< December 31	January 02 >

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 Bulgaria women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilyana Pencheva[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. It seems like she was the top scorer in the Bulgarian league in 2019, but I can't find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found were transactional announcements (1, 2) and everything else were trivial mentions (2014, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bulgaria. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Cleary fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Rectifying the vote according to the List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. Svartner (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2024 (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 Football in the State of Palestine. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Strip Second League[edit]

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

Doesn't meet NSPORT. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources with information about this league, though sources may exist in Arabic or other languages. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Palestine. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in the State of Palestine as possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in the State of Palestine per GiantSnowman. Left guide (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in the State of Palestine as per others. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2024 (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 Football in the State of Palestine. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Strip First League[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources with information about this league, though sources may exist in Arabic or other languages. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Palestine. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in the State of Palestine as possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in the State of Palestine per GiantSnowman. Left guide (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in the State of Palestine as per others. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 West Bank First League[edit]

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

Unsourced season rankings for a questionably notable football league (West Bank First League). There have been maintenance tags since 2014. See also: 2019–20 West Bank First League. If someone can find sources for this league in Arabic, that'd be lovely. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Palestine. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this meets WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero sources and fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SNOW. Marokwitz (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2024 (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 Armenia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Baboyan[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, instead finding just passing mentions (2015, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Armenia. JTtheOG (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:00, 3 January 2024 (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 How to Think Like a Mathematician. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Houston (mathematician)[edit]

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

Senior lecturer at the University of Leeds. His only mention I found in the news is a passage in a BBC article where he is interviewed for being part of a campaign wanting to replace pi with tau. No other mention could be found. His research output seems rather limited and he doesn't hold a major position in his institution. The subject does not fulfill the notability requirements. Broc (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may be just enough to warrant an article about his book How to Think Like a Mathematician; I found two reviews [1][2], and these hundred-odd citations to it might include further substantial commentary. If the book is notable but nothing else turns up, we can refactor the article about the person into an article about the book. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found three more reviews of How to Think Like a Mathematician (total of five), so the book is probably notable. We can redirect to an article about it if we can't find anything else to suggest that Houston is notable independently from it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had some doubts when creating this AfD exactly because I thought the book he wrote could be notable, but I couldn't find any source that would show the notability of the author. I would also be in favor of creating an article for the book and redirecting the page of the author to it. --Broc (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not quite a pass of WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS cites, even for this low-cited field. May pass WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
The only other books listed are two co-edited volumes of conference proceedings. Those tend not to get reviewed in any substantial way, and even if they do, they count for less in WP:AUTHOR considerations, being less attributable to any single person. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to an article to be created on the book discussed above which does seem to be notable. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR (perhaps WP:TOOSOON). -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge to article on the notable book per WP:BLP1E. I don't think that the co-edited volumes contribute much to an NAUTHOR case, and I'm not seeing so much towards an NPROF case. The surprisingly-common name makes it a bit harder to search, and will watch in case better evidence of notability arises. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any editors volunteering to create a new article for this one to be Merged or Redirected to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I started working on the book page here, anyone who wants to contribute is welcome User:Broc/sandbox/How to Think Like a Mathematician --Broc (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I think it's ready for article space. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to mainspace: How to Think Like a Mathematician. Broc (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to book article: Per reasoning above and WP:1E. The sandbox draft linked above looks promising. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 21:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to How to Think Like a Mathematician, now that that article exists. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect, as nothing more has turned up to provide evidence of independent notability from the book for Houston himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to How to Think Like a Mathematician.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2024 (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 Ethical banking#Fossil Free Banking Alliance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil Free Banking Alliance[edit]

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

Exclusively primary sources, no secondary sources. I found sources related to GFANZ but nothing about this initiative ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked google, google news, the newspaper archive and the internet archive. Nothing came up that wasn't a passing mention or a primary source. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm struggling to find any WP:IRS about the Alliance. They need to work on raising their profile a bit! Sionk (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethical banking#Fossil Free Banking Alliance. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, with a possibly selective merge. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taageer Finance[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP routine financial press releases ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Oman. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All coverage, what little there is, falls under WP:ROUTINE. I cannot find anything that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There tends to be very little reporting of Halal financing organizations, so like many of them, this one fails SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2024 (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) 00:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto Mises Brasil[edit]

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

The claims of notability are based on 3 WP:FORBESCON. In the sources themselves, notability is literally based on vanity social metrics. Article tone is balanced, but mostly focuses on things unrelated to the institute itself. but rather its founders namesakes and or US relation (or lack off). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made this article as a translation of the corresponding article in Portuguese Wikipedia. I have updated it now to better reflect the quantity of sources in the original, some of which I had accidentally omitted. Please reconsider this nomination, and if we do get consensus that it merits deletion, then I will simply nominate the Portuguese-language version for deletion as well. I do not particularly care either way whether either version of Wikipedia covers the Instituto Mises Brasil or not. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The institution has notability and is based on a sufficient number of sources. Svartner (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on the quality of the available sources, rather than the number. The Forbes articles are either about the worldwide Ludwig von Mises influence, or social media stats. The remainder of the article is cited almost totally to primary sources. I can't see anywhere suitable to redirect the article. Sionk (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of red flags of a bad article: red links, bare links, obscure sources, and lots of jargon. At best, it's a case of WP:TNT; at worse, these are just an issue of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Business Development Summit[edit]

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

Initially I thought this article was about about an organisation called Africa Business Development Summit but this is meant to be a WP:LIST of different summits, but none of the sources are scholarly, nor comprehensive. The topic may be worthwhile, but needs a complete rewrite to comply with WP:NLIST otherwise it becomes random collection of arbitrary events. There are minor issues with formatting etc as well ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: my own research doesn’t allow to find any reliable sources for keeping the page as it is. 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is more of an essay in search of an article. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Technologies in Education[edit]

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

This is a non-notable Azerbaijani state initiative that a ring of editors translated into English Wikipedia from Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Thenightaway (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: borderline G11. Part of a coordinated attempt by a group of COI SPAs, likely paid by the Azerbaijani government for promotional purposes. Most of these dozens of articles are now going through AfD. Owen× ☎ 23:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The Center for Innovative Technologies in Education is not a state institution and is not a center dependent on a state institution. It is one of the largest private educational centers in Azerbaijan.

