< March 21	March 23 >

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. A clear consensus among the policy based views here. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najmeddin Shariati[edit]

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

non-notable, doesn't pass WP:NARTIST or perhaps even WP:SIGCOV User4edits (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Iran. User4edits (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear User:User4edits

After I found out this article was put on the removal list. I corrected the information and added reliable sources related to the article

Please remove this article from the deletion list

And if the article has problems, edit and correct it

Thanks M.sharaki (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear User4edits This article is about a remarkable person Najmeddin Shariati is one of the popular presenters of Iranian TV You can see that in this article I have mentioned many reliable sources and references from news agencies about this person Please reconsider and remove this article from the delete list Thanks M.sharaki (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi M.sharaki! It is not possible to remove this article from the delete list. Unless the nominator (User4edits) decides to withdraw the nominations, it is best to wait until around March 22 so that consensus would be established. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear editors I have corrected and edited all the flaws in this article And I added relevant reliable sources to it If you see any other fault in it, please fix it I hope that the relevant administrator (User4edits) will sum up as soon as possible and remove this article from the delete list Thanks to all of you M.sharaki (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, M.sharaki, User4edits is not an administrator but is the AFD nominator. An uninvolved editor or admin will close this after a consensus is found. If there are some sources that you believe establish this subject's notability, please mention them here, briefly, by providing a link so other editors can easily view them. That is the best argument you can make if you believe this article should be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear Liz

Thank you for your attention

Regarding the article I created about this person, in the sources section, I mentioned 15 reliable sources from important and reliable Iranian news agencies that you can view and check.

This person is one of the famous presenters of Iranian TV and has been performing on Iranian TV for more than two decades

Thanks

See the sources of this article (Najmeddin Shariati)

Thanks M.sharaki (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commment:
- Reference [1] says This article is from the web page and is just a hobby.on the top.
- [2] is IMDB (non-reliable)
- [3] seems paid/promotional with Najmuddin Shariati Instagram: Najmuddin Shariati also has a personal page on Instagram that from time to time posts related to his personal mood or related to his professional field. You can also follow Najmuddin Shariati's Instagram page through [REDACTED username].
- [4] from the previous website has similar content under different url and title. It also has the exactly same paragraph on Instagram username.
- [5] discusses The Strange Resemblance of Najmuddin Shariati's Wife + Photo... where he posted a photo of him and his wife and child in cyberspace.
- [6] is almost entirely he said this followed by paragraphs in quotes.
- [7] is a student news agency.
- [8] has no mention of the subject.
- 15 is Young Journalist Club, Not sure about reliability or independence.
- 14 is about the subject posting a video in Iraq.
- 13 is a website launched in 2017.. The purpose of this site is to examine the most important issues discussed at three levels of domestic, regional and trans-regional without advocating for a particular political faction, based on the principles and criteria of the Islamic Revolution. Unsure about reliability and independence.

I do not find WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST being met. @M.sharaki. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear @User4edits

Thank you for your attention

Regarding your statements about references:

Reference [1]: According to you, we do not include this reference, although the biography of Najmeddin Shariati mentioned in it is correct and true.
[2]: According to you, we ignore IMDb and the reason I mentioned it was because I saw a similar case in other articles.
[3]: In this case, after mentioning the relevant matters, the author of the news only mentioned the name of Najmeddin Shariati's Instagram and it does not have a promotional aspect to say that he took money to advertise.
[4]: According to you, we ignore this case because the source of this news is the same as the source of the third reference
[5]: In this case, you only examined the photo, although in its text, it mentioned information about Najmeddin Shariati, and I cited that text, not the blank photo
[6]: I cited this case correctly and the text of the news is related to an interview with Najmeddin Shariati.
[7]: This news agency is called Student News Agency

Not that some students mention things in it for fun

This news agency is one of the most reliable Iranian news agencies, and its news is fully documented, and that's why I cited it.

[8]: Your statement is correct and we ignore it
15: This case is the same as case number 7, the reason for which I mentioned

This is the name of this news agency, but its news is completely correct and documented

14: In this regard, you only saw the photo and video, but did not pay attention to the text of the news

In the text of the news, he explained the information and biography of Najmeddin Shariati, and that's why I cited this news

13: This news agency is one of the prominent news agencies of Iran and in this news, it mentions information about Najmeddin Shariati and Hosseinie Moala program hosted by Shariati.

That's why I cited this reference in the relevant text of the article

.

With all due respect to you, I consider some of the points you said to be false excuses that you intend to make all the references, even the valid and correct ones, appear to be flawed.

I will definitely correct some of the references that need to be deleted or corrected, but please don't try to delete the article with these excuses.

And if you see that this article needs to be corrected, tell us so that we can correct it

But let the article stand because it is about a well-known Iranian person and I am not saying this from myself

Thank you @User4edits M.sharaki (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the references of this article that you mentioned, I made important edits and deleted those references that should have been deleted and corrected those that should have been corrected.

Now this article has been cited to authoritative references

Please don't delete this article and let it remain and if you see a flaw in it, order me to correct it

Thank you @User4edits M.sharaki (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear @Liz

According to the important points that the user (@User4edits)

I edited the article carefully and deleted what needed to be deleted and edited what needed to be edited

Now the article is flawless in terms of its text and writing and valid references

I hope you agree and keep this article

Thanks M.sharaki (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t doubt that the article is factually correct however I dint see anything in the current sources that suggests notability. He’s a guy with a job and the coverage of him provided is pretty much froth and trivia. Mccapra (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello dear @Mccapra Thank you for taking the time to comment on this article With all due respect, I do not agree with your opinion because Najmeddin Shariati is not just an ordinary person who has a job and that's it. He has been working and performing professionally in the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Organization since 2000 and is a well-known and famous figure among Iranians. The most important TV program that is performed by Najmeddin Shariati and is one of the most popular TV programs in Iran is "Samte Khoda" program. You can also see the name of Samte Khoda program in the article of Iran's IRIB TV3 channel Please do not trivialize this article I created this article because he is a well-known figure I don't know what is your criterion for being important? In your opinion, being important means that a person has different margins? If the TV presenter works healthily for years and does not create margins, is it unimportant in your opinion? The references I mentioned all told the personal and artistic biography of Najmeddin Shariati, how he became a famous Iranian TV host. Please don't make a decision in a hurry and have a constructive view I hope other dear editors will also give their opinion so that a consensus can be reached as soon as possible Thanks M.sharaki (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.sharaki, it generally doesn't help for an editor to respond to everyone who participates in an AFD discussion. You have made your opinion known, let other editors review the article and assess its sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability.Tehonk (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a well-known Iranian person and has a biography of his personal and artistic life It also has authentic and documented references from prominent Iranian news agencies Thanks.M.sharaki (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC) — M.sharaki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Thanks.Yahosein525 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — Yahosein525 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Replying keep in an AfD is not begging the closer to take your stance. AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, so please make an argument as to why you believe the subject to be notable according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (see here). Happy editing! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Insect, I agree but your advice should be taken both by editors arguing for Keep or Delete. Saying "Delete per nom" or "not notable" is just as unhelpful as "Keep" with no argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I agree. Simply stating "delete not notable" is equally as unhelpful. I figured other editors would read the first part and determine whether or not it applied to them. I kinda forgot about the last sentence. Industrial Insect (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, when an article is AfD-ed, the onus of proof lies on those who contest against the AfD. Editors voting Delete per nom. are merely seconding the view that the subject is not notable (and hence fit for deletion). Editors voting Keep per user XXX are also merely seconding the opinion, and add value to the AfD (provided the editor is bonafide). Similarly, an AfD nomination of just non-notable, is to a certain extent fit as it impinges on the very fundamental claim of the subject to be in WP/Encyclopedia. Although nominations should be more than non-notable where it is not obviously visible. (Opinion) Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in the evidence provided does not meet WP:SIGCOV - too shallow. Contributor892z (talk) 08:29, 30 March 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. Sources brought up during this discussion have been found to either be primary or to refer to a different company with the same name. Thank you for your careful review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saga Petroleum LLC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One of the worst articles I've ever come across, previous AfD was a farce. Zero secondary sources. No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search came up with nothing establishing notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's something in the Wall Street Journal, May 11, 1999 - Norsk Hydro Offers $2.23 Billion In Stock to Buy Saga Petroleum - By Bhushan Bahree Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal .... There's something about the company here involving legal action which we know would generate other news, Casper Star-Tribune, Monday, June 14, 2010 - Page 26 .... and DEQ, March 16, 2018 - Montana Air Quality Permit #2770-11 a transfer to Blue Sky Energy. Something here on Casetext, 11-12-2015 - Nucor, Inc. v. PetroHawk Energy Corp. .... And there's CMI - Chr. Michelsen Institute, 2000 - The Snorre Field and the rise and fall of Saga Petroleum - Hildegunn Kyvik Nordås (2000). At the very least there's a good reason to consider a redirect. The problem is that we rely on Google and often it's a case of "If it ain't in Google then it don't exist". Well, I've often found that to be the case with how some folk look at things. In the past I've been given mineral and mining publications. Not exciting stuff for most people but within the industry they were relied upon for valuable information, and we sometimes have to look at things in a different perspective. When you go to the physical then there's content there that makes a whole world of difference. Karl Twist (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Karl Twist: I have just been looking at the sources you have provided. The first source is about Saga Petroleum, a Norwegian company of the same name. The second source appears to be a classified advertisement placed by a government official, which does not establish notability. The third source is a letter from a government department, obviously doesn't assist. The next source is a primary source, a legal case not even directly involving Saga Petroleum LLC. The final source is again about the unrelated Norwegian company. AusLondonder (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article needs a great amount of improving. Karl Twist (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything that suggests notability, fails WP:CORP --Devoke water 22:57, 28 March 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!} 07:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roar! TV[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, orphaned, and original PROD was removed with misleading edit summary. I cannot find any evidence of WP:SIGCOV (or indeed, coverage at all). LizardJr8 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lei Han[edit]

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

Cannot find any contemproray references online - although there may be some in untranslated chinese. He does not appear in a search of the English language website of the Chingqing medical hospital. I appreciate that his page may need to stay in Wikipedia because of his academic reputation - but I cannot find any sources to justify the statements about his reputation made in the article. Newhaven lad (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not found yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)/[reply]
Comment: Lei Han was the president of Chongqing Medical University. Does Lei Han meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria #6, which says, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society"?
This book published by Springer Nature notes: "The Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (CHCMU), located in the central area of Chongqing, is recognized as one of the top three pediatric hospitals in China (CHCMU 2015). Many professors worked in this hospital hold leading positions in the field of pediatric research in China."
This book published by Frontiers Media notes, "We performed a retrospective cohort study in the Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University. The hospital is a 2480-bed tertiary teaching hospital in Chongqing, China and ranks among the top three domestic children's hospitals (rank list: http://top100.imicams.ac.cn/home)." http://top100.imicams.ac.cn/home is the website of China's Institute of Medical Information & Library (zh:中国医学科学院医学信息研究所).
Cunard (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria #6 per Qflib. Cunard (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would agree that #C6 of WP:NPROF is met by having served as the president of Chongqing Medical University, which is a research-grade institution. Qflib (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC criterion 6, as president of Chongqing Medical University. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:25, 25 March 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!} 04:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy treehouse[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary ComputerUserUser (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Most Wikipedia articles begin with a definition. That does not make them dictionary content if they go on to discuss the topic as such rather than the word that names the article. That seems to be the case here. Although the lead section and one source offer definitions, the other sources and some of the current content discuss the educational issue. (My !vote is weak because I don't know about the issue. The sources do seem to establish notability, though.) Cnilep (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above and also per this section of the [[Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. I've indefblocked the nominator for incompetence and general inflexibility (the latter shown by the nomination statement here). Graham87 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above. Could be a better article, but it's already more than just a WP:DICTDEF. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:15, 23 March 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aella (influencer)[edit]

