after-berbiedoll-diamondz-africa-may-unveil-more-brand-ambassadors/

Yet another page on the same website as numbers 4 & 5, and again similar in nature.

8: Another copy of the same citation as number 3.

9: https://tribuneonlineng.com/diamondz-africa-winner-of-best-jewellery-brand-award/

An announcement that Derick Chimebere's company has won an award. I have no idea whether it's a significant award or just an industry promotional award, but in any case the announcement contains only two brief mentions of Derick Chimebere as the owner of the company, not substantial coverage of him, and it is full of language such as "exceptional, one-of-a-kind pieces of jewellery", "captured the hearts of those who seek the pinnacle of luxury and sophistication", etc etc.

10: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/09/03/diamondz-africa-wins-jewelry-brand-of-the-year-at-scream-all-youth-awards-23

Again, an announcement of an award to the company; again, only brief mentions of the owner of the company; again full of glowing language such as "dazzling the world with its exquisite jewelry creations and cementing its place as a jewelry brand that truly embodies the spirit of excellence".

11: https://editor.guardian.ng/arts-2/4-star-awards-diamondz-africa-shines-emerges-as-best-jewelry-brand/

Another announcement of the same award as number 9 and similar in character.

12: https://guardian.ng/news/scream-awards-calls-for-nomination-as-10th-edition-beckons/

No mention whatsoever of either Derick Chimebere or his company.

JBW (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a promotional vanity page, sourced with promotional "articles" we're seeing more and more of on Nigerian Wiki. Nswix (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable entrepreneur. Probably too early for an entry. And per JBW's source analysis. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Collegiate Baseball League[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. There is no indication of independent coverage beyond routine game coverage. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, United States of America, and North Carolina. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary sourcing. User:Let'srun 01:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. Wizardman 13:09, 21 October 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 Collegiate summer baseball as a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 23:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Southwest Baseball League[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. There is no indication of significant independent coverage beyond routine game coverage. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and United States of America. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. Wizardman 13:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Collegiate summer baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Metro Collegiate Baseball League[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. There is no indication of significant independent coverage beyond routine game coverage. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Illinois, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. User:Let'srun 02:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. Wizardman 13:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Gonzalez[edit]

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

am unfortunately only seeing only passing mentions in reliable sources as well, can't see anything in WP:NTENNIS that may suggest notability and before search revealed no results. Justi yaya 14:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this influencer, other than mention of tennis matches she's played. Refbombed out the wazoo with trivial mentions in articles about other people. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 11 in particular is about Xavier, a guy. I'm assuming they're related, but the article isn't about Natasha. Rest are about as unhelpful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per same reasoning I gave when I PROD the article earlier. A lot of references in the article but all are passing mentions or don't assume any notability onto this individual. No accomplishments in the tennis world that would make her meet WP:NTENNIS, and no independent sources establish WP:GNG either. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the feature article in Latina Style Magazine, a national publication since the 1990s, where Gonzalez is featured together with astronaut Ellen Ochoa and Dr. Elena Rios of the NHMA. Also take a look at the information regarding the International Tennis Club of the USA and its Avory Cup matches against the Great Britain select team. This is an international competition on par with Beier Ko's Fed Cup. The reference to Xavier, who is her brother, is simply because an editor requested a cite for that mention--don't now turn and use that against her. Where is the good faith? Also, it doesn't compute that you consider the Intercollegiate Tennis Association's Arthur Ashe Sportsmanship Award as a trivial award--it certainly is more significant than an award given by a single conference (as in the case of Kristy Borza). The Arthur Ashe Sportsmanship Award is a national collegiate award. Same goes for the coSIDA Academic All District. Again, applying the WP:NTENNIS standard is not the appropriate standard as that is for professional players, not for collegiate players. Not even Kristy Borza, who has a Wikipedia page, meets that standard. Nor does Grant Solomon, who has a wikipedia page, meet that standard Not even does Beier Ko meet that standard--ITF tournaments (which are one level down from Challenger tournaments, which are one level down from WTA and ATP tournaments) do not meet the test of WP:TENNIS. The proper standard to apply to all of the previous persons is the collegiate standard. Morevoer, wikipedia policy is clear that the Sports Threshold is not meant to raise the bar for general notability-- in the case of Gonzalez, you have not taken into account that she is a Fulbright Scholar and her anti-smoking advocacy work with teenagers. Finally, you have failed to take into consideration that she comes from the Bolivian-American community, and there has never before been a student-athlete from that community that has served as a team captain for a varsity athletic team in the history of Harvard University. Let me be clear: I believe that each of Kristy Borza, Beier Ko and Grant Solomon are deserving of a wikipedia page. But by that measure, so is Natasha Gonzalez. A final note: you say the sources mention her accomplishments in passing. If one is awarded the Fulbright Scholarship, doesn't that speak for itself? Isn't there a presumption that that is notable.?So even a mention in passing establishes that.

Look, the accomplishments speak for themselves. If you want more or better sources, give me time to come up with them. Why the hurry to blow up the page? Xavier Serif (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the source that says she's a Fullbright Scholar? None of the ones listed show that, that I can see anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above comments. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:51, 22 October 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 Collegiate summer baseball. Star Mississippi 23:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great West League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not finding enough secondary coverage about this league beyond routine reports, and everything currently sourced in the article is primary. As a result, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, California, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Collegiate summer baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balázs Kovács (professor)[edit]

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

Not notable, coverage does not meet the thresholds of WP:GNG, nor are any of the criteria at WP:NPROF fulfilled. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Full professors at Ivy League universities should pass WP:PROF#C1, and I think he has enough citations [17]. Weak because his citation record and one book appear to be the only claims to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per that guideline, research impact needs to be demonstrated through independent reliable sources, and that's not the case here. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Research impact under WP:PROF#C1 is almost always demonstrated through high citation counts. If you read otherwise somewhere, then what you read differs from standard practice. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per David Eppstein, in this case the independent source is Google Scholar or any other third party citation service. What wont work is a self published statement of an academic about how important they are. --hroest 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Hungary, Netherlands, California, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The citation profile looks solid (nine papers in the triple-digit range, for example), but there doesn't seem to be much else to go on. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9 papers with 100+ citations each is strong enough to pass NPROF#1, as demonstrated per GS. --hroest 19:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Eppstein is correct. Lightburst (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1 per David Eppstein. Sndek (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torre degli Sciri[edit]

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

Only one (probably non-independent) source, a draft with the same content was declined. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I initially tagged the article as a WP:G11; it was declined. I then moved the article to draft for pretty much the same reasons the draft was declined, i.e., lack of sourcing. Although the author submitted the draft to AFC (without doing much beforehand, although they had said they were going to add sources to the admin who declined the G11 - they obviously didn't like the rejection and recreated the article (instead of moving the draft to article space on their own, so now we have two iterations of this page)). I haven't done any WP:BEFORE and so am not voting.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no comment on the author’s behaviour, but I think it’s a keep, [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. I’ve not done a book search, but pretty sure it’ll have a mention somewhere. I agree it’s woefully sourced currently, but the tower’s age, its status as the only complete surviving such tower in Perugia, and the fact that it’s been the subject of scientific research suggest that it’s notable. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-ordered it, toned done the tourism guide POV a bit, and scattered some cites around. An internet search confirms that there are also a range of book sources available. KJP1 (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you joking? A medieval building that isn't notable? Clearly notable and meets WP:GNG in any case. Plenty of coverage. Described as a symbol of the city. The nominator has clearly done no searching for sources whatsoever nor bothered to check the Italian Wikipedia article: this is a failure of WP:BEFORE. It's unfortunate that Italy is so dreadful at heritage listing, but in any country with a decent heritage listing system this would be a clear pass of WP:GEOFEAT. However, it does have a basic listing: no. 1172. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not voting, since I was the one who declined G11. I’m just here to say, Italian Wikipedia has a number of sources cited in the “Bibliografia“ section of the article. The proper task here is to help the newbie author source their new article, not multiple efforts at deletion. -- Y not? 03:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expand, find sources, rewrite as needed. This is an obviously notable topic. Articles for deletion is not the place for cleanup. It should never have been nominated for deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 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. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moneo[edit]

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

No sources listed in article, WP:BEFORE found no sources to prove notabilty. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't speak French but I think it would be worthwhile to examine the sources in article on fr.wiki because there are a lot there that may well suggest notability. Generally speaking it would be a bit weird to me (if it was verified as true) if a banking system used on millions of French bank cards was not notable. JMWt (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and France. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 20 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bradley (colonists)[edit]

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

only one citation mentions the subject, the rest cite a notable descendant, doesn't meet notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 14:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources that mention the subject, the autobiography of Ben Bradlee, A Good Life: Newspapering and other Adventures and then the History of the Bradley family with particular reference to Nathan Bradley of Dorchester, Mass., which I both reference. Quinnbradlee (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have mostly been editing this page - if I have that correct, I think you need to improve the way you use references. The whole point of referencing on en.wiki is to give an opportunity for other readers to find the sources for the information. In order to do that, there must be full references so that others can find the books. If you need help, you might need to ask for it. JMWt (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify the above editor has been working in good faith on the topic, but it is clearly not ready for mainspace until the references (which appear to be mostly offline) have been cited properly. JMWt (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that when you say that I need to reference better you mean that I need to put link with my references? Quinnbradlee (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its out of scope to discuss this here - but you'll need to look at WP:CITE and possibly discuss with others in your subject area how to cite historical records you are using. JMWt (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this has been raised on the ANI board for anyone interested. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while this is nicely-researched, it's heavily dependent on primary sources, and is indistinguishable from private genealogical research such as might be carried out by a family member. In fact the only secondary sources are indeed written by family members. Much as I love the individual touch of history, we need something in depth, and written by someone unconnected with the family, to indicate that this is appropriate for Wikipedia rather than a proper genealogy site. Elemimele (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think then it might be nice if you could add something so that I would not look like genealogy research. Nathan Bradley was mention in my fathers' book and I am trying my beset to make it look I am not related in anyway. Quinnbradlee (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Just go ahead and delete the article if you really think it's that bad. I have been a member of Wikipedia for about five years and have made 100 edits, but I have never been able to write an article about a historic figure that I just so happen to be related to. I thought Wikipedia supposed to be for everyone as long as it does not violate any of its rules? I have dyslexia and I give up on Wikipedia. This too difficult and it's ridiculous how hard it is to write a simple little article. 4 Quinnbradlee (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I just compare and contrast with me. I was administrator for my church for several years. I happened to ring the bell for numerous church services, was married out of that church, ran and promoted a weekly concert program (for which I had a feature interview by the local newspaper), and that's pretty much all of the things that the subject did ... none of which are notable. (I didn't petition anyone to sell cider, but I was also an elected town official.) It's regrettable that the article creator feels hard done by that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding article creation, but those standards are in place all the same. Ravenswing 21:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article relies too much on primary sources, and even if they are not primary, they may be written by family members. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 00:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN early colonist (not colonists), who happened to have some famous descendants. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much in terms of significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:00, 23 October 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 00:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krithika Nelson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apart from the notability problem tagged on the article itself, it is also a copyright problem, since it was created by a copy-and-paste move from Draft:Krithika Nelson to Krithika Nelson.

A quick WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any possible sources that are simultaneously published, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject. —Wasell^(T) 🇸🇪♡🇺🇦 14:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright problem. The draft was created by the same editor as the article, and there is no content in the article needing attribution to anyone else who edited the draft. Also, even if there were content needing attribution, it would be easy to history-merge the draft into the article, so it still wouldn't be a problem. JBW (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —Wasell^(T) 🇸🇪♡🇺🇦 14:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately all links I find are just to watch videos of the songs by this person, nothing for biographical information. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Hi, I understand the notability problem to some extent but doubt that there is an issue of copyright. Both the Draft: Krithika Nelson and Krithika Nelson articles were created/written by me. So I essentially copy-and-pasted by own work, which I do not find a problem with as the creator of the first article.

Also, the subject has been mentioned in quite a few other Wikipedia articles and backlinked to here. Her body of work is also reasonably extensive. There are quite a few interviews (both on Youtube and across various other publications) where she has discussed biographical information. Unfortunately another editor removed them as being unreliable sources. Let me get those back into the article and we can get a better picture of her work in the Tamil film industry.