Also, the UNESCO chair operates in the center. This and other reasons make it quite influential in the country.

Licensed by the Ministry of Science and Education and the Ministry of Economy. Officially, it carries out professional development of pedagogical workers in different regions of Azerbaijan and graduates 25,000 during the year. I created an article about the center because I consider it notable for the number of graduates and other reasons. It has nothing to do with the state and state interest. If it doesn't meet the conditions, delete it, please.

Thanks. Atakhanli (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your self-described name on Az Wikipedia matches that of a "Marketing And Public Relations Specialist" employed by Innovative Technologies in Education. If this is accurate, you need to disclose this affiliation per WP:COI. Thenightaway (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is training company operating in the educational market. No indication of significance. Actually contains a shop front reference for product sales,can you believe it. Brochure advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill training organization; barely disclosed spam. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulvi Mirzoyev[edit]

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

There is nothing whatsoever that indicates that this scientist is notable. This is one of many extremely poor articles that a ring of editors are importing into the English Wikipedia from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Thenightaway (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Azerbaijan. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a member of the European Society of Cardiology and presenting his work at international meetings is not a proof of notability. The page reads like personal CV and promotion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2024 (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.

I'm closing this as a Soft Delete due to the confusion in the deletion rationale and the mispplication of WP:BLP1E guidelines which apply to BLPs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Q[edit]

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

Not notable except for one event WP:BLP1E ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E, notable only for one event. — Maile (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Question - I used to be fairly involved in deletion discussions but it has been several years. Why is BLP1E relevant here? Beach drifter (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Velissaris is the BLP1E subject here. We can delete that entire section too and solely argue on basis of lack of SIGCOV too ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at WP:ILLCON, as I do not see any sources that cover anything other than the crime. Beach drifter (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section can likely be removed per WP:COAT but agree with others that BLP1E would not apply to a company page. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'm afraid that BLP1E doesn't apply. Infinity Q was an enterprise. It isn't and hasn't ever been a living person.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the coverage is trivial WP:ORGTRIV. I get where the WP:BLP1E confusion came from since it appears that one person from the company was sent to jail for fraud but the way it's phrased in the headlines kind of blurs the two. It at least mixed me up for a second. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions with Sanskrit mottos[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Arbitrary grouping. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and India. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Seems kind of arbitrary, there isn't a theme of mottos for educational institutions or Sanskrit mottos. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NLIST. Not arbitrary—the criterion is pretty clear—but nobody's out there listing schools by motto language. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely listcruft. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: List of institutions with Sanskrit mottos is a related article that describes itself as "a list of Sanskrit mottoes of non-educational institutions". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gulnaz Dadashova[edit]

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

There is nothing whatsoever that indicates that this scientist is notable. This is one of many extremely poor articles that a ring of editors are importing into the English Wikipedia from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Thenightaway (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Azerbaijan. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of meeting WP:NPROF. Poor citation counts. May be scope for meeting WP:NAUTHOR if sufficient reviews are found, but I failed to. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, she just seem to authored a few papers, no indication of meeting WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an associate professor, she fails the PROF test. I don't see anything special that she's done. Lots of medical doctors and physiologists are studying medicines to improve cardiac outcomes for post-menopausal women. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Bayramov[edit]

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

There is nothing whatsoever that indicates that this scientist is notable. This is one of many extremely poor articles that a ring of editors are importing into the English Wikipedia from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. Thenightaway (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Azerbaijan. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's difficult for an independent scholar to pass the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aynur Safiyeva[edit]

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

There is nothing whatsoever that indicates that this scientist is notable. This is one of many extremely poor articles that a ring of editors are importing into the English Wikipedia from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia Thenightaway (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Azerbaijan. Owen× ☎ 21:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She made a great career in the field of proctology. This is not a proof of notability. My very best wishes (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2024 (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 AutoCAD version history. There is a rough consensus below not to retain (between delete and merge/redirect). Paianis executed a merge of relevant information, so closing as redirect to preserve the history. Daniel (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoCAD version history[edit]

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

Exhaustive list of software updates without any meaningful context/content about updates. List fails NLIST, WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Any appropriate version history could be easily accomodated in the AutoCAD#Version history section of the main article. This version history appears to be a split from the main. // Timothy :: talk 22:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Engineering, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the notable facts in the table can be transferred to the AutoCAD article, both the history section and a release compatibility table I would propose adding. Paianis (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Pretty much all the differences in revisions can be found on the Autodesk website anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and here's why:

1) The changelog is long and extensive enough the main article could absolutely do without it 2) all the differences in revisions can be found - a) changelogs are hard or impossible to find specially for older versions b) The list contains info which is nowhere to find on the Autocad's website: the DWG tag which specifies save format broad compatibility c) I spent a considerable amount of time/did a lot of research to establish OS compatibility for older versions (which exists only in printed-then-scanned old computer magazines found of books google com). This information is completely missing on the website. In fact the website contains information only for the past limited number of releases, but not for any older releases.

<Offtopic-rant> In the end I don't care about this "Deletion" process. I've noticed that in wikipedia it is disproportionally skewed depending on whether the subject is currently relevant/hot or not. If it's not relevant/new/fresh enough, articles are deleted without any second thoughts just because the number of active WP editors willing to delete anything under any pretense is a lot higher than the number of people interested in a particular narrow/historical issue. The fact this article has caught someone's attention is already alarming in itself. This means someone is scavenging Wikipedia trying to exercise their ability and right to delete someone's hard work.