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

Non-notable OnlyFans blogger with a viral post or two, and some passing mentions in the press. Good to know she only showers once every ten days, though whether that cracks the notability ceiling is questionable. Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Withdrawn Mathglot (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not know if this is relevant, but the page seems to have attained 95,576 pageviews in the time since it was created in October 2023. I have made a number of pages, but never has one received so many pageviews, especially in such a brief period of time since I first made it. I think the page passes WP:GNG though based on the available coverage regardless. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some additional sources not in the article currently: Business Insider, Playboy, Reason. Thriley (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snarky remarks of the "Gee, how weird/icky" type are not a valid deletion rationale. Apart from the New York Times coverage that the nominator appears to be trying to dismiss above, the article also already cites WP:SIGCOV from a RS (a book published by PublicAffairs). Together with the SIGCOV listed by Thriley above, this handily satisfies WP:GNG. (Reason and Playboy are green-rated RS, see WP:RSP#Reason and WP:RSP#Playboy. As for the BI article, I am not quite sure if it falls into the site's green-rated culture part or the yellow-rated remainder, but in any case the author seems to be a seasoned media reporter. By the way, there was also a separate Reason article with more journalistic content in addition to the interview.) Lastly, the nominator's insinuation that the article's subject lacks a substantial audience size as a writer except for a viral post or two is factually dubious (this is only a crude indicator of notability, but I thought it worth correcting since it was brought up as an argument for deletion above). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON - coverage is not the sort of biographical coverage we would need to properly support a WP:BLP. What little coverage we have here was scraped together from the barest coverage we could find. Google News overwhelmingly shows trashy tabloid coverage of the woman who doesn't shower. HaeB hammers on the NYT coverage, but we don't give people a Wikipedia article for having a single paragraph in one NYT story - that's the quintessence of a passing mention. As discussed on the talk page, the Auerbach book coverage is a single paragraph and a quote - it's a mention in passing, not BLP writing about Aella. This is what a BLP looks like when the original author is a huge fan and can't find any actual RSes once their tabloid coverage has been removed (see history, and see their spirited talk page defense of using the New York Post on a BLP). It is possible Aella will do something genuinely noteworthy at some point, but at absolute best this is a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curious about your definition of "hammering"; evidently it differs from wikt:hammer#Verb (I hadn't commented about that New York Times coverage before).

Nobody argued that we should give people a Wikipedia article for having a single paragraph in one NYT story alone, that's a strawman. And your delete !vote fails to address or even just acknowledge the other RS coverage that has been cited in favor of notability.

WP:SIGCOV isn't about length, but describes coverage that is more than a trivial mention, but [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The David Auerbach quote in the article summarizes an extensive body of work by the article subject in one area, it is not a "trivial mention" at all.

This is what a BLP looks like when the original author is a huge fan - I'm not saying that fan-created articles aren't a problem in general, but in this case the insinuation that Iljhgtn created the article because they are a "huge fan" seems rather unsubstantiated. (Yes, they were mistaken about the suitability of the NY Post as BLP source. But that's water under the bridge now - that citation was removed months ago.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON This page gets a lot of views, yes, but that doesn't mean that she is notable, it means that this wiki article happens to be the first result when you google "Aella" and she has a lot of fans. But if you do google her, the results are almost nothing but her own blog posts and one or two articles. Deciding if an influencer is "notable" is tricky business, but what sticks out to me is that this article didn't even start out as being about an "influencer" it started out as being about a "data scientist", it was changed to "influencer" after it was ruled she is not in fact a scientist. What she is really is a meme which has been making waves in a small corner of the internet, and until she actually gains some notoriety outside of tweets about the girl who got a birthday gangbang or tabloid articles about the woman who doesn't shower, she is a meme. And generally memes only get Wikipedia articles when they reach a level of notoriety that she has not yet obtained.Jelephant (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but what sticks out to me is that this article didn't even start out as being about an "influencer" it started out as being about a "data scientist", I created this originally and did not really know what I was doing yet to be fair. I have since created over a dozen other articles over time, but this was a earlier one for me to be sure. I changed the disambiguation text from "data scientist" to "influencer" based on new emerging consensus around what to call Aella. I took the "data scientist" term from an article or podcast or video that she was in that I first saw or read that made me want to write this article in the first place. I was surprised that she did not have one. Anyway, just wanted to address that one point. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RS coverage outside of tweets has been amply demonstrated at this point. Let's stick arguments based on Wikipedia policies, instead of personal theories about memes and waves. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- really a unique sort of independent scholar, to be getting any kind of coverage at all. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is appropriate that this nomination has been formally withdrawn. The subject may have an unusual career and lifestyle, but she is far from lacking in notability. Although the article in its present form is only short, with a small number of references, a google search reveals very quickly that she has been the subject of lengthy interviews/profiles in various publications over several years, eg unHerd, 2020, Business Insider, 2020, Reason, 2022, Mere Orthodoxy, 2023. There's probably enough content in those interviews/profiles alone to source a "good article", and they don't include the references already cited in the article. In fact, I'd be inclined to expand the article myself using those sources, but I am always reluctant to do any editing of an article that - fairly or unfairly - is the subject of a not-yet-closed deletion discussion. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mere Orthodoxy exists to create media for Christian renewal" - I'm not entirely convinced this is a Wikipedia-quality RS for notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: You've quoted a top of page slogan that is being used to solicit donations. So what? Similar Jimbo Wales slogans appear at the top of Wikipedia articles from time to time. A quick look at Mere Orthodoxy's Editorial Board page indicates that the source appears to have the editorial setup characteristic of reliable sources. You might not agree with the source's editorial stance, but even if that is so, it wouldn't necessarily make the source unreliable. I don't agree with the editorial stances of ABC News (Australia) or The Guardian, but I often use both of them as reliable sources. And the Mere Orthodoxy article I linked makes some interesting comments about the subject of the Wikipedia article that might be worthy of inclusion in the latter article, as sourced commentary about the subject rather than as merely factual material. That's the sort of content that can potentially transform a stub into a "good article". Again, I am presently refraining from doing any editing of the Wikipedia article until the deletion discussion has been closed. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedian but I would imagine a neutral perspective would allow nearly any publication as long as said publication isn't one person trying to circumvent the system. 1thousandseeds (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure what the protocol is about removing the deletion notice from articles after the nomination has been withdrawn; but in any case I have just expanded the article adding citations to extensive coverage in three different RS (all green-rated at WP:RSP), including one that hadn't yet been brought above: this GQ article from 2021. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think after like 7 days or something an admin will come along and remove it. With the other sources now added by you though, the "Multiple issues" tag may also be something that is eligible for removal as well at this point. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Nominator has withdrawn their deletion nomination but there are several strong Delete arguments that render a quick Keep impossible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft, pending satisfaction of the TOOSOON objections. BD2412 T 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple RSes, including GQ, Playboy, Reason, and Business Insider. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources has not been demonstrated, and this clearly is TOOSOON or else not notable. Content with the draftify suggestion if that will achieve a consensus, but any improved article in draft space needs to address the location and use of suitable secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of WP:JNN !vote isn't very useful. Above, several commenters have observed that the GNG is, in fact, satisfied, and discussed in detail how this has been demonstrated at this point, by examining undisputedly non-trivial coverage in at least three reliable secondary sources (plus coverage in two other RS that at least some of us think is significant, too). Simply asserting the opposite without addressing these arguments at all is the kind of thing that WP:ATA asks us to avoid, so it would be helpful to substantiate your opposing claims. Is it because you disagree with the current community consensus that the aforementioned sources are "generally reliable", as documented at WP:RSP? Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have to contain significant coverage, not just trivial mentions. Most of these do not. They have to be independent. That rules out the interviews. They have to be reliable, so there go the tabloids, and they have to be secondary. Which sources meet all these criteria? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please be more specific with your objections. E.g. which of the sources provided above in favor of notability do you consider to be tabloids?

To help you get started with substantiating your claims, how about explaining them in case of the GQ article? It is independent, not an interview, and secondary. So we have assume you consider GQ to be a tabloid, in contrast to WP:RSP: There is strong consensus that GQ, including its international editions, is generally reliable. It is noted by editors for having quality editorial oversight for non-contentious topics. In that case I think it would be more productive for you to first start a discussion at WP:RSN and see if you can change the current community consensus about this source towards your opinion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus, would Draftify be acceptable to editors? This is often a resolution to TOOSOON
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the fact that the article now cites WP:SUSTAINED SIGCOV in several RS dating back to 2017 (not even counting the NYT article and the PublicAffairs book as the two 2023 citations whose SIGCOV status was disputed by one editor above), I consider the TOOSOON claims refuted and do not think that draftifying would be an acceptable outcome. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – We have profiles in GQ and Playboy, and more, both perfectly relevant RS that has WP:SIGCOV of this subject. There is more like NYT that arguably falls short of significant coverage, so I really do not think this is WP:TOOSOON, as we have coverage over half a decade. TLA^tlak 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I advise editors advocating for delete due to "blog" and less-reliable sources popping up on GNEWS to look a bit deeper, as some of the better sources come from several years ago. Look as well in other languages like Spanish. If you just scroll down more (possibly page 2 depending on your location), you'll come across some of Spanish-language media's most respected papers of record covering this subject. TLA^tlak 15:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you post up links to sources you think would count towards GNG, and then we can evaluate those. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets GNG with coverage going back to 2017. Thriley (talk) 19:33, 29 March 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 List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Dust (Hazbin Hotel)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. This source [9] is a bit useful for addition, but isn't a sigcov at all. Per WP:BEFORE, only this source could be useful [10], but nothing else. What we have sources now at the reception were just the reviews of the film itself and listicles/rankings only. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reviews of "Masquerade", the Angel Dust-centric fourth episode, and the B-plot of "Welcome to Heaven", the sixth episode, delve into the characterisation of the character and voice actor performance, passing WP:SIGCOV. 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:5195:FE6F:1E81:6F85 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really. The reviews are for the episodes themselves, and as far as my Google search goes, none go into detail on the character. Per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. Also, per WP:FICT: Specifically, fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a case of something like Porygon lacking an article despite Dennō Senshi Porygon having an article. Having episodes dedicated to a character can help, but there needs to be actual coverage on the element outside of whatever they're associated with. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per WP:TOOSOON Maybe this character will be important for independent coverage in the future, but not now. Samoht27 (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support would be to redirect/move the page back into draftspace/merge the reception into List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters, right? I agree this character should receive a page at one point, but maybe later in the year/next year when there is just a little bit more coverage. 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:55D1:AA1:430B:8A45 (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do believe that this character will likely have coverage in the future, so to merge into List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. This character is simply not standalone notable and largely uses Valnet sites for its reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per nom and my comments above. This is WP:TOOSOON; when the character has enough coverage in the future, the page can easily be recreated. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. Most of the sources are primary sources, Decider is unreliable, and the rest I can’t really find on WP:RSP Brachy08 _(Talk) 10:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. Most sources include passing mention and no in-depth coverage specifically on the character. The information, however, could definitely be worked into the list. Maybe some time in the future, the continued popularity of this character could warrant an article, but it is simply WP:TOOSOON to include one with so little coverage. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters. There are not enough sites, besides Decider, that cover the character specifically. --Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 08:27, 27 March 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!} 18:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's College, Thoothukudi[edit]