Hope this clears things up. Naturally, I contest this nomination for deletion. Aishu.m (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify sources are not enough, It is need more sources. Xegma(talk) 08:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, additional sources backing the information mentioned have been cited in the article. Feel free to have a look. Aishu.m (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, until more source for notability cited. -Lemonaka‎ 10:37, 27 October 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 TV 1 (Sri Lankan TV channel) and I will protect the redirect Star Mississippi 00:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated and redirected. It's not notable as a separate topic, this is the historical name for the now existing TV One (Sri Lankan TV channel). (please correct me if I'm wrong). JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT I have restored the redirect and warned the IP responsible many times. Redirects are costly. How many times do our NPP have to re-address this topic? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment Please clarify whether MTV Channel is related to this. Nate • (chatter) 17:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is a historical name for TV One, it should certainly be redirected to the current name, even if that means protecting the redirect to avoid recreation. However, this is based on the presumption that is is the historical name... I really have no insight into the matter, and I think confirmation would help resolve this discussion. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 22:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
mtvsports.lk redirects to tv1.lk, so there's the truth. As for the verifiability... Mach61 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not a great source but it'll do Mach61 (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
english.gossiplankanews.com? No. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is self-published by the owner, will add to article] Mach61 (talk) 03:49, 21 October 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 Web scraping. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blog scraping[edit]

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

The article does not cite any sources and it's basically just web scraping but with blogs. Blog scraping, compared to other forms of scraping, doesn't seem to merit its own article. SPA⁵CE! ^{talk about it} 13:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. SPA⁵CE! ^{talk about it} 13:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with web scraping. Agreed that this is not a sufficiently distinct subject from that one to justify its own article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with web scraping. As there are no reference sources, I am inclined to say delete. However, we could make some effort to get these sources through some research of our own.Nicola247 (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "we could make some effort to get these sources through some research of our own" JMWt (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt you don't need to understand it, that's a sock account created to vote keep here (after several socks were blocked), and this is a decoy post made first to not make it so obvious, that's not an unique opinion, it should be striked or deleted. Tehonk (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prob merge - it is definitely a thing, but it isn't entirely clear what else there is to say outside of the topic of web scraping so it just reads like aan unnecessary fork at present. JMWt (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with web scraping. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:47, 27 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Mostacci[edit]

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

The cited references appear to be passing mentions of the subject or from self published sources. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Libya, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:50, 20 October 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. Star Mississippi 00:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kerpen[edit]

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

Subject is a CEO of a social media marketing company. Little to suggest NPEOPLE is met and WP:SOAP. JMWt (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. JMWt (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kerpen has since sold the company for undisclosed amount. I'm looking for sources that give amount or approximation as I think this will aid in NPeople. Author of a 2011 New York Times Bestseller book. Was also a reality tv show guest in 2006. If more is needed for NPeople please let me know and I'll see what I can find. I do get a WP:SOAP vibe. The picture adds to this and needs to change IMO. I do not have vested interest per WP:AVOIDCOI and am willing to make edit the article to meet standards. CaseyChesh (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plenty of Linkedin posts from this person, not much otherwise. This is a name drop [25] this is in an unreliable source, but is worth a read [26] if you're a New York Mets fan. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 20 October 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 SCMS Cochin School of Business. Star Mississippi 00:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SCMS Journal of Indian Management[edit]

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

Agree with the hathote from 2013 that the page does not meet the GNG. Nothing on the page suggests that this journal is notable. JMWt (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I originally put that notability tag. Nowadays I'd have PRODded it or taken to AfD. However, since 2013 the journal has been accepted for indexing by Scopus (a selective index) and several les selective indices, so this meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SCMS Cochin School of Business as an WP:ATD - Seems not to meet WP:GNG, better covered on an organizational page or in a list. Passing mention in The New Indian Express, included in a random research guide, passing mention in a press release. Suriname0 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SCMS Cochin School of Business per Suriname0. It would make sense for this to have a section in that article, and for the name of the journal to go there, but I don't see this journal as meeting the WP:GNG nor any subject-specific notability guideline at this time. WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, and WP:N only presumes notability for GNG-passing and/or SNG-passing items that don't fall afoul of WP:NOT, so we can't keep as a standalone article on that basis. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChainGPT[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRYPTO. A WP:before search on gnews and DDG found only press releases and dubious crypto websites, with passing mentions scattered about. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRYPTO, per nom. Coverage consists of press releases and articles/mentions solely in crypto-centric news organizations. Mooonswimmer 12:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the rationale clearly expressed by Mooonswimmer. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still more crypto fluff. This is from Yahoo finance but from a non-RS [27], Crypto Potato -cryptopotato.com/introducing-chaingpt-pad-an-ai-focused-launchpad-released-by-chaingpt/, which despite the snazzy name isn't a RS. Delete for lack of sourcing, PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Potato site is a blacklisted one, so don't try using it as a source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. the entire article is just an advertisement, and there are no reliable sources? DrowssapSMM (say hello) 00:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, bit of refbombing going on here. Fermiboson (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BOMBARDMENT of sources to support a dubious claim of notability. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like WP:SPA-created promo to me. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:56, 26 October 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 Line 3 (Ningbo Rail Transit). Star Mississippi 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yinfeng line[edit]

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

IT WAS MERGED into Line 3 (Ningbo Rail Transit). The name is seldom used officially and during train operations. Chinese Wikipedia has no article about it. Using Line 3 (Ningbo Rail Transit) is just fine. 阿南之人 (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The rationale makes sense though the content here needs to be merged to Yinfeng line rather than deleted/redirected. In the future, I would propose a WP:Merge or boldy merge it rather than taking it to Afd. Garuda3 (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been merged by me. 阿南之人 (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't edited Line 3 (Ningbo Rail Transit) yet. The information and references at Yinfeng line need to be transferred into the Line 3 page. Garuda3 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Garuda3: See Special:Diff/1181017547. 阿南之人 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The corresponding article in Chinese at zh:宁波轨道交通3号线 has many more references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - though the Chinese article is for Line 3 as a whole so includes both Line 3 (Ningbo Rail Transit) and Yinfeng line. Garuda3 (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge while keep as redirection page. The name Yinfeng Line was used only when the initial section (from Jiangshan to Minghui Road) is open. After the rest section is open the whole line was then renamed as Line 3 (Yinfeng section) and now you can find barely nothing about the name Yinfeng Line on the official website. Though it is possible that some section of the line might be separated from Line 3 in the future, there is no official schedule for it and as a Wikipedia article, we do not make predictions. Siyuwj (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Line 3 (Ningbo Rail Transit). This is what zhwiki does. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Just say call it a former line and add a bit to what happened to it and what it became part of. there is no no need to delete this. and add a link to the line it was merged into it. Deleting this would be a waste of the person (who originally wrote this)'s time.There is no need for deletion. Huaxiazidi (talk) 10:19, 25 October 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. Consensus is sourcing remains insufficient Star Mississippi 00:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grafterr[edit]

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

Does not meet requirements of WP:CORP. Coverage is routine churnalism about funding. SmartSE (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Scotland. SmartSE (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SmartSE,

I am writing to address your proposed deletion of the company page for Grafterr, a cloud-based software company with offices in Edinburgh, Scotland, and London, England. I believe that the proposed deletion is a mistake, and I would like to provide reasons why the page should not be deleted.

Notability and Significance: Grafterr is a software company that has made significant contributions to the field of cloud-based point of sale in the Uk and I have provided all the news and magazines articles published in this context. The company's presence in two major cities, Edinburgh and London, indicates its regional importance in the technology sector.

Coverage of Corporate Information: While the deletion proposal suggests that the coverage of Grafterr is routine journalism about funding, it's essential to note that Wikipedia articles about companies often include information about their growth, as it is a vital aspect of their development and growth. However, I have removed this part too just to emphasize that there is no mention about funding.

Encyclopedic Value: Wikipedia serves as a valuable resource for information on a wide range of topics, including companies like Grafterr. Readers often turn to Wikipedia to learn about notable businesses, their history, and their contributions to various industries. Deleting this page would deprive users of access to valuable and reliable information.

Potential for Improvement: If there are concerns about the quality or neutrality of the article, I am open to working on improving it. Wikipedia articles are collaborative efforts, and I am willing to make the necessary edits to address any issues raised by the community.

In light of the points mentioned above, I kindly request that you reconsider the close of the proposed deletion of the Grafterr Wikipedia page. I believe that the page meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and provides valuable information to users interested in learning about this company.

The article was mistakenly flagged for focusing on the company's value and growth rather than funding, but it has since been enhanced to offer an impartial and thorough overview of Grafterr's activities, history, and influence within the technology sector. Additionally, any content related to the company's value that raised concerns has been carefully reviewed and removed to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and verifiability.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Ewis. EwisEwee (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A COI using ChatGPT to explain why it shouldn't be deleted is a new one here in AfD. Novel idea, but doesn't really help. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oaktree! First of all, I am sorry for using LLMs, which by the way it was Bard not ChatGPT. To be honest, I used it to help me clarify a lot of the ideas I wrote. Which I won't do again, especially since I haven't used any AI on the page itself—just edits, summaries, and comments to save time fixing the structure of comments.

As for being COI! I don't why I am being punished for following the rules and being honest? It said in Articles for Creation that I should say if I have a conflict of interest, which I did, and I did; here is a point I mentioned earlier today in my page: I work in one of the company's subsidiaries, as the company works in India, UK, and has two offices in the UK. My reason behind creating the article is simple, as I see a lot of comments and questions regarding the company on a regular basis, I figured out that it will be great to create a Wikipedia page, especially that the company changed its name recently from ePOS Hybrid to Grafterr. And this caused a lot of confusion.

I will reply to all other comments too and please let me know how can I optimize it already. Thank you. EwisEwee (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No decent coverage found from my search. Only coverage that I found that isn't a one word mention are obvious churnalism. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I don't get what you mean by "Only coverage that I found that isn't a one word mention are obvious churnalism" ? Anyway as you couldn't find decent coverage, let me explain what I mentioned to Oaktree in my page.
I believe you couldn't find reliable news outlets because the company changed the name recently this year from ePOS Hybrid, the company was founded in Edinburgh, so most of the outlets are based in Scotland, and there are many British based, here are many of them:

Before the name was changed:

https://www.scotsman.com/business/scottish-hospitalitys-recovery-needs-support-from-government-as-survey-shows-backing-for-price-rises-3185740

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17498468.app-set-innovate-scotlands-food-drink-industry/

https://www.insider.co.uk/appointments/restaurant-tech-start-up-hires-16176845

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/best-in/eating-out/edinburgh-based-allergy-tech-firm-to-help-solve-food-label-issue-546790

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17645255.tech-firm-sets-tackle-scotlands-food-waste-new-software/

https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2019/05/restaurants-could-end-food-waste-with-technology/

https://dailybusinessgroup.co.uk/2020/02/payments-firm-epos-hybrid-crowdfunds-a-further-100k/

https://www.scottishfinancialnews.com/articles/epos-hybrid-restaurants-on-the-rack-as-home-dining-becomes-the-norm

Please use ePOS hybrid or Grafterr and then maybe associate it with Scotland or Edinburgh to find many of them.

Announcing the name change:

https://www.insider.co.uk/news/hospitality-tech-firm-rebrands-following-29382300

https://theedinburghreporter.co.uk/2023/03/edinburgh-tech-firm-rebrand-following-six-figure-investment/

EwisEwee (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete. This turns up from 1907 [28], but it doesn't help. I can't find sources for this corporation we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha Of course that doesn't relate to the company. The company changed the name recently and that's why you couldn't find a lot of news. I have shared above many of old articles too, and a lot of them were published by The Scotsman, it is actually the biggest news outlet in Sctoland. Again the company was founded in Scotland and that's why you many of the sources are based in Scotland. EwisEwee (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding a source search for the company's former name below. The parent company iHybrid Ltd is based in Croydon so it is worth also adding another sorting listing. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Matching the sources which the article author linked above to our criteria at WP:CORPDEPTH: the Insider (21/5/19) item is a routine appointment announcement; The National 13/3/19 item, the Edinburgh Reporter and The National items (both 17/5/19) are presenting the company's benefit case pitch on their product, as is the quotation from their CEO in Edinburgh Evening News (15/5/19); the Daily Business 13/2/20 item is about their Crowdcube fundraiser; The Scotsman 1/4/21 item and the Scottish Business News 20/3/22 item are replaying research released by the firm; the Insider and Edinburgh Reporter (both 6/3/23 and near-identical) items are announcement-based: these all fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you deem trivial information is actually of extremely high value to others, for example, the research piece was of extremely high value and importance to those working in the UK hospitality industry or similar verticals. Entrepreneurs are always seeking insights as this. Most of what you call them "trivial coverage" were initiated by business journalists all over Scotland.

Grafterr has been featured in a number of printed articles in major UK publications as well, here's a few examples:

https://i.ibb.co/h1WyWpj/01.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/km0Frxx/02.jpg

Grafterr have also raised over £4.5 million in private equity and crowdfunding investment. Here's two examples of large crowd funding-rising the company completed:

https://www.crowdcube.com/companies/epos-hybrid/pitches/qr9OGb

https://www.crowdcube.com/companies/epos-hybrid/pitches/qajeyl

This represents large interest in the company from the general public.

The Scotsman is one of the oldest and biggest newspapers in Scotland, what should be a good source? CNN? EwisEwee (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from the sources discussed above, searches find a feature list and user reviews but nothing which demonstrates that this hospitality POS firm has attained notability under either its current or prior name. (And, a note for the LLM Bot: firms do not inherit notability by having offices in two notable cities.) AllyD (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a misconception; first, we said that The Scotsman, Edinburgh Reporter, The National, and others are not appropriate sources despite being the largest in the Scottish economy, and then you use a very general advice website to claim that the firm POS does not achieve notability! Can you see the paradox?