Imagine I was away from keyboard, dead, sick or anything else which would prevent me from chiming in. No voice, no opinion, "OK, let's delete it". </Offtopic-rant> Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to merging. The article is not long and there is no reason to scrub this information from Wikipedia. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though there must be some potential to merge some content to main article. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Re: merging. I have no objection to a merge in principle, but I couldn't see any material in the article worth merging. The opening two paragraphs contain info already in the main article AutoCAD. This leaves the table, I think the major points that might be merged again are already in the target (imo), I personally don't think a merge would improve the target (imo), but it also wouldn't hurt, so if there is a consensus that some of the info should be merged into the appropriate section, I have no objection. // Timothy :: talk 18:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTCHANGELOG: Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include. A list of every version/beta/patch is inappropriate. Consider a summary of development instead. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - per WP:NOTCHANGELOG as above. Article relies a lot on primary sources from Autodesk and is just a list of all versions. If you think this is really important information I'd merge it with the AutoCAD article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've moved across most information I felt was relevant for the AutoCAD article. I'm content with this page being deleted if there are no objections as to my edits. Paianis (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It looks like a partial Merge was done by an editor arguing for Deletion before this AFD was closed and I just would like to see if others agree with this act and if it changes anyone's opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:NOTCHANGELOG applies here as it's a list of versions over 20-30 years, which is encyclopaedic information. I'm just not sure if WP:OR applies or not, or if this is a valid WP:SPLIT. It's potentially merge-able back to the main article, though. SportingFlyer T·C 07:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Development Foundation (Azerbaijan)[edit]

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

There is nothing that indicates that this is a notable research institution. There is no independent reliable sourcing of the organization. Thenightaway (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence or even assertion of notability. Fails WP:ORG. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANAS High Technologies Park[edit]

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

This is a recent initiative by the Azerbaijani state that a COI account immediately created a Wikipedia article for. There is no independent reliable sourcing on the subject. It's solely sourced to government outlets. Thenightaway (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yet another Azerbaijani-government page by a COI SPA on a non-notable topic. Owen× ☎ 22:38, 3 January 2024 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Asghar Sadeghi[edit]

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

No sources could be found outside of trivial coverage in football databases. (If there are any Persian-language secondary sources, please add them and I'll retract the AfD.) ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 2 minutes of playing time doesn't spawn a lot of sources. Geschichte (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Cleary fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:59, 3 January 2024 (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 Sirius XM Radio channels#Religion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FamilyTalk[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. Let'srun (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Christianity. Let'srun (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Religion, where this is mentioned. I am not able to find significant coverage for this radio station, but a redirect seems reasonable here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it doesn't seem like an article can be built around this so that's probably the most useful outcome. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arroyo Vista, California[edit]

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

Non-notable housing development. Was PRODded in 2020; article was kept with addition of two news articles as sources. These articles are extremely WP:MILL coverage of mundane landownder disputes; almost no information about the community could be found. Lack of significant coverage fails WP:GNG, and since there are at least two other developments named Arroyo Vista in the Sacramento area, this article is confusing as well as uninformative. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article describes what is at its most basic, a subdivision. WP:Geoland#Settlements and administrative regions plainly states that only legally recognized places are presumed notable. This place is Non-legally recognized and therefore must meet WP:GNG in order to be considered notable and remain a standalone article. No sources have been presented that demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia:Notability#SUSTAINED or WP:NRV. Policy guidance given in both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND are that such articles should be merged into a related article or deleted. This place is a recent construct that was never legally recognized, cited news article describes the Arroyo Vista as a group of people not a place. I see no reason to merge it with the county article.James.folsom (talk) 02:54, 26 December 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, Daniel (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a section in El Dorado Hills, California about its multiple incorporation attempts over the past quarter century, including the two since the one discussed in this article's source, I would say that that is an obvious merger target. Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per lack of significant coverage. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (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. Consensus that this is a notable topic, and TNT doesn't fully apply here. Cleanup can (and perhaps should) still be done, but that is not a matter for AfD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racialization[edit]

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

This article is rife with issues—undue weight to various topics, including race in art making up the bulk of the history section, unattributed contentious POVs, delivering in wikivoice unclear and POV'd phrases like Adherents of Judaism, Islam, and Sikhism can be racialized when they are portrayed as possessing certain physical characteristics, despite the fact that many individual adherents of those religions do not possess any of those physical characteristics.

This is bad. I also don't think racialization is significant enough to have its own article, considering the Racial formation theory and Race articles which already include the bulk of the encyclopedically appropriate content in this article. Information about racism in education and the workforce is represented at Employment discrimination and Discrimination in education. The information about Orientalist art is much better represented at Orientalism#Art. Zanahary (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article’s body is not actually about racialization—it’s information about racial realities (discrimination, Orientalist aesthetic production, racial disparity) that come from sources that analyze said information through the lens of racialization. Zanahary (talk) 1:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some more quotations, all unattributed:

One of the most prominent examples of Orientalist work in art is a piece by Eugène Delacroix titled Women of Algiers in their Apartment... Fine textiles, hookahs, and other paraphernalia adorn the room, which represents a European fantasy of an exotic scene. [citing, but not attributing analysis to, some top 10 list]

Racialization is a long process, and members of each group are categorized based on their perceived differences relative to those who are considered elite within a society.

Further significant research in this area is aiding politicians and policy makers in creating a more equal society that embraces and supports different racial and ethnic groups.

A positive application of racialization is nationalism, whereby the created race seeks to assert cultural and national aspirations which are compatible and accommodating to other groups. [no citation]

Racialization is then normalized by the promotion of "colorblindness" through the use of "soft" language which avoids highlighting ethnic differences.