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

Cannot find anything of note online. The College may have relatively poor rankings (151/200 according to Collegedunia.com). No indication of interesting history or connections Newhaven lad (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST 75 year old college founded in 1948 added references there bound to be offline sources in English and Tamil.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 22 March 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. Closing as no consensus after one month of discussions and relistings. No consensus for a merge either. Further discussions for merge, if needed, can be discussed in the talkpages, outside AfD. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse breathing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No good sources in 15+ years, I couldn't find anything greater than blog quality asa skurce when I checked Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's covered in a number of books. I've added four as further reading. One of them has a whole chapter specifically on the topic. Skyerise (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we require more intensive sources for health related topics? If so the sources we have so far probably do not meet the bar. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article currently stands. I'm sure there are plenty of books espousing the benefits of this technique, but that drags us into WP:MEDRS territory, which this absolutely fails. This could perhaps be integrated as a small paragraph in qigong, with cites that practitioners claim medical benefits. But right now, this is an overly credulous article that does not strike the proper tone for a technique with such strong claims of health benefits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as there are lots of book coverage. This, this, this, this, this, this and this are enough to establish notability. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITEXISTS is not going to override WP:MEDRS. It may be notable within its selected practices, but this article would need to be blown up and built from scratch to excise all the "health benefits" claims with no scientific backing, and then there's nothing left for an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds hold on please.

Reverse breathing is one kinda practice for physical and mind power. Like various practices of Yoga, Reverse breathing is also a part of the practice of physical strength. Indian action actor Vidyut Jammwal also said that he practices it. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh also spoke about Reverse breathing here alongside in a controvercial statement. This paper also speaks about the subject.

It is not about WP:MEDRS but about traditional practice that exists for hundreds of years. - Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a traditional practice with no scientific backing to support its supposed health benefits. Full stop. Hence my suggestion for discussing its traditional practice in qigong and other appropriate articles. The current article is too credulous to unproven health benefits and, if you excise that content, there's virtually nothing left. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HandThatFeeds this Reverse breathing is beyond of my capacity. Probably not for females, so I can't.

But, some traditional practices never needed any kind of modern medical science just like Yoga. Modern medical sciences are evaluating the traditional practices for health benefits. For example Acupuncture is called Pseudoscience here in Wikipedia. But this, this and this establishes notability of Acupuncture. (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't follow your argument here, but I've made my point and we're going in circles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject can be better described as part of Qigong, as it stands the health claims are tendentious given the citations and the one PubMed article does not indicate a strong connection between this practice and any of these claims. If it does need to exist it would fare better if completely rewritten and re-sourced. Recon rabbit 17:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Is there a possible Merge or Redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe qigong would be the only appropriate target for that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested with Qigong to a subsection or mention there. I note the Qigong article is available in 47 languages, while Reverse breathing is only available in English. The Reverse breathing article is available in the Internet Archive for accessing. 5Q5|^✉ 11:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is not yet consensus and to assess a possible Merge to Qigong
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 22 March 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. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alastor (Hazbin Hotel)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. per WP:BEFORE, only this source could be useful [11], but nothing else. What we have sources now at the reception were just the reviews of the film itself and listicles/rankings only. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Webcomics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:SIGCOV of Alastor the Radio Demon does exist in spades [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]; the article is restricted to autoconfirmed or confirmed editors until 03:42, 16 May 2024, so those references cannot be added yet. A deletion discussion is premature until the article is open to be edited again. 2001:BB6:3A30:D700:5195:FE6F:1E81:6F85 (talk) 23:20, 22 March 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!} 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eliana Gropman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE: has neither won a medal at a senior-level international event, nor has she won the U.S. national championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sports. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Maryland, Michigan, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NSKATE, can't find SIGCOV. Please ping if sources identified. ^Queenof_Hearts 23:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not achieved the requisite success or notability to merit an article. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:25, 26 March 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 page's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Khel (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary dab page per WP:ONEOTHER. Hatnotes are already placed on each article pointing to each other, so there's no apparent need for this dab page to exist. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Everything else I can find with the term in the title seems to be a WP:PTM. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:41, 23 March 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. Despite copious amounts of pseudolaw verbiage, the lone Keep view failed to adequately address the absence of independent, significant coverage. Consensus here is clear. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baris Ozgur[edit]

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

Delete: Non-notable. None of the cited sources contain significant coverage of the subject. Three of the sources (SonDakika, Cumhuriyet, and Dizidoktoru) are nearly identical reprints of the same press release. Regardless, they are out-of-scope, because they are synopses of the film "Geal" and merely mention Ozgur. WP:BEFORE yields nothing that contributes to notability. Scottyoak2 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Turkey. Scottyoak2 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no notability. spam. Tehonk (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to objections

Reference your opinion that:

"Delete: Non-notable. None of the cited sources contain significant coverage of the subject. Three of the sources (SonDakika, Cumhuriyet, and Dizidoktoru) are nearly identical reprints of the same press release. Regardless, they are out-of-scope, because they are synopses of the film "Geal" and merely mention Ozgur. WP:BEFORE yields nothing that contributes to notability."

I would like to reply in a step-by-step manner to each of the objection that has been raised.

Objection 1: Non-Notable

Reply to objection 1

1. WP:N says:

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG)..."

WP:BASIC says:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

What does WP:GNG says?

1.1. WP:GNG says:

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

1.1.1. WP:SIGCOV says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

1.1.2. WP:RS says:

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."

1.1.2.1. WP:SOURCEDEF says:

"A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage"

WP:SOURCE says: What counts as a reliable source...
- The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them.

However, even if the source is recognized as blog, WP:NEWSBLOG says

"These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals"

1.1.2.2. WP:PUBLISHED says:

"Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form..."

1.1.3. WP:PSTS says:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources..."

External Reference for what is secondary source

Response: In terms of the above outlined criteria, the article has received WP:SIGCOV significant coverage as after visiting the secondary sources there is no need to carry out any further research. Thus significant coverage warrants that the article be retained as stand-alone article WP:GNG. WP:RS outlines reliability criteria and as per the available public information and assuming optimistically there has been no information of Journalistic misconduct on the part of media entites which have been referenced herein. However, if you have any specific information in this regard, please share.

Thus, having significant coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources the article qualifiesWP: BASIC. Hence, qualifying WP:GNG and WP: BASIC depicts the WP:N of the article and merits a stand-alone article.

Objection 2: None of the cited sources contain significant coverage of the subject.

Reply to objection 2

WP:SIGCOV says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Response: There are multiple sources like for example this webpage that has covered the topic under discussion in detail, and I am sure no more information is required after vsiting this secondary source.

Objection 3: Three of the sources (SonDakika, Cumhuriyet, and Dizidoktoru) are nearly identical reprints of the same press release.

Reply to objection 3

WP:GNG says:

"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected "

WP:NEWSORG says:

"Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy."

In addiiton; WP:RS says:

" Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."

Response: Thus just having three sources( though there are now almost 10 verifiable and reliable secondary sources) isnt a valid reason to declare Non notability. At the same time, it is a worldwide practice that newspapers copy news from reliable source and in this case reporting of similar news by different media sections strengthen this notion that the news being shared is accurate. Furthermore, availability of secondary sources second the WP:RS clause and shall be deemed as passing the test for notability criteria.

Objection 4: Regardless, they are out-of-scope, because they are synopses of the film "Geal" and merely mention Ozgur. WP:BEFORE yields nothing that contributes to notability

Reply to objection 4

WP:SIGCOV says:

"it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. "

WP:GNG says:

"sources vary in quality and depth of coverage... "

Response: As said, the subject doesn't need to be the main topic nor the depth of coverage determines the notability criteria.

Conclusion

I hope I was able to address the questions that have been raised here by the respectable members.

My vote

Keep

Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sibtehassanbutt, please keep any future comments brief. You don't need to post long quotes of policy. Just link to the page and editors who are interested can go check it out. Long walls of text like this can discourage other editors from commenting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duly,noted. Thanks for the guidance. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT:@Tehonk Thanks for the input. Per WP:BROCHURE and the examples cited therein, can you quote any line from the article here that fits this description? Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scottyoak2,

Hope you are doing well. The sources you talked about ofcourse they represent the same movie but how are they identical? These are completely different websites. They are not out of scope. They do mention that the film script was written by Baris Ozgur. Askarii27 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He isn't the primary focus of most of the secondary independent sources. I was not able to find any other source that would make the subject notable. Aintabli (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Thank you for the input. Per WP:SIGCOV, being primary focus/ main topic of the source is not necessary to establish significant coverage. However, as per your argument you are establishing that the subject is focus of most of the secondary independent sources though you don't agree with the primary part, but even as per this notion it qualifies WP:BASIC and establishes notability. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but that kind of abstracts portions of my comment from the overall point I was making. I actually meant that there isn't any significant coverage within the sources. The sources are not exactly good quality and mostly quite brief. When you combine this with that he is not the primary focus, there isn't significant coverage. Aintabli (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Please refer to WP:BASIC If in-depth coverage is not present, then multiple sources can be combined to establish notability.

Second, I can't see what the quality of sources refers to. Can you cite any guidelines within WP:GNG that discussed "Quality of the Source?"

Per WP:GNG the aspect of sources has been discussed under WP:RS i.e., reliability, and says sources encompass all sources of media, including published, and WP:PUBLISHED means any publicly available source, including webpages. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update from the nominator: I see that a few additional sources have been added to article. Here is a list of the references in the article at this time, and I have included the entire coverage of the article subject from each source.

1. General Directorate of Cinema Government Directory.

"Producer: Barış Özgür Aron Film"

2. haberturk.com a churnalism press release.

"Barış Özgür wrote the script of the film directed by Fikret Sanal."

3. Gonul Interview with an actor.

"It was written by Barış Özgür, inspired by a true story."