Of course, since the company gets reviews all the time, every reliable review site has changed the name from ePOS Hybrid to Grafterr; please see the following:

https://www.feefo.com/en-GB/reviews/ihybrid-limited

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/grafterr.com

You should learn more about the Scottish entrepreneurial environment; there are tech businesses all across the world, not only in Silicon Valley ;) EwisEwee (talk) 20:23, 27 October 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 Saunders Island, South Sandwich Islands#Local. Star Mississippi 00:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nattriss Point[edit]

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

No significant references on the page other than confirmation it exists. Land features on maps are not inherently significant. It is highly unlikely that there will be sufficient RS talking in depth about geographical features in Antarctica and the region - which to be clear, is almost entirely uninhabited - to show how they meet the notability criteria for en.wiki JMWt (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. JMWt (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saunders Island, South Sandwich Islands where it is mentioned but that article doesn't spell out what this geographical feature is. Either merge within the "Local" heading where Natriss Point is first named or alternatively put in a new "Named features" heading and place the info. under that. Rupples (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Saunders Island, South Sandwich Islands#Local. Nattriss Point is part of that island; the "Local" section describes major features of the island. By the way, this is a truly terrible place:

"barren of vegetation apart from lichens and some moss-covered patches. Most of the island is covered in ice."
"The volcano emits at least 145±59 tons per day of sulfur dioxide"
"chinstrap penguins form a breeding population of more than 100,000 couples" (in a very small area)
"lava lake in its summit crater, which is fumarolically active, and there is widespread evidence of recent eruptions across the island."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:47, 26 October 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. AfD is not a vote, and early discussion didn't favor the keep camp despite its majority. As discussion continued, additional sources were identified and swayed discussion without further rebuttal from editors advocating other outcomes. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon (character)[edit]

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

All of the non-primary sources that discuss him are mostly top ten lists that don't go into extensive detail, and the others are either from content farms screenrant and CBR, or simply talking about who'll be cast as him in the up-coming kraven movie. Industrial Insect (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Industrial Insect (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete the top ten lists but keep the character since he's one of the first and longest recurring villains for Spider-Man and Marvel in general. Jdionio (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, delete the lists, agree on that. Sqnqban (talk)< Sqnqban (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC) blocked sock Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Jdionio:. I agree with the fact that Chameleon is the first and longest recurring enemy of Spider-Man. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Lazy Before gets lazy vote. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a long-running spider-man villain is not any indication of notability. Without reliable, secondary sources, there is nothing to create an article on. Number of appearances of a character means nothing. Industrial Insect (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not need "extensive detail", we just need sources indicating a topic's notability. And I do not see why we should dismiss either screenrant or CBR. Dimadick (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on improvement today to add additional sources to this article. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. No significant coverage on Chameleon from reliable sources has been demonstrated yet that will make the article pass notability standards, so I would remind the closer to factor that into their decision. Screen Rant and CBR are indeed contentfarms, that talk about every comic book character ever made, and are no proof of significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether I'm more disappointed in CBR or your American-centric definition of "every comic book character ever made" =( Might be worth popping the old hyperbole on the backburner for the time being, though.

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been better off saying "every Marvel/DC comic book character", but my point still stands. Within that subset, it's not a reliable gauge of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'd argue that focusing on two publishers implies some sort of editorial discretion, but if they just list every single Marvel character I can see why that would be relevant to this particular AfD.

You've raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly, sir. Bravo! BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information into List of Marvel Comics Characters: C. Unlike a lot of the current submissions, I can definitely see this guy being notable, but as much as I like Chameleon, no sources have been given from neither the nominator nor any of the people participating in this AfD. If a search is performed and actual sources that discuss the Chameleon are found out there (Which, being honest, there's a good chance either way) then ping me and I'll willingly change my vote. As it stands, a merge is probably for the best, because Chameleon's entry at the list only contains a link to his article right now. If that's gone, no info on Chameleon will be on Wikipedia, which is a huge loss of info. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“We do not need extensive detail” Huh? Industrial Insect (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insisting we should have a whole page merge (Not all the info in this article is necessary) but we should at least carry over some information, even at a baseline level, for the character list. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is technically no loss of information as off-site Wikis already have a more detailed examination of the character. Marvel Database has every version of the character to ever exist. So, I am not worried about potentially losing the article, as plot information can always be used from there in the off chance Chameleon becomes notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NO. JosephWC (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the recent edits made on the article. There are still other sources than can be used if this is really necessary. Higher Further Faster (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C - Being "the first and and longest recurring enemy of Spider-Man" is not a valid argument for Keeping if there is not significant coverage in reliable sources on the character. And the sources in the article are not that, being largely things that are not valid reliable sources for establishing notability such as voice actor databases or top ten churnalism lists from sources generally not considered to be WP:RS. I also did not find anything in my own searches that would help - a few very brief mentions of his role in Spider-Man's mythos, but no actual significant coverage. Good enough for a merge to the character list I'd say, not for keeping as an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've analyzed the sources currently present in the article, and this is the current status on them.

The first source, discussing the Top Ten ranked Marvel Shows on IMDb (Which is already a sketchy source at best) mentions Chameleon for one sentence alongside several other characters, such as Rhino and Black Cat. The second, a top thirty list, isn't necessarily a horrible source, but it's just a glorified plot summary, and doesn't actually contain any commentary on the character. The next, a "Ten Most Iconic Spider-Man Villains" listicle, barely touches on the character at all. IGN's source, admittedly, is pretty good, containing some good commentary on the Chameleon character.

"The fact that he’s been such a mainstay of Spidey’s rogues gallery ever since is a testament to his enduring appeal. This isn’t a villain who relies on strength or brute force, but rather subterfuge and deception.... He’s a fascinating villain, and often quite scary and unpredictable as he slips into a new role."

But the IGN source is the only source in the article that's half decent, and it's a listicle to boot. I'd say it's worth mentioning should this be merged into the characters list, but there is nowhere near enough based off the current sourcing state to justify the article's existence, and from what I can gather, BEFOREs have not turned up much beyond that. I like Chameleon, but there's just not enough. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C#Chameleon, fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principal. There is nothing that bars a source from being used merely because it presents its content as a list. The only relevant questions are whether the source is independent, has an editorial policy conducive to reliability, and discusses the subject in sufficient depth. Everything else is just bias against popular culture. BD2412 T 01:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the sources in the article? I never said being a listicle disbarred it from being used in an article, but the fact it's the only thing that exists that shows Chameleon's notability is the kicker there. Every other source has minimal content in it, and just being mentioned doesn't make the character notable. The IGN article is good, but unless you have some other sources that haven't been seen yet, there just isn't enough out there for Chameleon. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sources already discussed, there is independent reliable source coverage in books about comics and pop culture, such as The Supervillain Book: The Evil Side of Comics and Hollywood,[29] 500 Comicbook Villains,[30] and The Encyclopedia of Super Villains.[31] --RL0919 (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I am unable to access the relevant pages where Chameleon is discussed. What do these sections say on Chameleon? These could definitely be good sources, but I'm afraid I can't make a judgement call on them until I see what's inside of them. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not that hard to find: [32][33][34] BOZ (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't presume too much about access – sometimes sites are restricted based on a vistor's location. But I can summarize: They all give broadly similar information about who created him, when he first appeared, and what story arcs he appeared in, with some other varying bits – for example, The Supervillain Book compares him to another Ditko character. They all give similar evaluations of the character: he's generally a minor villain that is notable mostly for being Spider-Man's first super-foe. But for AfD purposes the important thing is that they all thought he was interesting enough to write multiple dedicated paragraphs about him, not just a passing mention, thus providing support for notability. (As an aside for editors who are interested in working on the article, you may want to also check Understanding Superhero Comic Books: A History of Key Elements, Creators, Events and Controversies by Alex Grand, 100 Things Spider-Man Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die by Mark Ginocchio and Tom DeFalco, and Spider-Man Confidential: From Comic Icon to Hollywood Hero by Edward Gross. These all look like they might have useful information about the Chameleon character, but I don't have enough access to them to confirm whether they have enough to support notability.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For whatever reason, I couldn't access those pages via the previous links provided. In any case, glossing over them, 500 Comic Book Villains does have a nice blurb on him in the form of "...the Chameleon doesn't otherwise number among Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's more memorable creations." Not sure if I'm missing a bit in The Supervillain Book or not (Given that Chameleon's bit is at the edge of the page and I cannot access the page after it) but all I see there is just a summary of Chameleon's appearances. The Encyclopedia of Super-Villains is also just a glorified summary of the Chameleon character, offering no commentary other than "The Chameleon is a minor super-villain in the Spider-Man pantheon." I'm not sure how effective that is as commentary, but I suppose it exists. I'd say that, combined with the IGN article, it may barely meet the threshold for an article, but even then it is incredibly weak. Not too sure on the other book sources RL0919 listed, since I don't believe I have full access to those books either. I'm unopposed to Weak Keeping the article, should that become the consensus, but it should definitely have a notability tag at the top of the page given that his sourcing is rather weak. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re User:B2412. I don't care much about comic books or Marvel Universe characters but this is a well put together, referenced article on a character with an established history and there is absolutely no good reason to merge it with something else. Keep and close. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a well-made article, but the references are very lacking in terms of significant coverage. There is little to no information on Chameleon's development, and as stated above, there is very little in the way of actual discussion on the character. I don't know if RL0919's sources will change that, but in the article's present state, there is nothing but plot summary in the article. Plot summary does not justify a separate article. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not the place for cleanup. Improve, rewrite, expand, whatever, but keep it. Do not merge it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is still well within the realm of AfD to determine if the subject is notable. There's no need for cleanup if nothing justifies the article's existence. If there are no sources discussing Chameleon, then his article has nothing to stand on, rewrites of the current plot summary or not. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a large number of “keep” votes above. It ‘s frankly ridiculous to nominate a referenced article like this instead of improving upon it. Too darn many deletionists around who delete or merge just for the sake of legalism. Keep and close. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to state that I am not a "deletionist." In the case of Chameleon, I'd love to keep the article around, but his sourcing state is incredibly weak. In any case, I don't wish to drag this debate out given the sheer number of Keep votes. I still stand by Chameleon not having a strong sourcing state, but the book sources provided by RL0919 above are barely enough to keep it around for now. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it, rewrite it, whatever. Deleting or merging it isn’t an appropriate remedy. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

''''KEEP''' Don't be contrarian to be that guy. If you wanna fix up and re-focus, that's fine but dont delete a long running Marvel character. JosephWC (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I would be willing to undelete and move this to draftspace if an editor is interested in working on it and commits to using the WP:AFC process for recreation. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teilhard Frost[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not "inherently" notable enough for articles just because they and their music exist -- but existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, and the sourcing isn't getting him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that don't count as support for notability at all, a third comes from a limited circulation special-interest magazine that looks suspiciously more like a WordPress blog than a GNG-worthy publication of record, and the only one that comes from a clearly GNG-worthy media outlet is a single newspaper piece announcing a private house concert -- but that doesn't satisfy NMUSIC's touring criterion in and of itself, because the subject is from Manitoulin Island and the house concert was in Sudbury, which hardly consitutes evidence of a large-scale national tour. (That's like saying that a musician had passed the national tour criterion by playing a small venue in New York City while personally living in Newark.)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more than just one piece of "almost-local guy does stuff" in one closely-adjacent-to-hometown newspaper for coverage. Bearcat (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While it's good to push back on this to ensure someone is notable, this guy is a real deal professional musician. Lots of secondary sources to support his notability, but keep in mind that this is a music genre that generally does not get much mainstream media attention. I'll work on adding content when I have time and I think it will be clearer to you. Mr. Mephistopheles (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Real deal professional musician" isn't a notability criterion per se (every professional musician who exists at all is, by definition, a "real deal professional musician"), and musicians are not exempted from having to have reliable source coverage to establish their notability just because their genre "does not get much media attention" — "media attention" is what "secondary sources" means, so it's inherently impossible for a person to have "lots of secondary sources" while simultaneously somehow lacking "media attention". Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This artist meets the following criteria for inclusion in WP:NMUSIC "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city." He has also contributed to more than one Juno- nominated album. For these reasons the page should be kept. It is in the process of being updated to better reflect his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogaloo77 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, being a contributor to a Juno-nominated album is not a Wikipedia notability criterion. Junos build notability only if Teilhard Frost was personally named as the specific nominee in a Juno category, and simply being a contributor to somebody else's album is not a notability-builder if his contributions were not directly singled out for an individual nomination given directly to him in his own right. But he has never been the recipient of a nomination in any Juno category, either as himself or as Sheesham & Lotus with or without Son — if he was ever a contributor to a Juno-nominated album (which the article, as written, fails to assert at all), then that was merely as a session musician and not as the direct personal recipient of a nomination in his own name, so he doesn't get to invoke NMUSIC #8 as evidence of notability.