Day laborers experience "race" and this has impacted their integration into the labor market. [uncited]

Racialization in an educational setting is apparent based on the teacher and the background they come from. The teacher’s race along with their views that came along through socialization growing up can affect the way the students portray themselves in a classroom setting. It also has to do with the number of people who come from the same background because the majority of a population will dictate which group is being racialized. An example of students being racialized by their teachers and institutions can be seen through the way high schools teach in America today. Zanahary (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of these are close to common knowledge in Western social studies in my experience, this is an issue of referencing style not of original research. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, deletion is not cleanup. A simple search for the word "racialization" on Google Books yields dozens of results with the word "racialization" in the book title, implying that the topic is extremely well-covered by reliable sources. The issues described above can all be resolved through normal editing; unsourced statements can be removed, and POV or undue sources can be swapped with better ones. Left guide (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a deletion-as-cleanup argument (though the article, if it were to continue existing, would need basically a complete ground-up rewrite):
I also don't think racialization is significant enough to have its own article, considering the Racial formation theory and Race articles which already include the bulk of the encyclopedically appropriate content in this article. Information about racism in education and the workforce is represented at Employment discrimination and Discrimination in education. The information about Orientalist art is much better represented at Orientalism#Art.
Zanahary (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Left guide, you should know that some IP just reverted all the changes that both you and I have made to the article, including removing the AfD notice. Zanahary (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: yeah I noticed that too, but thanks for the heads-up (and for restoring the notice). I’m not too attached to my edits, especially on an article I only encountered from skimming the AfD log and thus have little outside interest in. I was just trying to do what seemed to me like obvious remedial drive-by cleanups, but I guess someone else disagreed. Looks like that IP is genuinely interested in improving the article. If this article is kept, maybe you two can continue having dialogue on the talk page as to how to improve it. Left guide (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see why this has been a bit of a mess for a few years; it's a difficult topic to write about, and it would take a lot of research to do the cleanup. The term, as distinct from cultural assimilation, unquestionably meets notability requirements in substantial independent academic usage. I also object to a complete WP:TNT: while I can agree there is undue weight for some sources, possibly some original research, and the article has become somewhat of a coatrack -- there are plenty of statements that are sourced and randomly picking a couple I was able to verify the claims. I would recommend to start with cleanup, trying to find sources for unattributed quotes, or if not removing them. I would like to see this article improve to the point it can meaningfully be put in summary style in the cultural assimilation article. Also, I would consider adding this article to Template:Cultural_assimilation and maybe also Template:Discrimination. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This is not the simplest case. On the one hand, the article's topic is certainly justified here. On the other, it has some pretty serious problems, and, judging by the tag dates, uncorrected over the years. On the third hand, there is some good in this article, so WP:TNT is probably too early to do. My suggestion is to send it to AfC. Thus, if no one wants to do its cleanup, it will be deleted after 6 months. And the tags will still be there, so AfC people will know what the problems are. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus on how to move forward yet, although the draftify suggestion prima facie has merit if this article isn't kept in mainspace. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the issue of racialization can be included in articles such as Racial Formation Theory, it is ultimately a different concept to Racial Formation Theory, and it would be beneficial to have an article that could fully expand on it and explain issues of racialization in detail. Even if currently it seems like this article isn't doing a good job of that, I still think it's a complex enough topic to warrant it's own article instead of just putting the information about it in other articles. Sillypilled (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, exceedingly distinct concept commonly invoked in literary studies. No immediate evidence of major OR or POV-pushing issues, subject is primarily used in reference to a specific Western paradigm of race so established racial discourses already within that paradigm do not constitute POV and attribution is often obvious from context. I do not see anything that could not be fixed with time. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problems are with the article here on Wikipedia. The subject is covered by a number of peer-reviewed journal articles. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2024 (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) 09:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willa Sandmeyer[edit]

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

No non-routine coverage of this former TV anchor and an obvious WP:GNG fail. Previously nominated in the 48-article AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, which closed as a procedural keep due to the size of the bundle. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and California. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article uses only one source. killer bee  09:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article has since been improved. Kazamzam (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she has received Emmy Awards and the Mark Twain Award, making her a notable broadcast journalist.Rublamb (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rublamb One thing that is not often said but should be a disclaimer about every AfD nomination of an American broadcast journalist is that the Emmy Awards are regional (in this case, Los Angeles). I have argued they don't confer notability multiple times at AfD. I'm not personally convinced that the 1984 LA Times story is enough yet? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local Emmys do not confirm notability here. Coverage is simply routine confirmation of where the person works and what they've done in their job over the years. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:SINGLESOURCE, one source is a wake-up call, but not enough reason to remove an article. Especially since there are already more references now. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:18, 25 December 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, Daniel (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the sources provide SIGCOV, so fails GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's at least one source that easily provides significant coverage of this individual: a multi-page profile piece in The Los Angeles Times (1 2 3). My struggle has been finding a second one; the best I could come up with was a 2003 article in Television Week (describing how she almost died on-the-job) and a non-independent thing describing her retirement, but neither of those are great for notability purposes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:38, 8 January 2024 (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) 09:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson & Bell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Illinois, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Firm has been the subject of news stories (mostly in regional and professional news outlets) as a result of its own legal problems. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this fails WP:NCORP. I can't see how legal cases, involving a law firm's legal woes (WP:ILLCON), reported only in industry sources (WP:AUD) can make this organisation notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per SailingInABathTub. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:49, 3 January 2024 (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 seems to be that there are insufficient independent and reliable sources to establish notability. clpo13_(talk) 19:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Hussain Gilani[edit]