4. sadibey.com Press release.

"The film, whose script was written by Barış Özgür; It was shot in Göreme, Cappadocia and Salt Lake."

5. SESAM a membership directory.

"Member #174: ARON FILM, BARIŞ ÖZGÜR"

6. Film Freeway Contains data, but isn't usable to establish notability. It's CV-style WP:UGC, discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard here: Archive_401#FilmFreeway

7. House of Film A listing for a film. (Doesn't mention Baris Ozgur.)

8. SonDakika.com Press release.

"The film, whose script was written by Barış Özgür; It was shot in Göreme, Cappadocia and Salt Lake."

9. Cumhuriyet.tr Press release.

"The film, whose script was written by Barış Özgür; It was shot in Göreme, Cappadocia and Salt Lake."

10. Dizi Doktoru Press release.

"The film, whose script was written by Barış Özgür; It was shot in Göreme, Cappadocia and Salt Lake."

So, five of the sources have churned a single sentence from the press release; two are directory listings; one is a single sentence from an interview; one is user-generated content; and one doesn't mention the subject at all. I don't see any actual independent coverage from any source. My original nomination still stands. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: @Scottyoak2 Thanks for your detailed review. I think the subject under discussion is primarily a writer, producer, and director. These are the characteristics whose coverage makes the subject notable, and these particular aspects of the subject have been covered by sufficient reliable secondary sources. Referring to this

Archive_401#FilmFreeway can't see any consensus about it. However, I am not claiming notability on the basis of this one reference alone. Per WP:ABOUTSELF only primary information is drawn from FilmFreeway reference, and the information, even if presumed self-published, is still admissible as a source as it pertains to the subject himself. Though keeping in view the coverage of the film Cold Blooded Love, I think WP:CREATIVE can be claimed, yet I think when its qualifying WP:BASIC, there is no need to demand WP:N for other additional criteria (s).

P.S.: I have added a few more references in the original article for your kind review, please. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 08:34, 30 March 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!} 18:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mordva (slur)[edit]

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

Looks like a POV fork of the article on Mordvins aimed at convincing the readers that the terms "Mordva"/"Mordvins" are pejorative. Such opinion indeed exists, but it's a fringe one, and no reliable dictionary marks those words as "slurs". The article is mostly unsourced; the only source in the article that might be reliable is the 1990 discussion on whether the titular word may be pejorative or not (both opinions are represented). Other than that, there's only an entry from the 19th century Belarusian dictionary describing a homophonic word that was used as a pejorative term for Jews, but it's clearly unrelated to the main topic (Mordvins don't have anything to do with Jews). Overall, I don't think the word on its own is notable enough for a separate article: a section in Mordvins about the etymology and perceived connotations of the term would be enough. Finstergeist (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Belarus, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A single reliable article directly discussing the topic is not enough to make this notable. I also nominated a related article Mordvins (term for Jews) for deletion. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and History. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, and as noted. One mention at an academic conference is by definition WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 26 March 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 Total Living Network. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCFC-CA[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is currently completely unsourced and I have been unable to locate any useful secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Total Living Network Network is now regional-cable only and has been for over a decade, and I had considered redirecting long before. Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 22 March 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!} 18:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQFL-CA[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient SIGCOV for an article in Rockford paper. The station operated as "WOCM", a FamilyNet affiliate with some non-FN programming, when it went on in 1992. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:30, 26 March 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!} 18:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwaraka Creations[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. None of the references writes about the subject of the article.

This article has had a rough history. Appears that it was declined at AFC about 4 times and then later moved to mainspace 2-3 times bypassing AFC (after draftifying by others). Article was tagged as having paid contributions and now the creator is indeffed for multiple account abuse.

Apart from the reason described with my AFD nomination, I am also doing it out of caution of not overriding the large amount of work and decisions others have already done with handling all of this. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: after a search, topic appears to fail WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:44, 23 March 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. Like the last AFD, I see a consensus to Keep this article. I encourage editors to review WP:FANCRUFT which is an essay, not a policy guideline. It looks like there have been improvements made to the article since it's recent nomination and I hope they can continue to address the nominator's valid concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish comic book characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list seems to be an unreferenced fan-cruft list. None of the entries have citations, and I don't think this subject is notable. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Judaism, and Lists. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Public Heroes, Secret Jews: Jewish Identity and Comic Books, Rethinking the Jewish-Comics Connection, Jewish Comics; Or, Visualizing Current Jewish Narrative, Comic Books, Tragic Stories: Will Eisner’s American Jewish History. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not even a year since the last nomination. As I said then: Enough links to articles about the characters to justify a list. Category:Jewish superheroes and Category:Fictional Jews in comics exist and show notable entries for this list. Dream Focus 02:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NLIST says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The subject of Jewish comic book characters has been amply discussed, see Jclemens' links for a start. Also, it is bad practice to re-nominate an article for deletion after nine months, and not account for the previous consensus in your nomination. Toughpigs (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited suggest the topic of Jewish comic book characters or Jewish themes in comics may be notable, but this is not what we have here. What we have is a mostly unreferenced list. No such list has been shown to exist (sources cited are about a wider concept). And such a list desperately needs references, since who is Jewish and who is not can be controversial (antisemitism, anyone?). We need to excercise extra care here, and what we have fails WP:NLIST/WP:LISTN, WP:OR and WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just easily found and added a bunch of references. Searching for a name and "Jew" is not hard to do. I don't see how it could possibly be controversial to say someone is Jewish, especially not a fictional character. Dream Focus 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you would benefit from reviewing the literature, including that I cited above. Also, your argument doesn't logically follow: the nom cited notability. I addressed notability. You argue that a list of Jewish comic characters is not notable when I've just demonstrated that Jewish comic characters, as a topic, are notable. That's textbook LISTN: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Even given your habit of suggesting that surmountable problems make an article deletion-worthy, that's not even what you're arguing here. I'm puzzled; your arguments, even when I disagree with them, are usually much stronger than this. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources from Jclemens, theme is commonly discussed in media.

FortunateSons (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page contains ample references and garners public interest. Progoees (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN and the sources provided by JClemens as it shows the characters being discussed in the media/reliable sources. Also, deletion is not cleanup. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:54, 27 March 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. This is a procedural close. The closure of the first AFD is being reviewed right now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21#Where is Kate?. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Kate?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