Secondly, "one of the most prominent representatives..." is a criterion that absolutely every local musician could claim to pass if all they had to do was assert that they passed it — the test for passing that criterion isn't just saying that it's passed, and requires reliable source coverage in media to verify its passage. See what the introduction to NMUSIC says: "It is not enough to make unsourced or poorly sourced claims in the article, or to assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed." Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the references added to the article would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable musician. I can't find mentions in any .ca sources, that aren't simple concert listings or bios. Nothing in the greater web either. Being from the Sudbury area myself, nice to see "a local boy does good" story, but we can't keep it with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This in a thesis is all I can find [35]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoulin is not Sudbury; more representative of the Island would be any Native performers from Wikwemikong for example. The Juno award is fine, but we need sourcing for it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a person working on this page who is new to Wiki, I find it disheartening to try to do things in the correct format, only to have them taken down. The page was in progress, as I have noted elsewhere. The page, as it is now, does not support the work this artist has done, so readers are no longer getting an accurate sense of Teilhard Frost's work. If references need to be formatted differently, it would be helpful to change them, or to make suggestions to another editor (in this case, me) as to how they should be done. These references were chosen specifically to illustrate work the artist had done in their community and other artists they had collaborated with. As I have stated before, this artist meets the criteria of Wiki guidelines of being a known specialist in their field, in their city, but as you have pointed out, better sources need to be found. I believe those sources are out there, but finding them will take time. As a busy person, it would be good to know if there is an expected timeframe that the article should be completed by. Also, before the article is complete, it would be helpful if we could collaborate on improving it, rather than criticizing it before it is actually finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boogaloo77 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should perhaps draft the article or use the sandbox before submitting. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This is definitely a borderline case. I think there's a weak argument for WP:BASIC and a stronger argument for WP:MUSICBIO#7. It appears we have an editor interested in improving the article, so I think draftifying is probably the right way forward. —siro χ o 06:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the new sources: the Sudbury Star piece is "a special to" the newspaper, so is likely a PR piece, it has no byline. An interview is not really helpful, but can flesh out an article. The album review only mentions this person in passing. The rest look about as non-useful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Wayne Hawkins[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability issues since 2011. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Psychology, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject's 1984 work, The semantics of English spatial prepositions has 263 citations in GS, although it appears to be a PhD thesis, and so presumably won't have received book reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:06, 13 October 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} 07:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think a well-cited doctoral dissertation is enough by itself for academic notability and there doesn't seem to be much else. Even this puff piece from his alma mater thanking him for a donation (unusable as a reliable source, I think) doesn't have much to say about the rest of his academic career except that he took a position at a place where his administrative and teaching duties prevented him from doing much else. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the comments above. The doctoral dissertation does not qualify one for notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:53, 22 October 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1931–32 CHL season[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ice hockey. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - league was covered extensively in contemporary newspapers. If newspapers.com was not currently down, it would be clear. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 19:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to get into newspapers.com and there is plenty of ongoing coverage of the league in at least the Star Tribune and Minneapolis Star, plus coverage in the St. Cloud Times and Minneapolis Journal. Rlendog (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do these sources provide reports beyond routine game coverage? It's hard to evaluate these sources when they are not present in the article. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is coverage of the league. Newspapers.com should be accessible now from the Wikipedia Library. Rlendog (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 12 October 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} 07:47, 20 October 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 Essex County Cricket Club players. History remains should access to BNA be restored/established and sourcing found to spin back out. Star Mississippi 00:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Martyn[edit]

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

I seem to mostly be finding databases but not much in depth detail. It seems his only known time playing cricket is playing in one first-class match and getting dismissed with a score of zero. TartarTorte 18:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cricket, and England. TartarTorte 18:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - intriguing name, intriguing spelling. There must be something that we can find about this individual from easily-obtained sources. Bobo . 21:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is some stuff about him on BNA. He was a schoolmaster and was charged with offences against 5 boys, though I am unsure of the nature of those charges as I still haven't got my BNA access back. He can definitely be expanded. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must be able to access it... I can't help but think this means the nominator didn't do much work in order to find new information... Bobo . 09:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd drop a note on the project talk page, a couple of people on there have access to the BNA. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:48, 18 October 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} 07:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Essex County Cricket Club players While there appears to be some coverage in the BNA here, I'm not sure there will be enough for a GNG pass still. If someone can access and then expand the article then excellent, however redirecting in the meantime saves the page history until that time comes. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above per the long established consensus that this is what we do if we can't find anything. A note can be added to the article summarising what we do know as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Santana[edit]

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. All references are from the same time period of approximately 30 days and written in promotional tone which indicates a possible press campaign and/or churnalism. The LA Weekly reference is clearly marked as a partnership article and not staff written. A WP:BEFORE found nothing better. CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Dominican Republic --CNMall41 (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, sources are PR or not helpful. I can't find sources for this businessperson. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The sources listed demonstrate his work on bodegas. He also has coverage in spanish sources. 103.244.242.150 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 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} 07:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject is lacking in-depth, independent coverage. Mooonswimmer 12:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) -- 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exposed (CoCo Lee album)[edit]

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

Previous expired PROD resulted in redirect, but recreation of an article should be treated as objection to that. Ergo, AfD. I would strongly suggest restoring the redirect; this album is not notable as would be demonstrated through appropriate coverage in reliable sources. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coco Lee. Even on Chinese WP this is a redirect to her page.[36] Show me the sources and I'll reconsider my vote, but I looked and couldn't find anything of substance. Oblivy (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my vote. Based on the yule.sohu.com and Philippine Daily Enquirer articles (and frankly none of the others) I think there's sufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability.Oblivy (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
Sources exist:
SCMP
https://amp.scmp.com/article/495032/coco-lee-exposed-us-market (https://archive.today/rMdxz)

Guang Ming Daily (Malaysia)
https://guangming.com.my/%E5%BE%9E%E6%97%A9%E5%B9%B4%E5%88%B0%E6%BC%94%E8%97%9D%E7%B6%93%E6%AD%B7-%E6%9D%8E%E7%8E%9F%E4%B8%80%E7%94%9F%E5%A4%9A%E5%A7%BF%E5%A4%9A%E5%BD%A9 (top of 3 charts in first week)

The West Australian
https://thewest.com.au/news/oceania/chinas-queen-of-pop-helps-open-jackson-shrine-ng-ya-220019.amp

Tatler Asia
https://www.tatlerasia.com/lifestyle/entertainment/celebrating-coco-lee

The Philippine Star
https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2005/07/01/284295/coco-lee-exposed/amp/

Sina Corporation
http://ent.sina.com.cn/y/d/2005-05-13/1811723273.html

Sony Music Entertainment Taiwan
https://sonymusic.com.tw/album/exposed-%E6%9D%8E%E7%8E%9F-coco-lee-5190149/

The Star (Malaysia)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YosEV9wszk (~04:09)
There are probably more, but that will eat up much of my time. So perhaps that’s it for now.--Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve edited the page, added sources and a cover image. Please take a look. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the article is considerably expanded. There are some places where the sources don't match the text (e.g., "album remains popular" which isn't supported by the Guangming article). But at least it's not a bare stub which is an improvement.

Four of the sources, SCMP, Philstar, Sina and Sony Taiwan, are album release articles that seem to be based entirely on press releases and canned quotes. If they are purely PR-driven media that's not going to count. That leaves four:

- Guang Ming Daily - a passing mention

- West Australian - slightly more of a mention, but just a sentence

- Tatler Asia - about the same as West Australian, just a sentence

- Youtube (the Star) - passing mention, about the same detail as West Australian and Tatler

A few hints on other sources. This article from the LA Times has two sentences about the album[37]. There's also this, a blog post that claims to be quoting Oriental Daily News regarding the ban of her album in China. That's at least an entire non-PR article about the album, but it's a blog. I've made an effort to look for it, maybe you can do better. Oblivy (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. Though IMHO we may not need so many sources for notability, they will be useful later anyway. So here we go:

About the ban:
http://yule.sohu.com/20050328/n224890549.shtml

https://news.cts.com.tw/cts/entertain/200503/200503270172672.html

http://ent.sina.com.cn/x/2005-04-13/0840701535.html

http://the-sun.on.cc/cnt/entertainment/20130710/00470_004.html

A review of the album:
https://www.sohu.com/a/196066220_763990

More:
https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=W1g1AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA36&dq=%22Exposed%22+CoCo+Lee+album&article_id=2022,22238783&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj_73skvaBAxXENd4KHevnBhcQuwV6BAgIEAY

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2005/12/29/2003286549 (already added to the article by another user)

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add:
https://amp.scmp.com/article/496393/trick-lite (https://archive.today/NeQ6u)

https://hashtaglegend.com/legends/the-impact-of-coco-lees-legacy/

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coco Lee. The article wasn't even properly recreated and is currently only one incomplete, unsourced sentence, and the actual article which was redirected was rightfully PROD'd/redirected as providing zero evidence of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI The article is being worked on by another editor. Vacosea (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vacosea (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:HEY and WP:NEXIST. S5A-0043^Talk 04:12, 15 October 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} 07:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per sources found and added to the article or at this AFD after the nomination was made.4meter4 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CSA Provincial T20 Challenge[edit]

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

Not notable; the available sources are insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG, as database entries are not considered WP:SIGCOV. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 21:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 22:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main domestic T20 competition in South Africa, plenty of coverage in simple searches under T20 Challenge, Betway T20 Challenge etc. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Main domestic T20 tournament of a full member of the ICC. Plenty of coverage. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major cricket tournament, lots of coverage. It’s gone on for years under different names. Park3r (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Enumeration and analysis of the reference material available would be much more helpful than just asserting that it exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the keep votes above clearly state that sources can be found by searching for each of the tournament’s previous names. Here’s some Google searches that return a large number of hits: “standard bank pro 20 iol”, “standard bank pro 20 timeslive” “t20 miwway iol” etc. I’m not sure why a nomination that seems to have been done without a thorough WP:BEFORE places a further burden on editors who vote keep. Park3r (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a clear keep to me - there will be tonnes of offline newspaper coverage for starters. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha occupation of Kolwan (1672)[edit]

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

I am unable to find any sources in any way supporting the content of this unreferenced article. None of the linked articles of purportedly related topics (Shivaji, Maratha Empire, Sambhaji, Moropant, Jawhar, Vikramgad, etc.) make any mention of corresponding events in 1672, although this does broadly correspond to the time during which Shivaji was consolidating what would become the Maratha Empire. It is perhaps noteworthy that this is the only article on Wikipedia to use the term "Kolistan". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Unclear, User:Charvak157 posted two citations (books)

Jadhav, Namdevrao (2014). Ganimi Kava. Pune: Rajamata Prakashan. ISBN 978-8191098006.
Sarkar, Jadunath (1992). Shivaji and His Times. Orient Longman. ISBN 978-81-250-1347-1.

Which would not make the article originally unsourced. If those citations are correct for events it means, WP:OFFLINESOURCES exist. Article has had what might appear to be some disruptive editing. Might be prudent to review the history of it. It would be hard to verify the sources know. Govvy (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to track down a digital copy of Shivaji and His Times--it was published in 1920 (1992 edition is a reprint) and thus is a raj-era source that is typically considered unreliable. Ignoring reliability, it supports some, but not most, of the content in the article on pages 218-219.

Looking at Ganimi Kava, its title apparently translates to "Guerrilla Kava A true mastery of the world famous Maratha martial art" -- I am skeptical that this book contains reliable information about a 17th c. military occupation, and am disinclined to consider it a probable source in the absence of quotes or page numbers. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Haven't had the opportunity to research this topic in detail, but some points for those willing to spend some time on further research:

Shivaji and His Times (originally published in 1920) is in public domain. A search for "Kolwan" / "Kolvan" / "Kolistan" on archive.org does not return any result. Searching for "1672" and "Koli" returns page 204 which has one sentence about the "Koli State of Ramnagar".
Ganimi Kava by Namdevrao Jadhav likely fails WP:RS - the author claims to be royal Maratha descent, and runs the Rajmata Prakashan (the publisher of the book).

Searching Google books for "1672 Koli Maratha" shows that the Maratha chiefs ransacked a few states ruled by Koli chiefs, sometimes on their way to another territory. So this is not a complete hoax. That said, I'm not sure if any scholarly source has discussed this in non-trivial manner as a single campaign directed towards Koli-ruled states. We may have sources that talk about Nazi invasion of countries ruled/inhabited by the Slavs, but that doesn't warrant the existence of an article titled Nazi invasion of Slavic countries unless scholarly sources have discussed the topic with that categorization in mind.

utcursch | talk 16:05, 13 October 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} 07:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment above. I have not been able to find reliable sources that discuss "Maratha occupation of Kolwan" (or "Kolistan" according a recent move). Separate articles on Maratha actions against individual Koli chiefs may be created, but we don't need this one, just like we don't need Nazi invasion of Slavic countries. utcursch | talk 23:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-independently-notable event. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 25 October 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. Nom confusion aside, it appears sourcing questions are resolved. Star Mississippi 15:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Poltorak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. After almost 4 years since the previous AFD, I think it is the perfect time to start a new AFD, before he becomes a chaser on The Chase Australia in 2024. Tagged for notability since 2011. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am pinging @Cunard, as the nominator, to see if he finds additional references. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 09:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I have added references via Newspapers.com, if I ever decide to withdraw the article for deletion.