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

Bringing to AfD after deprod-ed on the grounds that there are books about him which establish notability. However, I could not find the books mentioned (in an English language search) about him, anything else per WP:BEFORE to establish notability, or to confirm any of the biographical details. Might require an Urdu speaker to save this. Kazamzam (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Pakistan. Kazamzam (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a search in Arabic script for his given name and spiritual name yield me nothing indicating notability so I’d be inclined to delete unless anyone can show decent sources in Urdu. Mccapra (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I have tried to get some sources in urdu but i have only found 2 references. Kkb091 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify what these references are? They seem to be somewhere between an homage and an obituary based on the Google translation. This seems more like a personal page and therefore I don't know if it meets a level of reliable/independent source to establish notability. The publications are established but I think these articles are questionable. Thank you for finding them though! Kazamzam (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Well I am talking about these two sources, boths are from well known news media. [3] [4] and also [5], there are also other sources about the subject but belongs to blogging and WordPress sites. Kkb091 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The third reference is just a Scribd upload from a WordPress site, so that is not a good source. The first two sources are from well-known news media but they seem to be written about the Urs and are therefore memorializing Gilani rather than reporting factual information about him. I don't think these particular articles are useful for establishing notability and I think they should be removed from the article. I have already removed the Scribd citation. Kazamzam (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My deprod was referring to books listed in the Books on him section of the article. This section has since been removed by Kkb091. ~Kvng (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This section was totally unsourced. I tried to get some reliable references to add them but unfortunately mostly references belongs to Internet archive and WordPress. So I think it is better to remove that section to vote for Keep. Kkb091 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two sources in the article are definitely not independent coverage. If that’s all we can find then notability isn’t established. Mccapra (talk) 23:51, 25 December 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, Daniel (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2024 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Italia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Although he was a candidate from the Katargam Assembly constituency but he lost in the 2022 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election. He has never been elected to office. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 09:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, India, and Gujarat. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 09:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The content on the page seems to prioritize promotion rather than providing neutral, factual information. killer bee  09:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Subject fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN.-- TheWikiholic (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article was previously deleted through AFD. He doesn't have any significant coverage before AAP affiliation. The Social Activism section was deliberately made look like notable; he wasn't known in the Patidar reservation agitation and there is only a passing mention about him before political affiliation. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 09:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and don't pass NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Yes he lost election, so what? We have articles also on Nupur Sharma, Sambit Patra, Supriya Shrinate and more who have also lost elections. This subject meets WP:GNG. There are many sources that have provided significant coverage to this subject. This includes Aaj Tak,[6] News18 India,[7] Navbharat Times [8] and more. Capitals00 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the first person might be notable, the second and third look non-notable. A spokesperson for the tourism department and a surgeon aren't necessarily notable. Might have to review those for deletion as well, thank you for bringing them up. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Haven't won election but still a highly notable political figure. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What has he done as a "notable political figure" exactly? He appears to be more of an activist than anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitals00. Srijanx22 (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my comment per above discussion. killer bee  05:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitals00 passes WP:GNG though it fails WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: he appears to be a functionary in whatever role he's in. Calling up the minister and complaining doesn't make you notable. Perhaps more as an activist, but what's given is stories about things he's been involved with that are "colourful" more than anything else. Secretary for 3 years doesn't get you notability and I'm not sure the rest of it does either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There were virtually no articles on Italia before he joined the AAP and became its chief ministerial face - he was unable to win in his own constituency. After the election, he has disappeared. There have been no articles in the mainstream media about him since April, when he was arrested, meaning he has not been reported for eight months, and it will probably be some time until he will. Ok123l (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has dozens of references that points to significant coverage which the subject has gained for various activities. Nobody can doubt WP:GNG here. Lorstaking (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 25 December 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, Daniel (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this individual is a failed candidate and probably would fail WP:NPOL if all of the coverage of him were in the context of one election, the coverage of this candidate spans far beyond that; I think that this individual passes WP:NBASIC as a political activist and political party leader, and did so before he ran for public office in 2022. This sort of coverage includes a 2017 article in The Times of India, 2018 piece in The Indian Express, a 2020 piece All Gujarat News, a 2020 piece in The Indian Express, a 2020 piece in Deccan Herald, and a 2021 article The Indian Express. In short, he was notable per WP:NBASIC before he contested an election in 2022, and as notability is not temporary, he continues to be notable after his run in 2022. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:25, 8 January 2024 (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 Trac. clpo13_(talk) 19:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Bloodhound[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Trac. There's some extremely weak sourcing that I think might qualify a section there, but not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV for an independent article. [9] [10] [11] (yeah, press release posts, but at least have a couple sentences of analysis each...) A412 (Talk • C) 22:16, 11 December 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) 14:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:27, 25 December 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, Daniel (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trac. Not seeing the sourcing here. Suriname0 (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2024 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmed Park Private Hospital[edit]

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

DDG and DDG news search turn up no sources. The three sources in the article have no significant coverage of the hospital. The article has promotional tone since creation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and South Africa. Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 1 January 2024 (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 14:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnito[edit]

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

Previous much more extensive article was deleted as A7/G11. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO and Wp:GNG. Sources in article are mostly interviews, primary sources, or are unreliable or don’t show significant coverage. Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: While I see bunch of reviews and citations, nothing looks too reliable and they are all from mom-and-pop type bloggers and websites. In addition the only Award he has been nominated for (Galaxy Music Awards) is not a known award and does not have a Wiki page.Royal88888 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2024 (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 14:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nigar Valiyeva[edit]

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

This article is a resume for a non-notable academic. Thenightaway (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Language, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there scope for passing WP:NAUTHOR at all? (I've not checked.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj cheetham Probably - looks like she has written a number of monographs. -- asilvering (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page reads like personal CV and promotion. Nothing indicates notability. My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-digit citations for one publication on her Google Scholar profile [12]. Being full professor or head of a department is not enough for WP:PROF notability; one must demonstrate significant scholarly impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2024 (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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agil Shirinov[edit]

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

Subject is a non-notable academic. Thenightaway (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Religion, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping a high administrative position in Azerbaijan Institute of Theology is not a proof of notability. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think head of what appears to be a small theological institute counts as the sort of "major academic institution" that would pass WP:PROF#C6 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2024 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imamverdi Hamidov[edit]

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

Subject is a non-notable academic. Thenightaway (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see anything to indicate an NPROF pass. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 1 January 2024 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin Malikov[edit]

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

There is no independent reliable sourcing about the subject. They do not meet general notability requirements nor notability requirements for academics or government officials. One of many articles spammed by a ring of editors who are singularly focused on promoting the Azerbaijani government/elites. Thenightaway (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Religion, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 1 January 2024 (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 23:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nedunkerny Maha Vidyalayam[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL / WP:GNG, lacks any significant coverage, just a series of mentions on lists or inclusions in directories. The article was deprodded without addressing the issue or providing any independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tamil sources do not meet the national coverage requirement of WP:CLUB. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD canadidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has nothing on Google books, news or scholar. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2024 (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) asilvering (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Skin Brunchin'[edit]