News regarding the subjects recent cancer diagnosis has been revealed, which should override any previous deletion review and override the time limit from the previous AfD close. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. WP:TNT after recent diagnosis. See also discussions at the previous AfD, DRV, and BLP noticeboard. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's changed since the previous AfD that closed a few days ago is that the cancer diagnosis has shifted the goalposts entirely. The speculation merited an article for the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources it attracted, and there was (in my view) consensus expressed in the previous AfD to apply the WP:10YT in the fullness of time, likely eventually resulting in the article's merge into Catherine, Princess of Wales. To me, the diagnosis means that the WP:10YT applies today, not in ten years' time. We are effectively now talking about Cancer diagnosis of Catherine, Princess of Wales, with all the speculation in the article as a background section. That kind of article presents evident WP:BLP concerns, and is outside the scope of Wikipedia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switching !vote to Neutral. Having substantially reorganised and trimmed the article, I think an article focussed on the speculation or Mother's Day photograph could be viable without running into WP:BLP concerns, if it is treated as a historical documentation of the mass media interest/speculation leading up to today's sad announcement. No doubt, further commentary will emerge over the coming hours about how awful said interest and speculation was. But that means that, unless the speculation continues, the article's scope should stop with this evening's announcement and any further commentary offered on the speculation. As the article's creator, one of its major editors, and the previous AfD nominator, I self-imposed a user topic ban on editing the article this morning, not expecting to work so much this evening on clean-up in case the article is kept. It has become a timesink detracting from the reasons I started editing Wikipedia, and I'm conscious of the tortured responses the article has evoked on the BLP noticeboard, which is why I'm excusing myself from the AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 23:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete or rewrite the article completely with a proper title This is clearly a WP:BLP issue. We should not be scrutinizing the moves of a living person that is under going treatment for cancer. Most of the article is speculation anyway and falls short of criteria set by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Keivan.f^Talk 19:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is clearly a WP:BLP issue, and both the BLP noticeboard and DRV discussions highlighted that the BLP argument has struggled to specify exactly how this is a BLP issue: nobody, for example, has even quoted the relevant part of WP:BLP. At the same time, I think it should be a BLP issue if it isn't, and there may be a case to open an RfC to more clearly draw lines. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while it is unfortunate that someone has been diagnosed with cancer, the actual GNG analysis of this "event" and the coverage of the speculation conducted at the end of the last close is still valid (arguement for a speedy keep). The article can be written to include (what will presumably be) the close of this saga. Further, all the calls of the BLP violation don't actually identify a problem; and if there were one it could be remedied on the page by being challenged in the article or discussed on the talk page. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the witch hunt the woman was subjected to is indeed a notable event. However, I think the article should be rewritten entirely if it were to be kept. We need to remove all the speculation and unnecessary details and discuss the phenomenon itself, similar to Paul is dead. Keivan.f^Talk 19:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The article will now naturally progress to the past tense and I'm sure there will be plenty of ink spilled by secondary sources about how this was a terrible thing to happen and to speculate on, and that can and should be added to the article as well. The fact remians that we are at articles for deletion and we have no valid reason to delete this article, except for what appears to be a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, seeing as the ink hadn't even dried from the first deletion nom, as evidenced by the fact that there was an ongoing WP:DRV at the time of the re-nomination. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-write as a lesson for the media and social media on how NOT to treat public figures when they are recovering from surgery Regarding my extensive editing on the article, I did my best to keep it reliably sourced, neutral tone, and kept the widespread unsubstantiated conspiracies sectioned off in its own section. Removed all tabloids and trivia. I thank those who have recognised that I was doing that, against the onslaught of international mainstream news outlets propagating the story further. It wasn’t a BLP violation before, but since the news it’s a clear BLP violation. Me and the involved editors have created Frankenstein’s monster. This must be deleted. Also, those with a Wikipedia-centric view of the internet, this article got less than 10k views per day, as opposed to the 400million views the media, and social media commentary received. The article had about 0.0000025% the viewership. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worthwhile to note that TheSpacebook and I collectively constitute 59.6% of the article's added text, and are seemingly in agreement on deletion. We even edit-warred over who would write the deletion nomination statement! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 19:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We kept it balanced, reliably sourced, free from tabloid gossip. We kept it neutrally toned and opened up talk page discussions to build consensus. We were unaware of the recent news, ~~even though Kensington Palace lied and said it was “cancer free”.~~ We were unaware of the Frankenstein monster we were actually creating. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist the facts please. Nobody lied. They did the surgery, did test afterwards (most probably biopsy) and then found cancer was present. Catherine herself stated that at first they thought her condition was non-cancerous. Keivan.f^Talk 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only read the news reports when I wrote that comment, and just finished watching the video now. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD doesn't typically consider WP:OWNERSHIP to be a valid reason to delete content. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator and the most involved editors, we can recognise that we contributed the most to unknowingly creating a BLP Frankenstein’s monster; and immediately finding a solution to a problem we made the most contributions to, when the new information was released. I maintain that it wasn’t a BLP violation before, but since the recent announcement, it now is one. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I expressed on the talk page, this article is fundamentally unencyclopedic. We are not required to cover everything which is covered by reliable sources, and exercising editorial judgment is our role as Wikipedians. This article fails the WP:10YEARTEST and does not add any value to Wikipedia. A social media feeding frenzy spilling into reliable sources =/= a notable event. One or two sentences on Catherine, Princess of Wales would be more than adequate to cover this non-event. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: how does it fail WP:10YEARTEST? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social media frenzies happen all the time. Occasionally they spill over into reliable media. In 10 years, the fact that "there were conspiracy theories and media speculation about Catherine's health and whereabouts before she announced she had cancer" will be enough to tell the reader everything they need to know at an appropriate level of detail and summarization. We are an encyclopedic summary of the world, and are not required to cover every event which occurs in minute detail (here nearly 3000 words!) - especially when the "event" turns out to be a non-event which has serious WP:BLP considerations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the WP:10YEARTEST. I asked you how it fails the WP:10YEARTEST. It also turned out to be an event, the speciation was right... There was a cover-up going on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sentences of my reply directly address your question - the last gives further context. If you disagree with my perspective, no problem, but I don't think I can explain it much more clearly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something then, can you quote the part which you think isn't met? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?....Furthermore, detailed stand-alone articles and lists may no longer comply with the general notability guideline, particularly the "Presumed" criterion. Content that seemed notable at the time might, in retrospect, violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines... This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. The Mother’s Day photo was one of the main reasons conspiracies surfaced and the subject is notable, and there's enough in that to where it could not be reasonably covered in a short paragraph. Slamforeman (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: per previous deletion discussion, incredibly notable event with hundreds of articles from top-tier reliable sources. Today's unfortunate announcement that she is undergoing cancer treatment only adds to the notability of event; the speculation and media commentary on undue secrecy from the publicly funded royal family (Never complain, never explain, Republicanism in the United Kingdom, etc.) is only strengthened by the apparent reality that the Kensington Palace public statement that her surgery was "planned", "successful", and "not cancer-related" was either willfully or unknowingly false. This will continue to be a notable event in the history of the British royal family. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An extremely interesting take about lying about it not being cancer-related and covering it up. And then explaining against the never complain, never explain motto. I still think that if it stays, it needs an overhaul rewrite. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This again? We have already decided to keep the article, I don't know, three days ago. Subject to the comments provided, the article should be kept. The recent announcement regarding Kensington suggests that it is premature to initiate another deletion process. We should also avoid subjective judgments of notability. Additionally, notability is not temporary (as noted by User:Bait30 with WP:NTEMP), and media coverage surrounding the subject remains significant (and reliable!), encompassing various perspectives and responses. Therefore, the article's relevance persists. The argument of WP:NOTGOSSIP does not hold up. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and that is precisely what the article predominantly (if not entirely) relies on. The same applies to articles like Paul is dead, as mentioned by other users. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I suggest speedy keep per last AfD, as MicrobiologyMarcus and PK-WIKI wrote. The topic of "where is Kate", the photograph and related subjects still received significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The notability, or suitability, of the topic is not suddenly lost because of the diagnosis. Skyshiftertalk 19:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This didn't pass the 10 day test, let alone the 10 year test. Killuminator (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and other policies. This should be covered appropriately in her own article. If an article about the social media/media furore is determined to be needed it should focus on that (including the title) not Kate herself. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous rationale. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Internet, and United Kingdom. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unsalvageable rubbish. Wikipedia should not document tasteless tabloid drivel. --Kwpolska ^{(spam me/contributions)} 19:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't like it" is not a valid argument for deletion. BappleBusiness^[talk] 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the whole thing (absence, photo, speculation) were covered by RS fro a round the world. This wasn't limited to tabloids. Cortador (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is WP:NOTGOSSIP. Many generally reputable news sources run tabloid-y stories as well. Kwpolska ^{(spam me/contributions)} 21:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason for this article to exist. Wikipedia exists as a summary of knowledge, not as a blow-by-blow account of media speculation, and the speculation surrounding Catherine's health can be summarised in a few sentences in the main article. See WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article passes our notability requirements for a stand-alone article. It seems that many of the delete comments are actually objections to the name which isn't a valid deletion rationale, neither are the arguments that the page needs cleanup or is otherwise deficient in ways not related to notability... WP:NOTCLEANUP. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't valid deletion rationale either. I literally just got another push notification from CNN about the topic, we are so far over the GNG bar it isn't even funny. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't tell you how many pointless news notifications I get per day. As far as I know, none of those stories were made into their own articles (barring excep tions). Not exactly a trump card in a notability debate. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the previous AfD concluded, this isn't even really a notability debate, but rather about the scope of Wikipedia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notability discussion, if you want to discuss the scope of Wikipedia go somewhere else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSpacebook, IgnatiusofLondon, MSincccc, TadejM, Bettydaisies, Keivan.f, DeCausa, Zzuuzz, Johnbod, Tim O'Doherty, Serial Number 54129, The Anome, Jbvann05, MicrobiologyMarcus, Rosbif73, PK-WIKI, ElijahPepe, AusLondonder, TNstingray, MrSeabody, Rwendland, GoodDay, Therealscorp1an, Mhapperger, Retroity, Cibrian209, Simonm223, Xymmax, Chris troutman, Heloeheod34, Pawnkingthree, Krimuk2.0, Clear Looking Glass, Codyorb, Skyshifter, and DimensionalFusion: Pinging users who participated on previous AfD. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToadetteEdit, Jaymailsays, Gazamp, Kwpolska, Mangoe, Ltbdl, Richiepip, Mr.choppers, No Swan So Fine, Estreyeria, Killuminator, The Land, Headhitter, AirshipJungleman29, Bait30, LM2000, Corundumconundrum, Slamforeman, SergeWoodzing, OwenBlacker, BalletForCattle, Shaws username, JoelleJay, OverlordQ, and ThorstenNY: Again. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After Easter, these stories will be rendered moot. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite, as mentioned by other editors, the fact that Princess Catherine has been confirmed to have cancer does not negate the notability of the topic, and the article can and should serve as a lesson about conspiracies and media speculation.

Slamforeman (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent news, changing my !vote to merge, the mystery, which this article was really about, is solved, and the media/PR fuss is now clearly secondary to the cancer diagnosis, both of which belong in the main Kate article. — The Anome (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belong there... But given length restrictions can't be covered there in due detail so need a standalone page. The mystery being "solved" makes it more notable not less and note that the cancer diagnosis is part of the mystery... Not the other way around, the diagnosis is secondary to the media/PR fuss. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it should be deleted now that the announcement has been made it never had a purpose to exist. Wikipedia guidance is clear about non lasting topics being made into articles. 71.7.195.204 (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit. Particularly edit to be more focused on the Mothers Day photo section as it is relevant to the relationship between trust and truth between institutions. Also, the news was just released 2 hours ago. Let's learn here to practice taking a second (a couple of days) to let the dust settle, beforehand editing, adding minutae, and/or jumping to decisions.

Cibrian209 (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I'm honestly surprised the previous AFD kept it in the first place. Loki (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short summary into the bio article, but then I would agree with deletion and salting this as a redirect (potentially with admin protection). It was a BLP problem to start with, and now that its been confirmed she was trying to check on her health, all this gossip, speculation, and nonsense should not be on WP (shouldn't have been in the first place). --Masem (t) 20:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, keep a very brief mention as appropriate at her page; the photoshop incident is hard to forget. Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and procedural close Lots of people emoting rather than thinking here. The era of this subject being "missing" may be incorporated into a larger and/or very different article on the whole thing someday, but just because a disclosure has been made does not mean the RS that went into the pre-cancer-announcement article suddenly vanished. I fully grant that a very different article will likely evolve over the next year, probably at a different title, but no DEL#REASON applies to this article, AfD just kept it, and DRV is sustaining the close. Thus, a new AfD is inappropriate. Having said that, collaboratively working on a better article, rather than trying to force AfD to provide a desired outcome, is certainly appropriate. (For the record, I'm in favor of not covering news events less than three months old, perhaps up to a year, to avoid problems like this. But I don't make the rules, so here we are) Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's polite, correct, or an expression of good faith to say that Delete !voters are "emoting rather than thinking" here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:BLP. Violation of WP:GOSSIP. Even if it is top level news sources doing the celebrity gossip, it is still celebrity gossip nonetheless. And gossip based on pure speculation and not evidence, the worst kind of gossip WP:NOT policy violation. The article should never have been allowed in the first place as a split from the primary biographical subject. I think those voting Keep above, all of them, including the ones I know and am ostensibly friends with, should be ashamed of themselves. Silver seren^C 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best to avoid inflammatory remarks stating that those with a different perspective "should be ashamed of themselves". I recommend striking that sentence - the focus should be on the article, not the editors. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said the same thing at BLPN and I stand by my statement. The article only continues to exist because of editors purposefully ignoring WP:BLP and WP:NOT policy. Silver seren^C 20:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These new comments are even more inflammatory than the last ones. Surely you are not suggesting that editors who voted keep are "purposefully ignoring WP:BLP and WP:NOT policy"? Because I voted keep and I'm not ignoring either (either purposefully or subconsciously), so it not only looks both like a personal attack and false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic tabloid speculation that directly harms the BLP subject. Fails SUSTAINED, NOTNEWS, NEVENT. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per all arguments above. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can people please explain the reason of deleting this page, after reviewing discussions? Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The whole thing got extensive coverage by reliable sources. Anyone who calls this tabloid drama clearly didn't have a look at the reference section. Maybe the focus of this article should be the handling and coverage of the drama instead of the drama itself, but AfD isn't cleanup.
Delete: per NOTGOSSIP. not a notable event. DrowssapSMM 20:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep First, if I ever participated in the previous AfD discussion I may suggest weak keep or re-write, but since this discussion opens just hours after the Kensington announcement I believe it's still far from the ripe time for another deletion process. As has been noted above, we should give due respect to the criteria of WP:NOTCLEANUP and avoid WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Secondly, excuse my French, but I just find a morbid fascination of "truth by tasteful press" when talking about notability, while in real life so many huge transformations start from civil gossips and conspiracies. Here I'll just cite my statement in another talk page the other day (with a little bit changes): Despite WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP Wikipedia editors have been continuously contributing opinions, tabloid gossips and conspiracies. Who other then the Grammy committee member can safely say that the Grammys biased against SZA or Kendrick Lamar, even though the bias may be statiscally persuasive? Yet talking about accusations of racial bias in Grammy Awards, it's no doubt appropriate to include such "baseless" accusations. Back to our subject here, when we're talking about a social issue that already runs out of Kensington's control, whether and to what extent we should accept all these gossips should at least partially depend on how much due weight should be given, ie the interest of accepting this article (hot topics like social media, mass psychology, British monarchy's declining popularity etc.) compared with not accepting it (privacy, potential loss of fame etc.) Therefore I can't agree with the idea that this is either a notability issue or a "scope of Wikipedia" one. The two prongs of criteria should have been inextricably related. Jason211pacem (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was already agreed upon in the previous AFD discussion that this is notable. The media ordeal was in very poor taste, especially given her diagnosis, but that doesn't negate the notability. (I think the title should be reconsidered, though). Estreyeria (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To stress, WP:N is only a necessary condition for a standalone article, but it is not a guarentee of one, as other policies like NOT or BLP may caution against such. That's exactly the case here - the coverage may have been notable (though its arguably also a burst of coverage which fails NEVENT) but havign a separate page for that much speculation and gossip fails other policies. — Masem (t) 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and rewrite I'm of the opinion that it needs the application of some WP:TNT. The article as it is focuses too heavily on the rumors and conspiracy theories, when it could focus on harder facts. (She had an operation, she was recovering, photo was released, photo impact and alleged medical records data breach, cancer diagnosis) While I would like a merge, the likely length would become far too long and the changes the the relationship between Kensington Palace and media organizations should be covered as part of the photo, which would likely be out of place at Catherine, Princess of Wales. While yes, WP:TNT and AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, both are essays, and it's likely the easiest way to deal with the article.