These are the references:

Oliver, Robin (30 September 1991). "Quiz champ sold on Sale". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 56. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.
Potts, John (20 November 1986). "Quiz King's party for hipsters and the arty". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 20 October 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
Webber, John (24 March 2001). "David Poltorak: Won $376,000 in cash and prizes". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 356. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com.
Cockington, James (17 June 1996). "Sold on the Sale". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 58. Retrieved 2023-10-20 – via Newspapers.com. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Utopes, @Grahamec, @Duffbeerforme, @Teraplane, @Bookscale, @Johnpacklambert, and @4meter4, which were all the participants in the previous AFD discussion. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm thoroughly confused by this nomination. Is the nominator providing the sources above as evidence for keeping? If so, just withdraw the nomination as it appears you may have answered your own query.4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, I cannot seem to find a link to a reference @Duffbeerforme mentioned in the previous AFD discussion (Nicholson, Sarah (27 October 2005). "Master knows best". The Courier-Mail.), but other than that issue, I would withdraw my nomination, as I would keep the article if someone else created this discussion. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 02:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is a good venue to request sources you do not have access to. Here is a copy of that article:
Nicholson, Sarah (2005-10-27). "Master knows best". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2023-10-22. Retrieved 2023-10-22.
Cunard (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the reference you suggested to the article just now. @Cunard, could you please copyedit and expand the article even more? Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As before. As a Sale of the Century (Australian game show) winner and a question/script writer he has coverage spanning over a decade. Articles such as Oliver, Robin (30 September 1991), "QUIZ CHAMP SOLD ON SALE", Sydney Morning Herald and Cockington, James (17 June 1996), "Sold On The Sale", Sydney Morning Herald and Nicholson, Sarah (27 October 2005), "Master knows best", The Courier-Mail focus primarily on him, providing sustained coverage. He was also before Sale a script writer, co writing the notable film Emoh Ruo. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided here and added to the article show the subject is notable. Good job on improving the article. Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 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 Marquess of Ailsa. History remains should sources be found Star Mississippi 14:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Kennedy, 9th Marquess of Ailsa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated after deletion, this nobleman's article still fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The new sources added are not independent (COSCA) or provide significant coverage of the subject (Burke's Peerage and the 3 obituaries of his brother). See also the previous deletion discussion for an assessment of the existing sources. Pilaz (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Pilaz (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor aristocrat who wasn't notable in 2022 and is still not notable in 2023. Largely unmentioned except in directories of the nobility. JMWt (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- Do not think the subject has notability other than the title and so an individual article is not needed, but could conceivably be searched for so a redirect to Marquess of Ailsa would seem a good way forward. Dunarc (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marquess of Ailsa per Dunarc. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marquess of Ailsa per above with no bias against an article being re-created per WP:SUMMARY should sufficient reliable sources be found. Waggers TALK 08:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arrey Bate Arrey[edit]

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

This article seems to be mostly promotional and relies on self-published or unreliable sources. Suggest that once those claims are removed, there is nothing notable left OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Cameroon. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Parfumeur[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatha Chaitanya Yuvajana Party[edit]

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

A lack of significant sustained coverage, no sources exists outside the 23 July launch, even the ones that detail the launch talk about the leader/founder more than the party itself. Sohom (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Sohom (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shivalik Public School, Mohali[edit]

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

This Page has no verifiable citations and it provides many unverified claims. I suspect this to be made from someone related to the organisation. Yamantakks (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did a brief search and found a tidal wave of routine The Tribune India posts (which read like press releases and very well might be), and a couple of databases, but overall no significant mentions in secondary sources. (Worth also concurring with the nominator that the only source in the article dedicates a grand half-a-sentence to talking about the school itself.) 2600:1012:B126:B9A5:5C66:DDC7:69F9:F20E (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC) (Please send talk messages here instead)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Showdown[edit]

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

No notable event. No in-deep sources about the event, just passing mention or WP:ROUTINE results. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Wrestling, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 October 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. Star Mississippi 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vendor-neutral data centre[edit]

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

Whereas they do exist and the term is used I doubt the term is used enough to justify this article when we have the far better Data center article. As the info here is completely unsourced it might not be right to merge it to the data center article. Your thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 20 October 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. – Joe (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael MacConnell[edit]

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

Non-notable author; article is unsourced. Natg 19 (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Australia. Natg 19 (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is unsourced and that is certainly bad. I would not know how to source it, but it certainly looks as if it could be. I suggest we let this discussion go on for while to let other editors source it. Bduke (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From Ebscosearch/Proquest there seem to be multiple reviews of Maelstrom (Redlich, Julie. Woman's Day (Australia Edition). 10/152007, Vol. 59 Issue 42, p104; and Clayton Smales. Townsville Bulletin. 11/03/2007; and [short] Reading room. Australian Women's Weekly, 00050458, Oct2007, Vol. 77, Issue 10; and from Proquest [short] A mayhem of murderers - CRIME FILE: Blundell, Graeme. Weekend Australian Canberra, A.C.T.. 05 Jan 2008: 10. [short] Tense tales of uncertain action. The Canberra Times. 27 Oct 2007: 16. ) and also several for Splinter (Author spies a top novel idea By: By BROOKE NEWSTEAD, Daily Telegraph, The (Sydney), JUL 14, 2008; and [short] Max Tennison. You're booked. MX. 07/30/2008 and [short] Thriller Brunetti, Frank. Sun-Herald; 06 July 2008: 11). Proquest also finds a two longish profile-cum-interviews with quite a bit of biographical detail (Killer instinct; PROFILE: McCarthy, Joanne. Herald; Newcastle, N.S.W.. 22 Sep 2007: 2) and (Crime and publishing: THE INTERVIEW. Michael MacConnell talks to Keith Austin. Sydney Morning Herald.; 05 July 2008: 28.). Maelstrom was also longlisted for Ned Kelly best first crime novel award by the Crime Writers' Association of Australia. Seems just about enough for my interpretation of WP:Author. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the sources found by Espresso Addict are enough to clear the bar. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:19, 27 October 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 and none likely to emerge. If editors are interested in discussing a merge, that can happen on the Talk. Star Mississippi 14:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg University Faculty of Theology[edit]

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

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heidelberg_University_Faculty_of_Philosophy_and_History, I believe most of the individual faculties of this university do not merit having separate articles. Indefensible (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Germany. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual faculties of a long-established large research university ought to be notable. There's no corresponding article in the German Wikipedia, but the German article on the university has a lot of information about theology. Searching for the German name might help. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for Theologische Fakultät der Universität Heidelberg and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for Theologische Fakultät Heidelberg. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the outcome of the prior AfD and with this one. All four of the founding faculties of Heidelberg are independently notable, and possibly the non-founding faculties are as well. Here are some (German) sources that cover the Theology Faculty as their primary subject. No doubt additional coverage can be found in sources that cover the history of the university more generally.

Besier, Gerhard (2006), Eckart, Wolfgang U.; Sellin, Volker; Wolgast, Eike (eds.), "Die Theologische Fakultät", Die Universität Heidelberg im Nationalsozialismus (in German), Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 173–260, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39385-6_7, ISBN 978-3-540-39385-6, retrieved 2023-10-06
Selderhuis, H. J. 1961- (2006). "Eine attraktive Universität: die Heidelberger Theologische Fakultät 1583 - 1622". Bildung und Konfession (in German): 1.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (and following the "Universität Heidelberg Theological faculty" subject link on this page shows another 22 potential sources in total).
"„Oase in einer aufklärungssüchtigen Zeit"? Die Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät der Universität Heidelberg - Lehrstuhl für Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit". www.theologie.uni-wuerzburg.de. Retrieved 2023-10-06.
Fix, Karl-Heinz 1961- (1994). Universitätstheologie und Politik: die Heidelberger Theologische Fakultät in der Weimarer Republik. Heidelberger Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte. Winter. ISBN 978-3-8253-0195-8.((cite book)): CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Siegele-Wenschkewitz, Leonore (1985), Doerr, Wilhelm; Riedl, Peter Anselm (eds.), "Die Theologische Fakultät im Dritten Reich ›Bollwerk gegen Basel‹", Semper Apertus Sechshundert Jahre Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg 1386–1986 (in German), Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 1602–1641, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-70477-2_60, ISBN 978-3-642-70477-2, retrieved 2023-10-06

Jfire (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heidelberg University per WP:ATD. I agree with Jfire and Eastmain that an article is theoretically possible with this topic. However, at this point the article is so underdeveloped that it is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of the main article and should be redirected to the university page until such time as an editor expands content to the point that a separate article is warranted.4meter4 (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:CONTENTFORK is relevant here? This would appear to fall under WP:SPINOFF which is described as an "acceptable type of content fork". Graham (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR The only source is the the Department's website, and the University itself. Please see Search: Faculty This is but one of countless "Faculty" AFDs on Wikipedia. Refer to the recently deleted (Oct 1, 2023) Heidelberg University Faculty of Philosophy and History. This is just more of the same: a 2008 copy and paste of the German-language online dept list of the university. It tells us absolutely nothing. — Maile (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete - The article as it stands is a sub-stub with no sourcing, and nothing that would indicate a pass for this under WP:ORG. The proposed additional content is already in the parent article. It is notable that there is no DE wiki article for this faculty. FOARP (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you say that there is nothing that would indicate that the subject would meet the standards of WP:ORG, are you taking into account the sources cited by Jfire? Graham (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - there's nothing here to show that it is independently notable. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to get more opinions of the sources brought up in this discussion (along with those in the article).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The above arguments for deletion are greatly deficient:

While I don't speak German, the German-language sources cited by Jfire would appear prima facie to suggest that the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG.
WP:OR could not be much less relevant when the article's claims could easily be verified by one of the aforementioned sources.
WP:CONTENTFORK explicitly doesn't prohibit subarticles such as this one.

I would be open to hearing an argument on the basis of WP:NOPAGE; however, given the institution's history, I'm inclined to think that – once the article is fleshed out – the subject will be best covered in its own article. Graham (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Graham Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Group[edit]

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

The article lacks sufficient references to meet WP:ORG. Akshithmanya ^talk 04:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Canada, and United States of America. Akshithmanya ^talk 04:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The company website is there as a reference, there are articles by the Vancouver Sun and Insights Success.

It is a very short article about a well established company in British Columbia. As a fairly new contributor, I would be grateful for any suggestions or guidelines- like how many links are considered necessary to create an article.

My focus is on the construction sector of Canada, in which I happen to work. The sector is underrepresented on wikipedia. Simplyarnab (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Besides the Vancouver Sun mention, I couldn't really find any coverage at all, let alone anything significant. Mooonswimmer 13:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Insights Success

CADCR

These are already there. I have added 2 more

The Tribune

Drishti Magazine Simplyarnab (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If these arent sufficient, I would be grateful if you can tell me how many more I need to add, so that future articles on the same topic can be accepted without any hitches Simplyarnab (talk) 20:55, 20 October 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 14:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstone Career Institute[edit]

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

User:Superatp PRODed this article, but I have dePRODed and brought to AfD for discussion, as it is not clear to me whether this should be removed. The institution is purportedly 133 years old, which suggests that evidence for notability should be discoverable. As I have noted in the article, in 1948 it was the subject of an FTC case that deemed it a diploma mill, which I would consider one point of notability. I would tend to support a move to draft for cleanup, as it is rather a mess. BD2412 T 04:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Education. BD2412 T 04:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft per nom. Waggers TALK 08:47, 27 October 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. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puget Sound Senior Baseball League[edit]

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

Non-notable local baseball league which doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, or any other notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, United States of America, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources from google search do not significantly cover it or unreliable. Brachy08 _(Talk) 03:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With 1,087 members in 2023, the PSSBL is one of the largest adult sports organizations - not just baseball - serving a metropolitan area in the USA. That is indeed notable. The league has been the subject of numerous TV and radio reports and many articles in print/web media. While we have a number of video and audio recordings on file, we have not been able to upload them due to various restrictions including copyright concerns. They include KIRO-TV, KOMO Radio, KIRO Radio, KJR Radio, Tacoma Weekly just to name a few. Te519 (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When you say "we", are you saying that you have a connection to the subject? Let'srun (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"We" as in several members of the 16-person Board of Directors. My connection is that I was elected by our 1,000+ membership to serve on the board of our non-profit organization. Te519 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source assessment would be very helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not believe it passes WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Seems like a niche league in the Seattle area. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This AfD has been open for a week and nobody has come forward with anything approaching WP:SIGCOV in a reliable, independent source. With due respect to Te519 and their organization, that is what we need to support a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Cbl62 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. Wizardman 13:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a local organization with out any independent notability. There are hundreds of groups like this in every state. I get that the organization has worked on building the page, but that is a conflict of interest. Spanneraol (talk) 21:52, 22 October 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 Nader Shah's invasion of India. History remains if someone wants to source and merge anything. Star Mississippi 14:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish of Chenab (1739)[edit]

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

Fails verification - no mention of "Skirmish of Chenab" in Singh or Gupta, the two main references. Singh does briefly mention an attack, but gives it no name and there is not enough here for WP:N. asilvering (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. asilvering (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many incoming links through Battle of Chenab (1739) which may or may not be confusion with Battle of Chenab. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like those are coming mostly from Template:Campaignbox Nader. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some more opinions here on this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This obviously needs work and may be flat out wrong but I don't see a good case for WP:TNT so let's put some maintenance tags on it and keep it for now per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find evidence that it is notable, and that it's called "skirmish of chenab"? -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Nader Shah's invasion of India per nomination. And on reading Singh's (very brief) account of the event, it seems that characterizing it as a single skirmish, rather than the series of hit-and-run raids on the retreating Persians is rather misleading. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge An apparent historically unnamed event that should be merged into Nader Shah's invasion of India as an "Afterward'. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I agree with Parsecboy and GenQuest. It seems to be worth a mention but without further verification, it doesn't make much of an article. If more sources can be found, it can be split back off in the future. Donner60 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nader Shah's invasion of India per above. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political AI (Artificial Intelligence)[edit]

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

Not clear what the page is supposed to be about in the first place; notability isn't demonstrated, but I'm more inclined to think that the topic itself isn't encyclopaedic. Fermiboson (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. First of all, I cannot find anything notable about this subject on Google and second, the article is promoting what their "milestones" are; which is against WP:SOAPBOX. This article is clearly not fit to be here. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 08:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An "Artificial intelligence in politics" article might be warranted, but I couldn't find any coverage of "political AI", and the cited article's only mention of the term is:

With this in mind, we propose six milestones that will herald a new era of democratic politics driven by AI. All feel achievable—perhaps not with today’s technology and levels of AI adoption, but very possibly in the near future.