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

About 47 Google results. Possibly promotional entry. While there are a few local news sources in ABC affiliates in Sacramento and Vegas, and a couple of magazine profiles of the creators of the app, neither the creators nor the app seem to have WP:SIGCOV at this time. Andre🚐 09:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Owen× ☎ 09:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sourcing provided does actually demonstrate that there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Were they just from one local source, I might agree, but these come from various different localities and different periodicals. I would also disagree that it's promotional, it's too short and to-the-point to read that way. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing within the article and a Google search show that there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources beyond passing mentions, even if these sources are local. Similar rationale behind keeping this article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiny_Urban_Kitchen pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's is significant coverage from multiple news sources. The article could use some improvement but it seems to be notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is significant coverage in a national magazine and other major publications across the United States. Meets notability threshold. Rublamb (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2024 (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. Not a G4, but a clear G5 (Further history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MediaTribe/Archive) with a side of title disruption. I don't want to SALT and play whackamole with alternate spelllings, but any admin is welcome to do so if they choose. Star Mississippi 19:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yohan poonawalla[edit]

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

Blatant promotional article created by User talk:Djajay.lobo.143. CSD was contested by their friend, User talk:Surajsinghl, who previously created the same article [13] WP:MEATPUPPET which was deleted by User:Bbb23. The article was also declined by User:DoubleGrazing in draft space. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a promotional article you maybe review it again Djajay.lobo.143 (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the article was declined because i publish blank page of draft that's why article was declined. Djajay.lobo.143 (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Deleted twice and salted in April 2023 as Yohan Poonawalla (with a capital P) agree with nominator, suggest salt this spelling also Josey Wales^Parley 12:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why the page was deleted? In april ? Djajay.lobo.143 (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Yamla (as currently available check user): It appears to be an obvious case of WP: Meatpuppet. What do you think? Maliner (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drajay.lobo.143 seems to be same as Ajay Lobo (where they edited), created by Surajsinghl (COI disclosed). Drajay.lobo.143 created a Draft:Yohan poonawala and left it and again created this article. — Quadrimobile(T · C 13:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Djajay.lobo.143 was blocked earlier today by DatGuy. DatGuy noted Confirmed sock, Surajsinghl. --Yamla (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-close note the two accounts are Possible to log data for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MediaTribe. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 20:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt per nom. I'm guessing this will be G4/G5'd at some point, but if others want to play out the AfD to full term, that's also fine by me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Lacks coverage and notability is not inherited Nswix (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could meet three CSD criteria (G4, G5, and/or G11). Already deleted once, creator is a sock, and blatantly promotional article with no other purpose whatsoever. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 18:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila Gurbanova[edit]

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

There is nothing that indicates that the subject meets general notability requirements nor requirements of notability for academics or government officials. There is no independent reliable sourcing on the subject. They have only been covered Azerbajaini government outlets. Thenightaway (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just keeping a high administrative position in a scientific institution is not a proof of notability. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any evidence to suggest a pass of WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of political leaders who held active military ranks in office[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Do we even need to have this list? Many of the pages of the people listed in this list did NOT hold active military ranks while in office, either before or after. No sources either for 16 years, might be better to WP:TNT this. Tooncool64 (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No purpose to the list - no sourcing, and no validation that any part of this list is accurate. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTDB and per criteria for WP:NLIST. Subject is not discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Also, from WP:SELCRIT, If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance. The answer here would be a solid 'no'. If the sock note from Maile66 is substantiated (I can't find a quick way to check that), I would support SPEEDY. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My error in wording. The article creator Gazpacho is a sockmaster, not the puppet. He was indefinitely blocked for socking, but it was after this article had already been created. — Maile (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. The scope of this article is much too broad, especially as in countries with mass conscription virtually all politicians (or at least male politicians) will have served in the military. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Rikov[edit]

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

This one sentence biography, and lacks WP:SIGCOV with one passing mention reference. The Polish language article is unreferenced. After searching, could not locate sufficient reliable sources. Created on 27 April 2012. JoeNMLC (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "passing mention reference" is false: it is a reference to a published obituary of the subject (whose actual text I unfortunately have not found). The nominator also appears to have ignored the edit summary in my unprod that his journal editorship gives him a claim to WP:PROF#C8 (which needs to be evaluated with respect to the possible significance of the journal he edited). I didn't find citations for his works that might be used to pass #C1, but there may be a language barrier. I also found what appears to be a review of a posthumous collection of his works [14]; one review wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR, but it's a start. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein - Sorry, this is first time with AfD that I saw the WP:Prof#C8 and misunderstood importance of that. Wondering if I should withdraw nomination? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe wait until consensus becomes clearer? It is genuinely not obvious to me whether he should be considered to pass #C8, or whether we have enough sourcing for some other kind of notability. That's why my unprod message also suggested the need for a full discussion, which you have now started. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm working on adding in all of the publications. Appears to pass WP:Academic as I understand it. OIM20 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add "all of the publications". See WP:NOTCV. A selected list of significantly influential publications (around five of them) can be appropriate, but except in very rare circumstances (which this is not) we should not try to include a complete list of publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I don't know enough about him or the field of linguistics to say which ones are the most influential. Limit to the ones that have the most citations via Google Scholar? OIM20 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can or should the long list of publications be created as a "List of Georgi Rikov publictions" article? I know almost nothing of topic of the author's works so unable to evaluate how significant contributions they are. Just curious if a list might be helpful here to reduce article length. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not the right place for hosting long lists of publications of minor academics. Again, see WP:NOT. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Publishing a few scientific papers and working as a researcher is not a prof of notability. My very best wishes (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's published 100 papers per the bibliography linked in the article. I was told not to list them all, so I put that it was a select bibliography and stopped. I'm afraid I'm confused as to what warrants notability for academics because his body of work seems to warrant an article as I understand the guidelines. But if you're correct, then I don't understand them.