I've previously found a lot of the deletion arguments unconvincing, merely stating that they belive it is tabloid gossip without pointing at an exact issue, when it's reciving coverage from major reputable media organizations, it's expanded out of the tabloids and there are hard facts that are addressed. Trying to assess the 10 year impact of current events is nearly impossible, none of us have a WP:CRYSTALBALL and knowing outright that it won't be of any interest in 10 years is impossible. Shaws username . talk . 21:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why cannot the page be rewritten while not deleted? Be WP:BOLD and rewrite it. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. The media speculation that occurred was still notable. Reliable sources weren't just covering Kate's whereabouts. They were covering all the responses, speculation from other sources, and even covering how other reliable sources were covering this whole deal. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've gone through the article and tried to reorganise and trim it, in a way that hopefully meets some of the concerns in this and the previous AfD. Comments, further edits, and reverts appreciated. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Silver seren. I've written a lot of breaking news nonsense and pop culture crap in my time but this really was appalling. This was a massive violation of BLP egged on my the worst elements of online gossip. Having said that, the fall out from the photograph should guarantee its notability a la Anne of Cleves. The Royals are a unique breed, article generating machines from birth, but we should all have been stronger here on Wiki and acted with the decorum that earns our keep in our virtual ivory towers and not been blinded by the hall of mirrors. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was always a junk fork for a bunch of gossip and speculation regarding a celebrity. WP:NOTGOSSIP applied and now that the reason for her absence from media is revealed I think the best course of action is to merge in what little material is appropriate for Wikipedia to her article and discard the chaff. Simonm223 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. While the incident has received wide media coverage, the form of content in this article is just not encyclopedic enough to justify a whole article just by itself. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tutwakhamoe, what item of WP:NOTNEWS are you referring to? ~~ RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In light of the news of the more important issue of her diagnosis, the whole premature media frenzy seems like it may fail WP:10YEARTEST.98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article does pass the WP:10YEARTEST. The media and social media will look back on this as a reason not to speculate and propagate conspiracy theories with front-page mainstream, back-to-back coverage of discussions when a public figure is absent. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or merge, At the moment right now, it is uncertain if it will remain relevant. Between Charles III and Kate, maybe in a month or so, we might be able to rewrite it to become 2024 health issues for the Windsor family. Otherwise, just incorporate this article into her biography. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the same reason as earlier. The disappearance of the Princess is inherently notable as she is a member of a royal family. The new video by an organisation which has already provided spurious material doesn't change that much. Many are already having doubts about it and the situation will only get clarified in the following days and weeks. In any case, the event has been extensively covered by reliable sources and will continue to be talked about. It is unhealthy to pretend nothing happened. The article may need to be rewritten, but the previous closure was fully justified and it is a bad form to open another one so soon even before the dust has settled. -TadejM ^{my talk} 22:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close The article is already subject to an ongoing deletion review. We should not have two discussions open at the same time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The speculative bubble has burst; the froth has receded; the mystery is no more. The substance of the issue is discussed at the Kate page.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia BLP Policy Question. How are articles like Conspiracy theory about Vladimir Putin's body doubles and Claims of Vladimir Putin's incapacity and death allowed? Also how is article Larries allowed too? If the logic in this Where is Kate? discussion is applied, those three articles should also be deleted. They speculate and contain conspiracy theories (and commentary of) the health and sexuality of living people. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Following the cancer diagnosis, if Wikipedia ever had any aspersions to be taken seriously then it would remove such tacky, tabloidesque fluff and have some class and deal with the diagnosis in an appropriate way and show some decency.--Egghead06 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 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 radio stations in Pennsylvania. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCHX[edit]

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

Article with absolutely no sources. Completely promotional, containing unsourced lists of "current" presenters and program lists. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Pennsylvania. AusLondonder (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~I'm not willing to provide a concrete !vote just yet,~~ but I did remove the on-air staff and programming lists (which can be traced back to a series of IP edits in 2017), as there is a section of WP:NOT that says that these are not allowed in articles. That doesn't leave much, though; it is probably still going to take far more than that to justify keeping this under the standards of 2024 (it was created under the looser "standards" of 2007). (Notability is supposed to be determined by the existence of potential sources and not solely whether or not they are already in the article, but we still at least need to know of them to prevent deletion or redirection.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as citing one database entry does not an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Pennsylvania: The inclusioninst in me (what's left of it, at least) still thinks there might be an ((R with possibilities)) somewhere, but after further thought we really need significant coverage to justify an article (and even the database ref — which is never acceptable as a sole source, to the extent that having a "sole source" for an entire article is acceptable at all — was not in place at the time of nomination). Until or unless that surfaces, we can't have anything more than an ((R to list entry)). (It is actually easily forgotten that even the pre-2021 version of NRADIO, as [invalidly?] broad as it was at least interpreted as about notability, actually advised (seemingly to deaf ears) against permastubs: Editors might consider creating a table listing the radio stations in an area which might be redirected to rather than creating dozens of stub articles.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 25 March 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!} 18:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemish[edit]

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

This is a very minor figure in the book of mormon. There are no in depth reliable sources about this topic - it isn't notable Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This individual is mentioned in two verses of the Book of Mormon, and there are not even extensive LDS sources about him (which couldn't even be used to establish notability). Rollidan (talk) 23:17, 22 March 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!} 18:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korihor[edit]

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

Not notable. Outside of being a named character in the book of mormon, there doesn't seem to be any independent reliable sources interested in him Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 29 March 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 keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator; no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) ~ A412 ^talk! 05:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zeng[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. This one-sentence stub links to 2 deadlink references and claims that the subject is an IEEE fellow, but I have not been able to confirm even that. Qflib (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Qflib (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IEEE Fellow is explicitly called out by WP:PROF as a pass of criterion #C3 and is trivially verified by accessing the online IEEE Fellows Directory [17]. This is one of many badly-written stubs on notable people left by long-blocked sockpuppeteer Topcipher/SwisterTwister; they need cleanup, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I was unable to find that link; thank you. Qflib (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also he passes WP:PROF#C5 as a (former) named professor at the University of Arizona, #C3 again for AAAS Fellowship, and #C1 for heavily cited publications on Google Scholar (none of which were to be found by the stub in its nominated state, which didn't even make it obvious which Daniel Zeng it might have been referring to). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, David. I appreciate your help. I don’t think I can withdraw the nomination but I definitely would do so. Qflib (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can withdraw your nomination. I did the same thing the day before and have done so in the past. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be glad to if I can just figure out how. Qflib (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In penance, I have added more information to the page from the links that David kindly discovered. Qflib (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to withdraw: just leave a comment here saying that you want to, and some other editor will do the rest. You can also close the nomination yourself but that's not necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, Computing, China, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A classic example where doing the AfD forced a rewrite of a very weak stub (that had been left weak for seven years) so now it clearly demonstrates notability.
Withdraw nomination I would appreciate it if an editor would close this nomination, which I clearly made in error. Apologies and thanks to all. Qflib (talk) 15:17, 24 March 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 17:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoram[edit]

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

Only primary sources. Looks like a minor character who had a page created for completion purposes. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is accurate, what about the sources listed in the further reading section? (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: from what I can see those are either non-independent or have passing mentions of the subject(s?) but no significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent sources of either the name Zoram or any of the three Book of Mormon figures so named. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against recreating as a DAB page for articles like Zoram Nationalist Party and Zoram People's Movement as well as First Nephi. This article is three Zorams in a trenchcoat. Two of the Zorams are answers to Sunday school trivia questions. They're only here to fill out the trenchcoat, and aren't actually relevant to the main Zoram topic. There could be an argument that the main Zoram is notable under GNG, but thanks to the rest of the notability guideline after the first part, we don't even have to have that argument. Listen: More or less the same Zoram content already exists in First Nephi. WP:NOPAGE, which is part of the notability guideline, suggests that when we have a choice like this we should consider presenting information to readers in broader context where possible, and WP:NNC, which is also part of the notability guideline, teaches us that we need not argue about the notability of contents within an article. So this is a rare occasion where we can productively skip the traditional GNG/do-sources-contribute-to-notability headbutting, because the best outcome here for readers is to ditch the three Zorams in a trenchcoat and use any appropriate sources to improve already existing content about the main Zoram elsewhere in the encyclopedia, where it is already presented in a broader context. Optional bonus: we can help our readers and improve Zoram-related navigation with the most likely search term as the title of a DAB page. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:27, 26 March 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. ✗plicit 06:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Our Sons[edit]

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

Possibly fails WP:SIGCOV. Based on the conversation at Talk:Losing Our Sons#Notable?, I am bringing this here. Perhaps others will have better luck finding more references. Either way this has been tagged for notability since 2013 and its time to make a decision one way or the other as a community. 4meter4 (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Their own website, streaming on Youtube, then nothing. There doesn't seem to have been critical notice of this film. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Education, Islam, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:03, 22 March 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 keep‎. Procedural only, the nominator has not made an argument for deletion or redirection per WP:SK1. ——Serial Number 54129 15:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) ——Serial Number 54129 15:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpolitan identity[edit]

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

I am fixing the formatting of this AfD discussion after Orange sticker's initial nomination. I'm not proposing an action at this stage. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why has an editor done this without any explanation? Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was typing my reasons while you posted this!

Arguments in article are either uncited, or citations do not support the argument. The word Scouse refers to both the accent and identity of people from Liverpool. This word is not in common use and the citations show this, rather than support the author's argument. There is a website called Liverpolitan (https://liverpolitan.co.uk/) and it is likely that this is an attempt to promote their brand.