What makes for a political AI milestone? Mooonswimmer 12:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG and appears to be a case of WP:PROMO. User:Let'srun 01:57, 21 October 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. Coverage has been proven to exist Star Mississippi 14:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ekos Research Associates[edit]

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

(1)The article does not meet the test for notability. As per WP:N it has not received “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The only third-party, reliable sources that make mention of Ekos are those that republish or refer to Ekos’ opinion polls, which are work produced by the article subject and not “independent of the subject”. No source makes significant reference to the company itself as a topic in any detail.

(2)The article does not have any reliable sources. The single only source the article has been built on is the website of Ekos, the subject company of the article itself. As per WP:RS this is self-published and not reliable.

(3)The article serves as a means of promotion. While relatively neutral in tone, the informational value of the article is to promote the service lines, locations and websites of the business. There is little to no information of encyclopedic relevance. As per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapboax or means of promotion.

(4)The article's creation and editing is tainted by conflict of interest. The original creator of the article has acknowledged that they created the article in 2005 while an employee of the company (concerning in light of WP:COI). They continued to add and control edits in the years since as they remained and still remain an employee. There is evidence that at least one other regular contributor was also in a close working or personal relationship to the company and/or its ownership. Balancingakt (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is shown by all the citations of the company's research. See this Google Scholar search. See "Developing skills in the Canadian workplace: the results of the Ekos Workplace Training Survey | VOCEDplus, the international tertiary education and research database"., a scholarly article that analyzes a survey done by Ekos. Google Scholar says the article was cited by 115 others. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. The notability test in WP:GNG has a few factors that must all be met. As I read it, references and sharing of the opinion poll research (i.e. a work product of Ekos) does not satisfy the "independence" factor and so does not count for notability. If I am wrong there, the issue remains that no source provides "significant coverage", addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. Since no reliable source actually talks about Ekos the company directly and in detail, there is no notability. I acknowledge their research is frequently cited but there is still no material for an article on Ekos and no notability. Balancingakt (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

COI and promotional tones are not issues for AfD; deletion ≠ clean-up. In any event, these two issues have been fixed. This leaves 2 of the nominator's issues outstanding: reliable sources and notability.
This article has dozens of incoming links from other articles for what it's worth.
Other Canadian pollsters have articles: List of polling organizations#Canada

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would help with a Keep argument if the article had sources besides the company's website.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The majority of nom's concerns have been addressed. Enough coverage exists to meet WP:GNG. Deleting this does not help readers or improve the encyclopedia. ~Kvng (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As my COI is clearly stated on the talk page, I will not be voting in this discussion, but if anyone is interested in adding some independent reliable sources to the article (as this is a serious issue with the article), here are some places to start. How robo-calls work: the cheap and easy way to poll (Globe and Mail), A critical review of studies investigating the quality of data obtained with online panels based on probability and nonprobability samples (Callegaro et al), Pollster Graves is in ‘the house’ (HillTimes), A pollster's painful reckoning: 'How could I have screwed up so badly?'. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there are still no independent, secondary sources in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided independent sources on the talk page, here. I would add them to the article if it weren't for my COI.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one of those to the article and copied the others into ((refideas)) on Talk:Ekos Research Associates. Respectfully, this should not be a precondition for closure of the deletion discussion - WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 21 October 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. – Joe (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Lebanon in the 2006 Lebanon War[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHed collection of a Lebanese government statements during the 2006 Lebanon War. Noting there is no other article for the other party, so this is an WP:NPOV violation. Statements representing the positions of all parties involved, which would ensure WP:NPOV, are already on the main page for the war. If any extraneous statements on this page are additive, they can be merged. Longhornsg (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Lebanon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article should remain. The 2006 Lebanon War was not between Lebanon and Israel, but between Hezbollah and Israel, so Lebanon was an injured bystander. Please note that the conflict is more correctly known as the 2006 Israel–Hezbollah War.

The article doesn't blame either of the two warring parties, but describes, in a neutral and factual way, Lebanon's attempts to achieve a ceasefire. Consequently, the argument that it violates Wikipedia's rules about NPOV doesn't hold. The article is an expansion of a chapter in the main article and contains valuable information for future researchers. I see no reason to remove it. Thomas Blomberg (talk) Thomas Blomberg (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant material to 2006 Lebanon War if it isn't already included. Mooonswimmer 13:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per @Thomas Blomberg. I think the article can be cleaned up, better researched, and formatted better, but I think it's certainly useful for research into the unique position of Lebanon's government apparatus as a third party in a way happening on the land they have jurisdiction over. (edit: formatting)

OJDrucker (talk) 15:39, 26 October 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 Bill Kristol. Daniel (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations with Bill Kristol[edit]

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

The subject does not pass WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Entertainment, Politics, and Economics. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the reasons why it does pass WP:GNG.

Significant Coverage: "Conversations with Bill Kristol" has been referenced and cited by multiple independent and reliable sources: - The Hertog Foundation, an institution dedicated to political education and leadership, has provided coverage of the program. - The Jack Miller Center, an academic organization that supports the teaching of America's founding principles and history, has also referenced the series. - The American Enterprise Institute, a well known public policy think tank, has covered topics discussed in the program. Such coverage from multiple independent and authoritative institutions demonstrates that the series is not only recognized but also considered influential in its discourse.
Contribution to the Field: The show provides in-depth interviews with leading figures across a spectrum of disciplines - politics, political philosophy, history, foreign policy, economics, and culture. The depth and breadth of topics discussed make it a valuable resource for those looking for substantive and thoughtful discourse on pivotal national issues.
Notable Host & Production: Bill Kristol, the host, is a recognized figure in American politics. As a founder of The Weekly Standard and a significant voice in political analysis for decades, his association lends credibility and notability to the series.
Notable Guests: The program has hosted a range of prominent guests like Garry Kasparov, Anne Applebaum, Harvey Mansfield, and Larry Summers. Their participation indicates the program's standing and respect within intellectual and political circles.
Duration and Frequency: The program has been running since 2014, indicating sustained interest and relevance. A biweekly release schedule further highlights its active status and ongoing contribution to public discourse.

With these points, the "Conversations with Bill Kristol" article not only meets but exceeds Wikipedia's notability standards by showcasing significant coverage in reliable sources, contribution to the field, and association with notable personalities and institutions. Dillion3384 (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete despite the bludgeoning by the creator with irrelevant non-policy and accepted norms, this isn't notable on its own and can easily be covered in the article about Kristol with a redirect. It lacks significant in depth coverage and the normal show coverage required. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PICKLEDICAE🥒,

Thank you for reviewing the "Conversations with Bill Kristol" article and sharing your perspective. I've made an effort to highlight its notability through evidence and sources from respected institutions, underscoring the show's significance in public discourse.

I also wish to mention that, as time permits, I would like to expand the article to delve into individual episodes. Such expansions will provide greater context and depth, emphasizing the show's unique contribution to various discussions and debates. This would further establish its distinction from merely being an offshoot of Bill Kristol's contributions.

If you have concerns about the article's current state or its adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines, could you please reference specific policies or provide examples?

Best regards, Dillion3384 (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bill Kristol per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage about the subject in my searches for sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline to support a standalone article. I support a selective merge of any content that can be reliably sourced to Bill Kristol. I support preserving the history under the redirect so that the redirect can be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bill Kristol. It seems fair to highlight on the merged page that there were some important guests and that the series had a bit of wider influence. But going into a whole lot of depth about individual episodes in a separate page just isn't supported by the RS and therefore does not (at this time) meet the notability criteria for inclusion here. JMWt (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bill_Kristol#Media_commentator. No significant coverage or analysis of the program, doesn't warrant a standalone page. Mooonswimmer 13:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bill Kristol, no sourcing to demonstrate notability in and of itself. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bill Kristol: per virtually everyone else; that's the standard alternative to deletion when the host is notable but the show doesn't have its own independent notability. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 24 October 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. – Joe (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Souleye (hip hop artist)[edit]

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

A lot of coverage exists which has this man's name in it, but it appears to me that 99% of it is actually just about Alanis Morissette, his wife, and is either report on their 2010 marriage or is some other tabloid nonsense following her daily life which he happens to be a part of. I found no significant coverage discussing his music. He has an AllMusic page, but it only has five of his albums, no ratings from users let alone critics, and no bio. He doesn't even have an Album of the Year listing. If his sole notability is as another person's husband, I think his name should redirect to her page instead. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems ok, usual mix of celebrity stuff, US magazine is ok. This [38] is directly about him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This in Kotaku is a sort-of review of his music in a video game, discussing a few tracks [39] Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Kotaku piece is about a different musician with the same name. Notice that article mentions that the composer's real name is Magnus Pålsson, while this guy's name is Mario John Treadway. The Source article, however, is the right guy. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere I have added in some additional sources to substantiate Souleye's career outside of his marriage to Alanis Morissette. Souleye was recently profiled by one of the leading hip-hop magazines, The Source, about his lengthy musical career as an independent hip-hop artist. The magazine called him "one of the most inventive hip-hop artists of his generation." https://thesource.com/2023/03/18/with-latest-album-disguised-as-tomorrow-genre-bending-rapper-souleye-cements-legacy-as-one-of-most-inventive-hip-hop-artists-of-his-generation/

I also added in another feature profile on him by men's magazine Swagger, which focuses on his career and partnership with visual artist Rob Prior, which is here: https://www.swaggermagazine.com/entertainment/when-visual-art-and-music-collide-an-interview-with-genre-bending-hip-hop-artist-souleye-and-acclaimed-visual-artist-rob-prior/ Stevenlevine1 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We really need a few more editors to participate here and review the available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bizarre. I was under the impression that The Source was a generally reliable publication and one of the leading hip-hop magazines as stated by QuietHere, but the profile of Souleye almost makes me inclined to believe this was some kind of sponsored piece. If not, it is abysmally poor journalism.

"Souleye is one of the most prolific, impactful and creative hip-hop artists of his generation with a staggering 12 studio albums and dozens of singles and EPs throughout his two-decade-long career." Yet I am struggling to find any critical reception? No awards, no other profiles other than this one, no tributes and shoutouts from other artists?

"His acclaimed new album, Disguised as Tomorrow, released just last month, features meditative and spiritual elements that “reflect a relaxed, introspective, reflective period after the globally traumatic experiences of the pandemic." Souleye says." An acclaimed new album with no reviews? With songs averaging a few hundred views on Youtube?