Unfortunately, I haven't had time to read through all of his articles to determine exactly his particular field and since he was in Bulgaria, I don't have access to their publications that would cover this field outside of publishing the research directly. Nor do I actually speak or read Bulgarian - I've been using a translation program as an aid. OIM20 (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability as an academic. There’s a clear language and digital barrier to finding more sources, but there appears to be enough to pass. Thriley (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valya Fedorova[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, sources in article do nothing to establish notability and WP:BEFORE searches found nothing. Seawolf35 ^T--C 09:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. Seawolf35 ^T--C 09:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per nom, no relevant hits other than social media profiles. Also excessive usage of Apple Music, and definitely fails NMUSICBIO and GNG. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 10:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Papa2004 spam, creator blocked as Papa2004 sockpuppet. MER-C 17:28, 7 January 2024 (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 Live Lounge#Live Lounge Special. Daniel (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Lounge Special[edit]

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

I'm having trouble finding anything meaningful about this. I've only been able to find news sources about Live Lounge, but none about this spin-off. might be worth a merge? Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 06:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 06:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability. Heavy reliance on BBC which can be considered a primary source in this situation. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 11:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Given that merge would likely be the best outcome for this article, and in reality merge effectively mean delete, I have already transferred the main test of this article to the Live Lounge page, meaning that there is now no need for this article to remain. Rillington (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Live Lounge#Live Lounge Special per the merge already done by User:Rillington and WP:CHEAP. ResonantDis_tortion 13:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vedanth Nath[edit]

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

Article about a lesser-known entrepreneur and fails WP:GNG. Most of the references are either about the company or some mentions. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person in reference has mentions, and is prevalent in the Hyderabad Ecosystem. The article has already been reduced to a stub after discussion and issues have been resolved. This article also has requested mentions and has links. P Obul Reddy Public School, LooCafe & Anvitha Kollipara to name a few.

This discussion can be closed with no consensus, or keep if nothing happens in the next week. Vibraneum31 (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON. For now it lacks WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is about his new startup. Macbeejack ☎ 07:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Swap (1979 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...see my !vote there.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, included in such books as 'The Films of Robert DeNiro' [15]. Other books also cover it. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFIC "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." --Bensin (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Song[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The fact that it’s one of Robert De Niro’s early appearances does not make it notable per WP:INHERITED. The Film Creator (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ....a quick look at the first Google Books results (for example adding ”De Niro’’ to the search terms) shows that this is a perfectly notable film and that the page can be improved. Willing to do it later.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, included in such books as 'The Films of Robert DeNiro' [16]. Other books also cover it. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Shark[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just add ’Fred Olen Ray’ to the Google Books search terms for this film. SIGCOV comes. ~~Willing to add it late~~r.Added some to the page, see for yourself.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)(edited 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep: There are reviews in Dread Central and Starburst. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews above. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per reviews in horror reliable sources such as Dread Central, Starburst, and Horror News, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Valdez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; he’s only had one significant role in Little Voice. Needs two or more significant roles in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete one major role in movie is not enough. Maybe it’s a clear case of WP:Toosoon. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. Nominating editor has proposed an alternate venue of deletion for both subjects. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted Cop Shop of Horrors[edit]

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

A3 speedy deletion - no content Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, might have messed this up - first AfD nomination. However, this page and its presumable sister page at The Haunted Cop Shop of Horrors 2 lack any significant content whatsoever. Is it possible to archive this so I can put the proper template on the page? Sorry. Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Matters Schools Trust[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a multi-academy trust, and added an interview. I do not see enough reliable secondary sourcing for the article to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. If it continues to grow and attracts more coverage it may become notable, but at the moment it looks WP:TOOSOON. Tacyarg (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless significant, independent coverage found. Sources are reliable and independent, but WP:PRIMARY. The organisation doesn't fulfil the alternative notability criteria of WP:NONPROFIT as it is local in scope; neither does it pass WP:SIRS as the coverage in Educate magazine relies heavily on an interview with one of the founders of the Trust (now resigned) but still the headteacher of one of the Trust's schools see WP:PRIMARYNEWS and is not completely independent of the Trust. Leaves GNG, which isn't satisfied either as the Educate source doesn't provide SIGCOV of the Trust, it's about the interviewee, Ian Young's teaching background, views and vision. Possible redirect to Rainford High School the original school within the Trust before its name was changed, but another senior school, Up Holland High School joined the Trust today, somewhat complicating things. Rupples (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia Da Silva[edit]

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

The subject, an Uruguayan women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was four sentences of independent coverage here. Everything else seems to be trivial mentions (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the four or five sentences in that article aren't enough and I couldn't see anything better in my own searches Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal reform in Azerbaijan[edit]

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

This is an WP:OR/WP:SYNTH essay that advances the thesis that Azerbaijan has undertaken [some kind of] legal reform [over some period]. That's not something which is reflected in reliable sources. RS characterize Azerbaijan as an authoritarian state where power is in the hands of the executive, there is no principled rule of law, and the legislature and judiciary are de facto powerless[17][18][19][20]. Thenightaway (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Looks to be the case. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is definitely a whitewashed article that relies heavily on primary sources and SYNTH. The topic is also vaguely defined, consisting mostly of dry recounts of reforms to the constitution and to administrative law. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There might be an article that can be written about changes in Azerbaijan's legal system, but this should be TNT-ed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia–Spain relations[edit]

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

Another article almost entirely based on the primary source of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These relations lack third party coverage to meet GNG. Most of their interactions are in multilateral forums. No embassies, agreements or state visits which would add to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per no secondary coverage found by nominator. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cambodia, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another one? Are you %!>}¥ kidding me? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign relations of Cambodia, I think this is a better move for all these little articles that aren't well developed or not significant. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Yet another example of a standalone article being created for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The subject is not encyclopaedic, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (government press), and there is no secondary analysis, depth or other indication of notability. I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. Merging to one or both countries' articles might be possible, but I can find no info particularly worth merging and no sourcing on which to base such a merge. Redir begs the question of which country to redirect towards (and do we really expect this as a search string?). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2024 (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. Ordinarily, I would Redirect this article but it's true, what country should this be Redirected to? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Kitts and Nevis–Spain relations[edit]