Orange sticker (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. this is not an attempt to promote their brand. I am not affiliated in any way to this brand. All citations are provided and have been interpreted exactly how the author wrote them. Remove reference to Liverpolitan magazine if you feel that this is the case. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an outrageous comment. Every single part of the article has been cited and every single citations supports what I have written. Please provide very clear examples of your argument. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a raft of issues with raised, most of which not associated with each other.

Liverpolitan is a valid term, but the term is not hugely popular or common compared to the term Scouser or Liverpudlian or similar. Therefore 90% of the sources are actually generic articles about people from Liverpool rather than supporting the use of the term of "Liverpolitan" or the "Liverpolitan identity". This puts the content into a WP:SYNTH / WP:OR bracket. It really needs a strong supportive independently sourced articles about the Liverpolitan Identity to support it in the first case (I haven't yet read all the sources, but as it isn't No.1 on the list I suspect it doesn't exist). If it didn't exist to start with, it probably shouldn't also be in the original source article.
The association with Liverpolitan.co.uk website seems utterly unfounded. There's no associated articles, no attempt to use them as a source, and the only link is the common use of the word "Liverpolitan" between the editor in questions username, and the created page. This is like claiming "Orange sticker" is only here to promote the brand orange.com; and it should be withdrawn as a matter of order.

This is already on unsound footing, but appreciate Jonathan Deamer trying to tidy it up. Koncorde (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points Koncorde. I appreciate that we will probably reach consensus on how to tidy this up. I can categorically confirm that I am not associated to the Liverpolitan magazine. I wish for the contributor to retract that. My username is coincidental and you are perfectly correct to point that out so thank you. Perhaps it might need a simple change of wording to the lede section. And I think it is fair to argue that if something might seem subjectively nonconformist that is not grounds to delete anything. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken on board some comments and made some improvements. The page name has been changed to 'Liverpolitan' as opposed to 'Liverpolitan identity'. The wording of the lede has also been changed to support the sourcing. A further explanation can be made within the lede for any further clarification. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to withdraw my assumption that the author was affiliated to the blog. As it is pretty much the only result on the first page of Google I thought it was worth flagging. This further supports my argument that this is article does not meet notability guidelines. Unfortunately the author has removed the WP:N template I added. Orange sticker (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep This AfD does not begin with a clearly articulated deletion rationale and it is unclear who the nominator is. There are no bolded Keep or Delete comments. This should be withdrawn by the nominator because it is such a mess. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, as I was typing my original post the author had already posted a comment which created a conflict and my post was lost. I agree it should be closed and reopened in the correct format. Orange sticker (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Agree; perhaps suggesting would have been a better approach than my tidying up of another editor's nomination. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unfortunately, I think the nominator has chosen to take this article far too personally. I have clear evidence on social media that the editor is politically motivated to undermine this work because she personally hates the subject and identifies as a Scouser. She has called the Liverpolitan demonym an attempt by a bunch of snobs to encourage stigma against the city of Liverpool. This is simply not a good enough reason to delete well written, well researched work which has taken many hours to carefully interpret and elucidate. The editor clearly has also not read the citations. Everything written in the article is supported by them. To suggest there are few results on the term is also disingenuous. There are clear results for Liverpolitan as an historic term dating back to the Victorian age.

Amongst: scholars https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Liverpolitan%22

JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=liverpolitan&so=rel

Books https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Liverpolitan%22+-wikipedia

Furthermore, there are articles on Wiki regarding tribes and languages that most of the world has never heard of and probably never will. Should we go around deleting them all because they are not popular. Wiki is not a popularity contest between identities. The editor above should withdraw the nomination. She has also been accommodated through improvements to the article. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts here:

The AfD should be closed, and the article renominated properly.
Nearly all sources for the word I could find (especially book sources) are passing mentions of the magazine.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.
"Scouse" is in a different register. The much more commonly (than "Liverpolitan") used word "Liverpudlian" is in a slightly "posher" register as this word is claimed to be. What is the difference? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The WP:COMMONNAME for people and things related to Liverpool is 'Liverpudlian'. Setting up an article about the identity of people from Liverpool and calling it 'Liverpolitan' was clearly going to be controversial.

The common sense resolution here would be for the article title to be changed to 'Liverpudlian', the content to be completely rewritten to be about the identity itself, not about the history of the words used to describe that identity, and a small section on 'Liverpolitan' included somewhere near the end of the article.

Anything else is just someone pushing a fringe point of view and creating an article to lead opinion. Axad12 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you have misused the WP:COMMONNAME policy here. That policy simply means that an article should be allocated the appropriate name to reflect its content. In this case Liverpolitan is the correct title for the page as it is the most dominant subject within the article. As for "Liverpudlian" that topic has already been discussed within the article. Wikipedia does not shy away from controversy, nor does it shy away from noncomformist identities, however, some people like to demean them, ignore them or pretend they are of little worth or significance. The article has taken great pains to simplify the fact that Scouse is the most popular demonym. It does not pretend otherwise so that must allay any confusion. Therefore, the article displays sufficient Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you say, as the author.

There is clearly an argument that Wikipedia is not the place for an article which would more accurately be titled 'Use of the term Liverpolitan'. If you can't see that then you're too invested in the subject.

Also your inference that I'm trying to demean nonconformist identities is completely out of order. Surely an editor can express a genuine good faith opinion about an article without having to put up with an unsubstantiated borderline personal attack of that nature.

It is perfectly clear that my comment related to what I considered the common name for people from Liverpool to be. Nothing else. Axad12 (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Article name change I apologise if you have been offended. But this should not be about pushing a fringe point of view and not about pushing the view that Liverpool only has one identity and one history either. It obviously does not.

Completely re-writing the article or re-naming it to something which is not the most prominent subject is not common sense. The article has already been acknowledged as well researched.

Therefore, let's not misunderstand the common sense policy.

I like your common sense idea to re-name the article to 'Use of the term Liverpolitan' as the title of the page - it is a perfectly acceptable compromise.

Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 'I apologise if you have been offended'. Thank you for the classic non-apology. Would you like to try again with that, or do you consider it okay for editors to make broad-sweeping allegations about the political beliefs of all the editors who disagree with them on interpretations of Wikipedia admin policy?

Your general interpretation of Wikipedia policy seems to be that any policy has sufficient leeway to enable you to do whatever you please and that simply claiming that something is 'common sense' trumps all other considerations. It's also interesting to see (below) that you felt it was appropriate for an article's author to try to sum up the result of the deletion conversation and say what should happen next.

The purpose of these sorts of conversations is primarily for uninterested editors to express their opinions, not for the article's author to dominate the discussion by taking immediate issue with every opinion that they disagree with and trying to falsely discredit other good faith editors expressing reasonable concerns. Axad12 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apology was made with good faith. As for 'what happens next'. Of course I am part of that conversation.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is well known that 'I apologise if you have been offended' is a specific formula widely used to make intentionally bad faith non-apologies.

You may have had an unpleasant experience with another user off-Wiki, and I deplore that as much as you do, but that is no reason to imply that a 3rd party who also happens to disagree with you is motivated by the same aims.

It is regrettable that you don't seem able to acknowledge that.

Okay, I'm done here. Axad12 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:COMMON The common sense thing to do would be to leave things as they are and to allow the article to develop. Contributors are of course free to add independent, reliable, English-language sources of their own or to make additions to the article itself. To take a sledgehammer to the whole thing is, in and of itself, pushing a view that Liverpool has one identity. Enough leeway is already given for contributors to embelish on the Scouse article, even to add the Liverpudlian identity on there. There is enough room to expand that article since it says very little about the fact that the Scouse identity did not come in to being until the mid-20th century. Editors are disingenuous to leave that fact out.

The person who started this whole discussion has been caught out on social media pushing a political argument against any references to Liverpolitan. This is beyond impartial judgement and started out this whole discussion with the accusation that I was affiliated to the magazine. In that time, improvements and changes have been made to the article to better reflect the comments made and to ensure a neutral point of view. To recap - the common sense policy recommends not getting too caught up in rules, rather at times that it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. The common goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. The article exudes common sense as it is and it could not be made any clearer that this is not the dominant identity. The controversy suits those with a political goal - not the other way around. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term still needs supporting with reliable sources that are specific to the term to support an article. Ignoring a basic building block isn't going to work. To discuss the "Liverpolitan identity" there needs to be actual articles discussing the "Liverpolitan identity" specifically to give it actual context, and articles that are not about the "Liverpolitan identity" but instead about Liverpool, Liverpudlians or Scousers are not relevant and blatant WP:OR / WP:SYNTH to try and lend weight to the topic by giving Liverpolitan a primacy that it doesn't have. Liverpolitan could be summed up in about three sentences.

Liverpolitan is a demonym for the inhabitants of Liverpool.
Liverpolitan has been proposed as a demonym for the Liverpool City Region.
The term has not found widespread popularity or usage.

The idea of a "Liverpolitan identity" is therefore incredibly niche. Koncorde (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to change the article page name to Liverpolitan to allow it more time to develop. An admin has changed the name back to Liverpolitan identity but I would be happy for there to be a name change and allow more time. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requires much better sources if it's to be kept. Of the ones I could check, 1 mentions Liverpolitan and several of the others don't even mention Liverpool. Red Fiona (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What references are you checking? Are you checking these? Liverpolitan_identity#References Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theory[edit]

I have listed the article at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Liverpolitan identity to garner opinion on whether this article constitutes a fringe theory. According to the these guidelines Wikipedia:Fringe theories, it does not matter much if a subject is not common or well known. Wiki is not a popularity contest. And provided the article does not unfairly or unreasonably present something, it should be ok. I am not completely persuaded that this article meets the criteria for deletion.Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 09:34, 24 March 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!} 23:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Adedeji[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist and podcaster, not properly referenced as passing notability standards for journalists or podcasters. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just because content they created exists, and the notability test hinges on the reception of significant third-party coverage about them and their work -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that were self-published by companies or organizations she was directly affiliated with (e.g. documentary films that she appeared in "sourced" to their own presence on a streaming platform rather than media coverage about the films, podcast directories, etc.) or glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage that isn't about her (e.g. her name getting briefly mentioned in coverage whose primary subject is the celebrities who were on her podcast rather than her). There's only one footnote here, #6, that actually represents coverage about her in a WP:GNG-worthy source, and that isn't enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Television, and Sexuality and gender. Skynxnex (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BBC ref is solid, rest are in sources of iffy reliability. Most coverage I find is in tabloids or other websites mostly describing her ample chest. There seems to have been a documentary on Channel 4 about her struggles with body image and large breasts, but most coverage is not in RS, more focused on her chest. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel if we had at least one other decent source about her, we'd be at notability. I'm surprised more media hasn't picked up on her message of positivity and acceptance. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only other sources I find are in Nigerian media [18] and [19], which are trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 22 March 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 Rowing at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ștefan Tarasov[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLY or any other pertinent category, came 9th in only race participated in. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Romania. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tarasov competed at at least four World Championship rowing tournaments in addition to the Olympics, including a top-5 finish at the 1967 champs [20].