Souleye is not notable as a musician. He cannot inherit his wife's notability. What little coverage exists seems to be sponsored content/churnalism. Mooonswimmer 13:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alanis Morissette or delete. notability is not inherited, and all of the coverage here is targeted at Morissette. There's only trivial and routine coverage on this individual, certainly nothing that is going to pass WP:NMUSICBIO. Jacona (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MooonswimmerI have identified a corpus of additional press placements pertaining to Souleye predating his marriage to Alanis Morissette, as well as some following it, such as Naluda Magazine. Several of these articles date back to the year 2003, 7 years before his relationship. Will the incorporation of these sources serve to substantiate the subject under discussion?

https://www.steamboatpilot.com/explore-steamboat/mc-souleye-pens-lyrics/

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/mi-blvds-lead-vocalist-souleye-at-red-lightning-beats/2101964/

https://jambands.com/news/2010/03/26/souleye-leaves-blvd/

https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/hip-hop-homecoming/

https://bandblurb.com/souleye-hip-hop-medicine/

https://www.sacramentopress.com/2009/07/23/blvd-bring-dance-party-to-beatnik/

https://music.newcity.com/2008/07/10/preview-tipper-blvd-mc-souleye-anasia-mo2/

https://www.naludamagazine.com/interview-with-sf-based-hip-hop-artist-souleye/

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/events/2008/sep/20/blvd-and-souleye/

https://www.thereporter.com/2010/01/28/music-review-blvd-breaks-boundaries-by-blending-musical-beats/amp/

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/sep/28/live-music-shack-opens-its-heart-heartles-20080928/

https://www.rapreviews.com/2008/11/blvd-music-for-people/ Stevenlevine1 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyLead[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. Google News search gives zero results, general google search reveals only sponsored blogs, rankings and other SEO fluff. Article sources also all belong in the former two category. Fermiboson (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Websites, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 21 October 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 Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk#Administrative and municipal status is the compromise that emerged over the past week. RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17 km, Sakhalin Oblast[edit]

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

As the peculiar name suggests, what evidence there is indicates this is/was a rail stop and not a settlement. Looking at the Russian version, I see that it was designated a село, but even given the vague nature of the term, there's no evidence that there was or is a village/whatever there; indeed, I cannot find a feature on GMaps or anything similar which I can identify as this place. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm functionally illiterate in Russian, so I can't read the sources for myself, but all the article says is "This is a place in the middle of nowhere" and basically nothing else. If something important goes on there or we get more information, we can resurrect it. ❤History Theorist❤ 02:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Population of 2, which is non-zero, according to Results of the 2020 All-Russian Population Census for the Sakhalin Region, and which was probably rather more at the time the settlement was founded. Did nobody bother to look at the corresponding article in Russian (with 9 references) at ru:17-й км (Сахалинская область)? Being named after a railway kilometre-post is not a reason for deletion. Consider 100 Mile House in British Columbia, several place names at Mile End (disambiguation) and Two Mile. We have enough evidence to keep the article. Dismissing it as only a railway point is unjustified and the dreaded "original research". Google Translate's version of the Russian article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a brutal cleanup, a copyedit, and a couple factual corrections, but I can confirm this is a place that's categorized as an inhabited locality and previously had people living there, which is all that's needed to keep a geostub according to our geonotability criteria. Keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2023; 21:42 (UTC) 21:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The “population” of 2 people are discussing above is entirely consistent with the staff of the railway station! If the GEOLAND standard (a guideline) is literally leading us to keep articles about non-notable railway stations in the middle of nowhere that nothing notable can be written about against WP:IINFO (a policy) then that’s a reason to doubt that GEOLAND is guiding us correctly. GEOLAND anyway only creates a presumption of notability, a presumption that is decisively rebutted by a simple reference to common sense: this is a railway station with a staff of two people. No evidence at all is presented above of it having ever been anything but this.

None of the references in the Russian language article help with this - indeed they highlight the true nature of what is being discussed: the locality had no population when it was designated a “village” in 2004, it had no population at the next census either. In 2021 the locality was recorded with a population of 2 people. “Village” status in Russia can therefore be given to locations with an official population of zero. This is therefore not a “legally recognised populated place” since it does not need to have a population to receive or keep the status. FOARP (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is very much a "legally recognized populated place" because a) it is listed as such in all official lists of populated places (whereas generic railway stations are not); and b) the staff of railway stations is counted at the official place of residence of the said staff (which must be at an officially recognized inhabited locality, not at a place of work like a railway station). Inhabited locality status is also never given to (yet or already) unpopulated areas (although a previously populated place with an inhabited locality status may still retain said status despite later becoming depopulated); but even then (and even after officially having been removed from record) such places would continue to meet our criteria for keeping. The 2004 law which granted this place the status of a selo was simply one that unified the types of smaller inhabited localities across the whole of Sakhalin Oblast; it was not one transforming a random railway station into a brand new populated place; "17 km" already had populated place status before that (since at least 1948, as a matter of fact). It was one of seven rural localities (5 "settlements" and 2 "stations") under jurisdiction of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk which got reclassified as selos (both "settlement" and "station" had already been legally recognized types of rural localities before; along with "village" and "selo"). Furthermore, the Law on the Administrative-Territorial division of 2011 (and the Law this one replaced) specifically clarified that supporting structures are not on their own considered to be proper inhabited localities; inhabited locality status would specifically have to be granted for that to stop being the case:
Населённые местности, имеющие временное значение и непостоянный состав населения и (или) являющиеся объектами служебного назначения (вахтовые и дачные посёлки, железнодорожные будки, дома лесников, заимки, полевые станы, метеостанции, животноводческие стоянки, прииски, лесоучастки и другие объекты), а также одиночные дома не являются самостоятельными населёнными пунктами и числятся за теми населёнными пунктами, с которыми находятся в административных, производственно-коммерческих и социально-бытовых отношениях. (Populated territories with temporary significance and non-permanent population and (or) service objects (shift and dacha settlements, railroad cabins, foresters' houses, camps, field camps, meteorological stations, livestock camps, mines, timber plots, and other objects), as well as stand-alone houses are not considered to be inhabited localities and are registered with those inhabited localities with which they are in administrative, industrial-commercial, and social-residential relations--Article 8.4).

Сельские населённые пункты делятся на следующие виды: 1) село; 2) посёлок; 3) станция; 4) разъезд; 5) хутор; 6) иные населённые пункты, не отнесенные к городским населённым пунктам. (Rural locality types include: 1) selo; 2) settlement; 3) station; 4) junction; 5) khutor; 6) other inhabited localities not classified as urban--Article 8.3).

I also would like to note that assuming that just the population is 2 it means it must be "staff" is pure original research and a conjecture. The very WP:NGEO you're quoting states that [p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history, and there is plenty of evidence that 17 km is indeed a legally recognized place, which was populated in the past, even if it not now.

Note also that 10 km, 14 km, 16 km, and 19 km are all bona fide "railway stations" in the immediate vicinity. None of them have or, to the best of my knowledge, ever had an official inhabited locality status or had their population recorded separately. If any of those were to be created based on the NGEO guideline alone, they would have to be immediately deleted. But 17 km is not the same at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2023; 04:39 (UTC) 04:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Inhabited locality status is also never given to (yet or already) unpopulated areas" - sorry, but here we have an example of exactly that occurring. The population was recorded as zero in 2002 and zero in 2010 according to RU Wiki, yet it became a selo in 2004?Saying it previously had another status at another time is neither here nor there unless it is demonstrated that there was ever a real settlement at this location - 2004 is when it became a selo, which is the status you're arguing gives it legal recognition.

If you're going to claim the place was a legally-recognised populated place in 1948, this requires evidence that you aren't producing. Instead we can see from the RU Wiki article that it was given a station-name according to a local declaration in 1947 on railway station names in the area, that it was made a "territorial unit", and then designated a crossing - none of these shows it to be populated.

That the people who live there are railway staff is a simple logical conclusion drawn from the fact that the only buildings in the tiny area specified in the RU wiki article (0.028 km²) are railway buildings.

Citing example of places that don't have articles is pure WP:WAX, particularly when you are arguing on the keep side - I could just as easily state that this place has no real difference to those other places other than being a zero-population line-item on the Russian census and so equally does not warrant an article.

Finally, is anyone really surprised if Russia does not always follow its own laws? Particularly in a state where there is every benefit in exaggerating population? FOARP (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't "become" a selo in 2004, at least not in the sense you're implying. It was simply a change of terminology. Sakhalin Oblast recognizes a variety of terms used to refer to rural localities, but there is no difference in status between them; the terms are mostly customary or historical, and pretty much interchangeable. From NGEO's point of view, whether a place is Sakhalin Oblast is a village, a selo, a station, a junction, or a settlement does not matter; what matters that they are all officially recognized rural localities of identical status, are listed as such, and track their own population (something that's not done for, say, a railway station which does not have a rural locality status—and there are dozens of those in Sakhalin Oblast, none of which would survive an AfD based on NGEO alone).

Whether such places currently have a population or not does not matter either; nor does their size. Per NGEO, even abandoned inhabited localities which had at some point been officially recognized warrant an article. 17 km meets every requirement for inclusion and will continue to do so forever, until the community agrees to change the NGEO guideline in a way that it no longer does. You of course already know that, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing the lack of population up.

The 1948 establishment claim I got from the Russian Wikipedia article, yes. It lists this document as a source (which I looked at and can confirm that it says exactly that). The "territorial unit" in the 1948 context means the same as the "inhabited locality" classification in modern context; "inhabited localities" are, and always have been, a subclass of "administrative-territorial divisions" (all of which automatically meet NGEO). The "crossing"/"junction" is another term that's been historically used (and is still used) in Sakhalin Oblast to refer to one of the types of rural localities (a subclass of "inhabited localities", a subclass of "territorial units", a subclass of "administrative-territorial divisions"--it's all in the same 2011 Law I cited above). Just like with the "stations", it does not mean that every single station/junction is automatically classified as an inhabited locality; only those specifically and explicitly conferred this status are (and in reality, it's not the station building where people work that gets this status, but the delineated territory on which that building and people's actual places of residence are located; one their own, station and service buildings would not even qualify, as the law citation I provided above would confirm).

And also, I'm sorry, but your last sentence makes it really difficult to take any of your arguments seriously and strongly suggests a bias. It also makes no sense in this context (how does one "exaggerate population" by reporting population of zero year after year?).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2023; 18:00 (UTC) 18:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"From NGEO's point of view, whether a place is Sakhalin Oblast is a village, a selo, a station, a junction, or a settlement does not matter; what matters that they are all officially recognized rural localities of identical status" - yet this list includes things that are palpably not villages? And at least 20,000 of Russia's 150,000 rural settlements are unpopulated? So what we're talking about aren't actually places that are required at any level to be populated in order to keep their status under Russian law, and can receive that status when not populated? FOARP (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leaving aside the fact GEOLAND is a guideline, not something ironclad we must follow, there's no evidence it actually meets the criteria. Two people living somewhere is a house, not a continuously-inhabited place, historic or otherwise, e that is meant by GEOLAND. If it's notable or was previously much more populous, it has to actually demonstrate that via sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If GEOLAND, as a guideline, is "not something ironclad we must follow", so is GNG or any other notability guideline, and IINFO doesn't apply, leaving no reason to delete. Peter James (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:IINFO is policy, not a guideline, and WP:N and WP:GNG are higher-level guidelines than GEOLAND. But more essentially, this is an argument for ignoring the evidence of our own eyes and common sense: this is simply a railway station.FOARP (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - If one guideline can be ignored, another can be - and without exceptions such as GEOLAND and NPROF it's likely that GNG would only be an essay. And I've explained below why the policy is not relevant. Peter James (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lieutenant Kijé would like to comment First, let it be pointed out that the language of the guideline says that legally-recognized places are "typically" included. It is entirely reasonable to take some class of whatever some people regard as such recognition and exclude it. We've already done so with GNIS's "populated places" (which seem to be from a gazetteer standpoint to be essentially the same as Russian selos) and this seems to be the first time we've really confronted the issue of Russian place classifications, so it's entirely reasonable not to take this as a done deal.

Second, it is entirely reasonable to expect these sources to be consistent with more primary reports. The problems with GNIS became apparent when they were checked against their source topo maps and against aerial photography. In this wise the various suppositions above concerning the increase or decrease of population stand out, for surely primary sources must be preferred against mere speculation.

Third, as alluded to above, it is apparent that, whatever seems to be said about it historically, in the current tabulations "selo" appears to encompass many places that aren't villages and were not so historically. The current case is just one of many that appear to be nothing more than train stations and appear to have always been so. It is curious that, although frequently "selo" is translated mechanically as "village", in other cases it appears in English as "rural locality", though the two are hardly synonyms.