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

Another article almost entirely based on the primary source of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These relations lack third party coverage to meet GNG. Most of their interactions are in multilateral forums like CARICOM. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and Caribbean. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can we do this en masse for Jimbo's sake? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign relations of Saint Kitts and Nevis, I think this is a better move for all these little articles that aren't well developed or not significant. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Yet another example of a standalone article being created for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The subject is not encyclopaedic, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (government press), and there is no secondary analysis, depth or other indication of notability. I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. Merging to one or both countries' articles might be possible, but I can find no info particularly worth merging and no sourcing on which to base such a merge. Redir begs the question of which country to redirect towards (and do we really expect this as a search string?). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fyssen Foundation[edit]

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

PROD was reverted by User:Randykitty on the basis that this foundation has won "an international prize" and is "well known". I am nominating for deletion because I believe it does not pass the bar of WP:NORG, due to lack of significant coverage by independent and reliable sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Science, Behavioural science, and Psychology. Randykitty (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please cite more carefully, I didn't say "many prizes" (plural) but "an important international prize" (singular). The prize is quite prestigious but there's only one and usually only 1 recipient per year (2021 being an exception). --Randykitty (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading correctly apparently is hard, I didn't say that the foundation had won a prize either... And in AfD debates, you don't chanage comments that have already been addressed by others, because that makes the discussion rather weird. Instead, ~~you strike the incorrect parts~~ and then replace them. --Randykitty (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed it, I did not strike it out, then replace it. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Foundation that administers a prestigious international award (the list of recipients is a virtually who's who in cognitive sciences), supports research by postdoctoral stipends and research grants, and organizes regular symposia that most of the time result in books published by major publishers and receiving positive reviews (perhaps a list should be added to the article). All this can be found using Google, but I have currently no time to add all that to the article. I have expanded it a bit and added some sources (some to the prestigious national french newspaper Le Monde) that are not surprisingly mostly in French. Unfortunately most are paywalled, but the tidbits provided for free suffice to se that these are in-depth and establish notability. WP:HEY. --Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be good to present an example of significant coverage in the form of a excerpt. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The above discussion is making me dizzy. I finally found the prod that said, "Does not meet the bar for WP:NCHARITY. Expect unopposed good-faith delete votes at AFD. (proposed by बिनोद थारू)" What I get from reading the foundation's home page is a lot more clear. "Mr. H. Fyssen created the Foundation state approved by March 21st, 1979" Financially supported 1320 scientists, published 45 books, awarded 43 prizes, etc. etc. etc. This foundation exists to support scientists. And more power to them. I get it. English language sources look OK to me. Wikipedia would do well to keep this article. — Maile (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This non profit passes WP:NORG. Macbeejack ☎ 07:46, 1 January 2024 (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 Franklin County, Kansas. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pansy, Kansas[edit]

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

Another short-lived Kansas post office, this one on a MoPac line so maybe we can call it a rail point. At any rate, nothing there, GNIS entry dropped... This should be dropped too. Mangoe (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found; we don't even have GNIS for this place. Clearly non-notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source documenting this as a "hamlet" was given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowling Green, Kansas. Uncle G (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Franklin County, Kansas, where a brief note can be made about it, in the Ghost Towns section. Pansy, Franklin County, Kansas, was very briefly regarded as a community in a few sources, but it was for less than five years. You couldn't string together more than five sentences about it, which isn't enough for a standalone article. Cram, 1900, gives it a population of X, indicating a rail site, post office, or temporary community only. The Edgerton Globe has a January 4, 1901 article mentioning how obscure Pansy was, even then: "This is probably the first time the name of the town has been heard outside a radius of five miles." This Pansy is notable only for its obscurity, even when it existed. (BTW, there is a notable Pansy, Kansas, which appears in dozens of Kansas history books; it was in the now-abolished Garfield County. That community's name was changed to Loyal, Kansas, and there is no Wikipedia article). Firsfron of Ronchester 22:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I skimmed through the Ottawa daily herald and found passing mentions of this place, but this appears limited to a very brief period. There is a pansy grower in the area, this is probably related to the community. I will not be able to erase the image of the ad for a "formaldehyde inhaler" from my brain though.James.folsom (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2024 (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 San Francisco State University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFSU College of Liberal & Creative Arts[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be independently notable (notability is not inherited from its notable parent organization) ElKevbo (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More information has been added. Mariwlqs (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Journalism, Philosophy, Poetry, Film, Theatre, Education, Schools, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the university's article. Even then, info merged into the University's article should have some cites to a WP:RSs, not just the university's website. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco State University per Ssilvers. Left guide (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SFSU if there is independent sourcing for the material, otherwise just redirect. Star Mississippi 14:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Francisco State University, this is a common merge when articles like this are made. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:57, 2 January 2024 (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. It's very chilly in here, I see the WP:SNOW has started to fall. BD2412 T 02:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rampart, California[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The original article cited only GNIS and Durham's place names gazetteer as sources, which are not reliable or indicators of notability. The user who removed the PROD added some content, which is appreciated, but it is sourced to a real estate listing, which I can't imagine is RS. There is very little information about this place, but even if the listing is accurate, it only states this was a vacation property that later became a lodge, not an "unincorporated community". So WP:GEOLAND is failed, and so is WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage about this place in RS. I suspect this got into GNIS because it had its own railroad stop, but that does not confer notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Geography, and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspaper clippings confirm [21] that it was the summer home of a Walters (or possibly Walter or Water) family, but don't get much more detailed than that. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Jfire (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- An additional book source: [22]. However, it's self-published, so doesn't help establish notability. Jfire (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content was actually added in 2015, and is word-for-word identical with the real estate advertisement that was externally linked to. I don't trust the factual accuracy of this "history" that outright said that it was a good selling point, and even gave the purchase price; and Wikipedia should not be hosting barely edited advertisements at all, let alone long-expired advertisements. Needless to say, no proper reliable and independent history source has been proferred, and none turns up when I look for any. There's a self-published autobiography, and nothing else. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with above evidence.James.folsom (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thanks everyone for taking the time to look. Looks like the potential sources are dead ends. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Much of the information in the article is directed to a particular housing property there, not about the "community" itself. Per the above information, there is no evidence to suggest this is an actual "community" of any sort other than being a WP:GNIS fail. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2024 (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.