Finally, as far as bias is concerned, at least in the US these places haven't been considered notable in their own right, nor have 4th class post offices, another common case of supposed legal recognition; one might question whether Russian officialdom should somehow make them more so there. And yes, of old Russian governments have gotten a reputation for attempting to will things into being through force of edict. Surely in this case one might take the elevation of the area about an isolated rail stop into a villages which once might have held a church as straining at credibility. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that with GNIS places there is only a name, type of feature, coordinates and date of addition to the GNIS database; the type of feature is not always correct, and sometimes there is no other information, and I think an article should be something more specific than "name on a map". And the status of the area is not "straining at credibility": "villages which once might have held a church" could describe parishes in England and Wales; townships (in some counties), extra-parochial places and a small number of hamlets have become civil parishes, including many with no church and some that have never been villages. That doesn't mean that each should be an article; exceptions would be the "Unnamed" parishes created as a result of the Local Government Act 1894 that usually had no buildings or population. There could be a discussion about whether to exclude some rural localities and to decide on the criteria, but that shouldn't be based on misleading comparisons with North America. Peter James (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North America is far more instructive a comparison here than the UK, since it is a settler-colonised place similar to most of Russia. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The United States doesn't have the equivalent administrative or statistical units in rural areas. Peter James (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  This is really begging the question. I'm not sure this claim is even true because I cannot get a straight answer as to what a selo is that is consistent with the various spots so designated, so I cannot say that in the US there isn't something of the same ilk designated on the state level. Everything I run across says it's a village that at one time would have had an (Orthodox) church, and yet plenty of selos we've come across aren't villages and give no evidence of ever having been villages. This suggests/implies that the GNIS experience does model this, and that whatever the designation is supposed to mean, it is often enough applied in error or for some other reason not consonant with the reality of the place. Therefore the I'm-not-even-sure-it's-a-fact that it is somehow more of a legal recognition than GNIS's classification or for that matter the USPO designation of 4th class post offices does not persuade me that the situation is actually different. As far as I know, this is the first time we've undertaken a serious examination of Russian places, and the guideline has a strong Euro-American or even Anglo-American bias as to how places exist legally, so given what we are finding, I don't think selos are "typical" of obviously notable legally recognized places. What it looks like is that plenty of them fail GNG conspicuously for the usual reason that items entered from government databases are prone to fail GNG: outside of the listing (which I must insist is a primary source) there just is nothing else to go by, certainly nothing extensive and secondary. And there are plenty of examples which are quite a bit worse than this one. Mangoe (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article says it's a rural locality, not a settlement, so there is not a reason to delete in the nomination. The only policy or guideline used as a rationale for deletion is IINFO, but that does not mean that for every type of thing, some must be excluded to avoid being indiscriminate. Peter James (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The article says it's a rural locality, not a settlement" - then in what way does it pass GEOLAND, which is basically directed to settlements, not mere locations (which have to pass WP:GNG)? Isn't this actually a reason to delete? FOARP (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Like, did any of you Poindexters consult GMaps and GSV? It's a place. Jesus Christ. 142.126.146.27 (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Places” are not automatically notable (in fact nothing is automatically notable). This should be struck as a personal attack. EDIT: turns out this IP is blocked for vandalism as a sock of a blocked editor anyway, so struck for that reason. FOARP (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase WP:GEOLAND is "Populated, legally recognized places". Whether the subject of this article is a settlement or not depends on the meaning of settlement - if it means a town or village it is not, but it means any populated place it is. Peter James (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  But if it means any populated place then streets and individual houses listed on censuses (as they are in the UK) then gain the presumption of notability under GEOLAND, which cannot have been the intention of the people who drafted WP:NGEO, not least because they included separate criteria for individual buildings, even ones people live in.
  
  It makes more sense to read legal recognition as being in the sense of legal empowerment, which would exclude mere statistical units whilst including places having some level of self-administration.
  
  It makes even more sense to simply say that GEOLAND was never written for somewhere like Russia, but that's by-the-by. FOARP (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Eastmain and Ëzhiki. Passes WP:GEOLAND.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Beyond existing, the sourcing doesn't help confirmation. I don't see the point of having an article for every named place on a map, which is basically just a signpost. Oaktree b (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know if the "Kelermesskoye Rural Settlement" exists? We have Kelermesskaya, but it's the opposite end of Russia. I don't see it mentioned on ru:17-й км (Сахалинская область). CMD (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the one mentioned in the Kelermesskaya article, not in Sakhalin Oblast. I replaced it with "Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Urban Okrug". Peter James (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The entire reason the above discussion has ended up talking about GEOLAND so much is because it's very clear to both sides that this train-station cannot pass the notability standard for train stations (WP:NTRAINSTATION). GEOLAND - which obviously I think this fails also - shouldn't be used to do an end-run around narrower notability standards. FOARP (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Presumed notable" doesn't mean "deserving of an article", especially if nothing can be said about a place other than its name, coordinates, and population. WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTEVERYTHING apply here. If more information can be found about this site then of course we can have an article, even a very short one. For stubs like this I just don't see what kind of service we're providing by saying "yes, there is a point on a railroad where there is a sign with a name on it".WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With a population of 2, on a remote corner of the island, in the least populous part of the Russian wilderness, on the off-chance that an English-speaking wikipedian needs to look up the area before they travel there, in the middle of a war... Sillyness. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not Wikivoyage. Peter James (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see the Google Maps satellite view. You can also pull up street view for the road.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*stares at a rutted dirt road bordered by trees for several minutes* - This is the place we're all arguing about?! There isn't even a sign! The one thing I will cop to is that the railway is no longer extant, but that hardly increases the notability. FOARP (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a strange one as 17km is on a road between two villages marked on Google Maps, namely Sinegorsk and Sanatorne neither of which have an en-Wikipedia article as far as I can see. 17km is nearer to Sinegorsk and I think it could have been mentioned there under a separate heading. However, as of now this AfD appears to be a straight choice between keep or delete as I haven't found an appropriate redirect or merge target. Therefore, I'm slightly favouring the GEOLAND argument put forward by User:Ezhiki and leaning keep. Rupples (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk seems the obvious option if merging is the outcome, the two sentences here would easily fit as one sentence in a "Selo" section. CMD (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to the administrative district Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Urban Okrug would be appropriate but that is just a redirect. However, yes, you're right, a merge of the text with co-ordinates could work to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk#Administrative and municipal status where the other villages making up the administrative district could be listed. Rupples (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See my link to Google Maps above. There's no there there.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Waste of an article creation, this article is not notable. Geko72290 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the moment I see no consensus here, as arguments on both sides are rather weak. Ignoring GEOLAND because it's a guideline is not very persuasive to me, nor is the argument without supporting evidence that the population is the staff of a railway station. Conversely, a one-time population of 2 doesn't suggest that this meets the common-sense definition of a populated place. Further evidence as to whether this meets GEOLAND would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the idea to merge to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk above is probably the best option here, and I think WP:NOPAGE can definitely guide us, for a place with so little verifiable information. Merge also happens to be a decent compromise for the discussion. In absence of a merge consensus, I do think GEOLAND seems to apply with current evidence despite the low population and unnamed roads, I'd say keep as I don't think deletion is the right choice. —siro χ o 05:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per this reasoning. toobigtokale (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, the article amounts to a sentence that could be included on Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, and probably should be there even if this was a devleoped and well-sourced article. For even that sentence, we have such little sourced information that the article claimed 17 km was in two wrong locations in the half a decade of the article's existence leading up to this AfD. CMD (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If @Ezhiki is willing to support a compromise merge and redirect to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk#Administrative and municipal status I'll follow suit. I'm giving weight to Ezhiki's opinion as from what I can gather Ezhiki appears to understand the Russian language and administrative system, perhaps better than most of us here — no disrespect to other contributors. Otherwise my !vote is merely to oppose delete. Rupples (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the vote of confidence; appreciated. For the record, I've never been a fan of bulk-creating geostubs which contain little to no information beyond what's needed to satisfy our geo-notability criteria, so collecting this minimal information in one place, possibly in a table form, is totally fine by me, as long as the redirect from the title under which the article would normally reside is retained and there is no prejudice against creating a proper article as soon as someone willing to expand it beyond the bare minimum (and able to cite the said expansion) shows up. Administrative/municipal division sections or articles about the corresponding administrative/municipal division are a perfect location for that, although in some cases we'd need stand-alone lists, because some administrative/municipal divisions may host dozens to hundreds of inhabited localities. And I apologize for having been unable to continue this work myself in the past almost ten years (has it been that long? ugh), but life happens.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 20, 2023; 18:48 (UTC) 18:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk#Administrative and municipal status (at present the most appropriate existing article/heading) as a compromise between what I'd call a "strained" interpretation of GEOLAND and deletion. That article states 10 rural localities within the district, not too many to list, so all their names should preferably be added as well. Rupples (talk) 19:16, 20 October 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. Consensus of editors here, especially following the relist, is that SIGCOV is not met. My reading of the discussion is these concerns were not adequately addressed, hence closing as delete. Daniel (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Pijper[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, a WP:BEFORE check reveals almost entirely primary sources or routine coverage, and very little or no significant coverage. This is reflected in the article which cites only one non-primary source, which is routine coverage of an event the subject participated in. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Motorsport, United Kingdom, and Scotland. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure how good the check was! Typed in the name and the first five internet results are five different sources from British Speedway, Workington Speedway, Berwick Bandits, FIM and Glasgow Tigers. Other sources on the page are from the Speedway Star. None of these are Primary sources, they are some of the main Speedway websites etc. A primary source would be his own rider page like some riders have. Pyeongchang (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pyeongchang (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Keep. Articles from British Speedway, his clubs, etc. are fine for fact-checking, but are not really independent third-party coverage, and while there's not a great deal of third-party coverage around, there's enough in the Speedway Star and Polish and Netherlands media to scrape through. As a young rider who has just completed his first season of professional speedway, coverage is bound to increase over time. --Michig (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Michig (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
- Articles from British Speedway, his clubs, etc. are fine for fact-checking, but are not really independent third-party coverage Agreed, that is not significant coverage and should not be relied on to establish notability 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ace Pijper is a speedway rider who has just helped Glasgow Tigers to the 2023 SGB Championship title, so not sure how he can be classed as a non-notable athlete. A quick Google search shows his name appear in multiple news outlets and he has biographies on numerous speedway sites. His coverage is sure to increase as he progresses through the speedway ranks. He's also the son of Theo Pijper, another famous speedway rider. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Johnny2hats2 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited and is dependent on coverage in reliable sources, which exclude, as Michig points out, official club/championship sources, which are WP:PRIMARY references mostly acceptable for raw stats. On that note, I should also point out that Wikipedia is not meant to be a database of raw stats, nor is it a CRYSTAL ball for tracking progress of "tomorrow's stars." ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is the rider in question a regular team member in a notable division, whilst still not even an adult, he has also been part of a championship winning team Rcclh (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rcclh (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
- This !vote is a textbook example of WP:NOTINHERITED. That the subject is part of a notable team or has competed in a notable series does not mean they are equally notable. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 07:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There has been some CANVASSing here by the article creator (all three !voters so far). I remain unconvinced that the subject meets standards for inclusion and will not withdraw the nomination. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC), amended 16:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Quote from Canvassing article page = "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", That is all that was done so please don't take offence at the fact that other editors disagree with the nomination for deletion. Motorcycle speedway is a major world sport and these editors are probably some of the best informed on the subject. Pyeongchang (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say what sort of canvassing it was, I merely noted it for the closing administrator. Odd assumption to make. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 17:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another quote from WP:CANVASS: Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). One of the four users you messaged about this discussion has a userbox identifying themselves as a fan of speedway, another two you have had prior interactions with about the topic confirming you had at least a strong idea of their opinion, and the fourth literally has "SpeedwayInfo" as a username. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Netherlands and Poland. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoping our Polish- and Dutch-speaking friends can help us verify coverage in publications in these languages, which has been asserted above. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A "keep" closure was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 30 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete until Polish- and Dutch-language coverage can be demonstrated and verified. Lack of SIGCOV otherwise. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Motorsport, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom, and Scotland. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gsearch goes straight to social media sites, Gnews only has hyper-local coverage in this newspaper [40]. TOOSOON perhaps. No sourcing we can use to meet GNG Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where these Polish and Dutch sources are, I'm about 6 pages into the Gnews and all I find is this, which is paywalled [41]. You'll need a bunch more than that if you want to have the article kept. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Michig: Could you help us out here? Which sources did you mean, specifically? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- He competes in the second division of racing, which seems to be a minor league... Even more sourcing is needed if this is kept for a minor league athlete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't a minor league. It's the second of two professional leagues in Great Britain. --Michig (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's some examples of coverage: [42], [43], [44], [45]. There's more in-depth coverage in Speedway Star but it's all paywalled. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these. The second is talking about the ups and downs of becoming professional, and seems to reinforce TOOSOON. The other coverage suggests that he is someone to watch, but Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and the race reports and information he won a bronze helmet in a race is not sufficient for notability under WP:NMOTORSPORT except for specific races, which this one is not. So this looks like a fail on the subject specific NMOTORSPORT. We are left with GNG, for which we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources. race reports are not secondary. I don't see any evidence that GNG is met either. Notability is not inherited, so I am leaning delete here, unless there is any argument that the subject meets NMOTORSPORT under any of the criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief few sentences in a list of competitors in the final source, others are only a paragraph or two (except for the first one, which I mentioned in my !vote above). We're just not a notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - the sources present in the article and those provided by Michig appear to be a start but does not meet GNG. As a young athlete, it is possible the subject may become notable at a later time, largely per WP:TOOSOON. Frank Anchor 20:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A search shows very little reliable sources, which are not enough to warrant an article. At this juncture in the subject's career, there is not enough independent coverage. It therefore does not meet WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My reasoning is in my comment above. This could well just be WP:TOOSOON but notability is not yet established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not into sports, so I wouldn't normally opine on this AFD, but since I voted to reopen at DRV I figure extra eyes are helpful. No opinion regarding NMOTORSPORT but I looked at from the point of view of GNG. Thanks to Michig for the foreign-language sources; I know some Polish and translated the Dutch. I think while it's close (hence the "Weak" part of my delete), the mentions are just too brief and limited (either "going to run a race" or "ran a race" or "someone to watch") to write at article at this time. Would suggest draftifying with no prejudice to updating and submitting the draft for approval once there are more sources. Martinp (talk) 15:18, 13 November 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.