Proposed WP:ATD: Redirect to Rowing at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair, so as to preserve the page history. --Habst (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rowing at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair, as per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 13:00, 24 March 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 14:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Records[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable record label with no significant coverage in reliable sources, as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the currently cited sources aren't reliable, and those that are reliable only provide passing mention or provide routine coverage. GSS ^💬 14:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was created and mostly edited by now-blocked socks of Alizulfikarzahedi, along with a few anonymous users who could potentially be the same individuals evading blocks. I haven't observed any substantial edits by others, so this could be eligible for deletion under WP:G5. GSS ^💬 14:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, India, and Bihar. GSS ^💬 14:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be spam. Too much press release and unreliable sources used as source. @T.C.G. [talk] 17:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly unreliable sources, sources with link errors and somewhat reliable source there is like BBC, it has no depth coverage about the company or its background. It is more about who the company signed or dealt with. Per nom, the page is also eligible for deletion per WP:G5. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 24 March 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. Star Mississippi 22:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan Yuan (actor)[edit]

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

The article (more of a filmography list) has no inline citation. Has no corresponding article in any other wiki (rare for a foreign actor). Has one generic external link reference. The majority of the roles played by the actor were minor and were part of mostly non-notable works. I was unable to find any significant in-depth coverage from reliable publications (in English) that warrants GNG or WP:NACTOR. If anyone's able to find sources in foreign languages, please list them. X (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Japan. X (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Chen, Bin 陈滨 (2016-07-13). ""配角"袁苑《解密》里再火一把演技在身才是硬道理" ["Supporting actor" Yuan Yuan became popular again in "Decoded". Acting skills are the last word]. Beijing Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21 – via China News Service.
  The article notes: "近40年的演艺生涯，大大小小一百多个角色，虽然一直以反派大配角著称，但其实袁苑的戏路非常宽，正反两路驾轻就熟，无论是大“配”还是小“配”，抑或和当今最吃香的“小鲜肉”同镜，袁苑都会各自出彩，散发出角色的魅力。《解密》中，袁苑这个传达室的“王主任”，和众腕飙演技互斗，成为推动剧情不可或缺的重要力量。袁苑目光炯炯，63岁依旧保持一副硬朗的身板，除了一头白发显示出年龄，那张有名的“大扁脸”配上粗黑的眉毛，棱角分明里还藏着一种年轻人勃发的气息。"
  From Google Translate: "In his acting career of nearly 40 years, he has played more than a hundred roles, large and small. Although he has always been known as a villain and a supporting role, Yuan Yuan actually has a very wide range of roles, and he is very familiar with both positive and negative roles, whether it is a major "partner" or a small "partner" ”, or in the same scene as the most popular “little fresh meat” today, Yuan Yuan will shine in his own way and exude the charm of the character. In Decoded, Yuan Yuan, the "Director Wang" of the communication room, competes with the acting skills of the actors and becomes an indispensable and important force in promoting the plot. Yuan Yuan has sharp eyes, and he still maintains a strong body at the age of 63. In addition to his white hair that shows his age, his famous "big flat face" with thick black eyebrows, there is a kind of youthful exuberance hidden in the sharp edges. breath."
2. Yi, Fu 伊夫 (2001-04-13). "袁苑、吴颖--走向成熟的明星夫妇(附图)" [Yuan Yuan and Wu Ying - a celebrity couple reaching maturity (with photos)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
  The article notes: "外貌粗犷、棱角分明的袁苑，早在80年代就已经成为影视圈的明星。鉴于他的表演生动、形象鲜明，因此他所塑造的一系列角色都给观众留下深刻的印象和好感。当电影尚未在大陆失宠的日子里，袁苑便在电影界及早地占据了自己应有的位置。"
  From Google Translate: "Yuan Yuan, who has a rough appearance and sharp edges, has become a star in the film and television industry as early as the 1980s. In view of his vivid and vivid performances, a series of characters he created left a deep impression and favor on the audience. Before movies fell out of favor in mainland China, Yuan Yuan occupied his rightful place in the film industry early."
  The article notes: "如果仅凭外表判断，袁苑看似一个粗人。然而，袁苑不仅擅长在台前公开表演，同时也能在幕后做导演和干制片。曾经袁苑与夫人吴颖就联手独立制片、编剧并导演了一部20集电视连续剧《喇叭声烈》，这部作品凝结了他们夫妇的心血，也展示了他们的才智。此外，袁苑又以独立制片人的身份，陆续与上海电影制片厂等多家电影制片厂合作，拍摄了《夺命惊魂上海滩》等一系列影片。"
  From Google Translate: "If you judge only by appearance, Yuan Yuan looks like a rough man. However, Yuan Yuan is not only good at public performances in front of the stage, but can also be a director and producer behind the scenes. Yuan Yuan and his wife Wu Ying once teamed up to independently produce, write and direct a 20-episode TV series "The Sound of the Trumpet". This work condensed the hard work of the couple and also demonstrated their talents. In addition, as an independent producer, Yuan Yuan has successively cooperated with many film studios such as Shanghai Film Studio to shoot a series of films such as "The Beach"."
3. "人才天地 article". 人才天地 (in Chinese). 1984. p. 33. Retrieved 2024-03-21 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: ""渐渐地,他和那个时代所有的孩子一样,他的梦模糊了,幻灭了,袁苑在十六岁那年穿上了军装。三年后便复员到北京汽车修配公司当了工人。当他拖着疲惫的双腿走在回家的路上,儿时的彩色的梦又浮现出来,并且渐渐清晰了。当海员,阴错阳差,误了报考时机;那么,去演电影,对,当一个电影演员多神气! .他精心浏览了当时唯一的几部片子,看到影片中人物的矫揉造作,他的信心更坚定了。他愤愤地说: “那都叫什么?假模假式的。我能比他们演得好! ”当人们知道他想当电影演员时,就有好心人拐着弯劝他死了这条心: “袁苑,你很聪明,也很能干,有表演天才,可是 ..." ,"
  From Google Translate: ""Gradually, like all children of that era, his dreams became blurred and disillusioned. Yuan Yuan put on a military uniform at the age of sixteen. Three years later, he was demobilized and worked as a worker in a Beijing automobile repair company. When He dragged his tired legs on the way home, and the colorful dreams from his childhood resurfaced and gradually became clearer. To be a sailor, by some mistake, he missed the opportunity to apply for the exam; then, to act in a movie, yes, to be a movie The actor is so impressive! He carefully browsed the only few films at that time, and his confidence was strengthened when he saw the artificiality of the characters in the film. He said angrily: "What are they called? Fake." I can act better than them!" When people knew that he wanted to be a movie actor, some well-meaning people persuaded him to give up his ambition: "Yuan Yuan, you are very smart, very capable, and have acting talent. But...""
4. An, Li 安力 (2008-03-05). "著名演员袁苑慰问大会堂外围执勤女警(图)" [Famous actor Yuan Yuan pays condolences to the female police officers on duty outside the Great Hall (photo)] (in Chinese). Qianlong. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "今天是全国人大会议召开的第一天，下午，首都艺术家协会副会长，著名电影演员袁苑带领协会的演职人员来到了西长安街派出所"
  From Google Translate: "Today is the first day of the National People's Congress. In the afternoon, Yuan Yuan, the vice president of the Capital Artists Association and a famous film actor, led the actors and actresses of the association to the West Chang'an Street Police Station."
5. "自己制片自己演袁苑人到中年再搏一把" [Producing and acting by oneself, Yuan Yuanren will try again in middle age] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2000-03-30. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
  The article notes: "做演员已经十几年的袁苑，因为长像不讨好，一直以演反派人物为主，这几年，脸谱化的反面形象不时兴了，袁苑也就没戏可演了。"
  From Google Translate: "Yuan Yuan, who has been an actor for more than ten years, has always played villains because of his unflattering appearance. In recent years, facial expressions of negative images have become out of fashion, and Yuan Yuan has no role to play."
6. "资料：演员袁苑个人档案(附图)" [Information: Personal file of actor Yuan Yuan (with photos)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2008-04-23. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21.The page notes that Yuan Yuan was born in Beijing in December 1953.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yuan Yuan (Chinese: 袁苑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for the chance for folks to assess the sourcing Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources above are fine, I think we have notability. I can't find anything extra to add, but given the person's age, they are likely to be found in paper sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 22 March 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 14:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Sanko[edit]

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

The subject is a minor non-notable politician. Their main claim to notability is being head of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency for one year, which does not seem sufficient to meet notability requirements for politicians and officials. Thenightaway (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pennsylvania. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject has not held positions that confer notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 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!} 18:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lollicup Coffee & Tea[edit]

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

Not notable, poor sources, notability is not shown Rodgers V (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, China, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the nominator for spamming, but I believe this nomination should be considered on its merits. MER-C 14:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. deGuzman, Jean-Paul R. (2006). "Beyond "Living La Vida Boba": Social Space and Transnational, Hybrid Asian American Youth Culture". Amerasia Journal. 32 (2). doi:10.17953/amer.32.2.g28263x502562224.
  The article notes: "My goal is not so much to document the history of the Lollicup, nor the overall boba phenomenon, but to understand how Lollicup is a transnational and hybrid social space that is linked to Asian American youth culture. ... Beyond sentiment, I have selected Lollicup because of its origins and implications for Asian American youth culture. Lollicup, as opposed to newer independently established boba cafes, exemplifies a trans-border project. The business, already wellestablished in Taiwan, migrated to the United States and was one of the earlier boba enterprises to gain popularity."
  The article notes: "Lollicup Tea and Coffee, established as Lollicup TeaZone, obscures the borders between Asia and the United States. ... Looking at specific cafes provides clues to understand individual Lollicups. The clientele differs based on the geography of each Lollicup café, and thus those specific patrons, given their respective identities based on socioeconomic class or age will attach individual meanings to their Lollicup. However, I argue that certain aspects of Lollicup culture permeate individual locations to facilitate the creation of La Vida Boba. They include the centrality of Asian American youth both as consumers and producers of Lollicup culture and the role of the café as a social space where Asian American identities are forged. Two Lollicups in the San Fernando Valley illustrate my points."
2. Winslow, Jonathan (2013-04-04). "Lollicup in Irvine: trendy, tasty tea shop". The Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
  The review notes: "Lollicup’s claim to fame is its milk tea, which comes in all kinds of flavors, including almond, orange, coconut, honey, jasmine, strawberry, and mango, just to name a few. It also features fruit juice and fruit tea, as well as smoothies. ... The first Lollicup started in San Gabriel 13 years ago. Although the company didn’t have much money to advertise, word of mouth spread quickly. So quickly, in fact, that five locations opened within the first three months of operation. ... Diamond Jamboree Lollicup also features a Battle of the Clubs, which can be found prominently displayed on the wall. A carryover from one of Ito’s older businesses, the Battle of the Clubs is a way to help out local clubs and schools from the surrounding area."
3. Wei, Clarissa (2015-02-10). "Lollicup, the huge bubble tea company, has a boba school. Who knew?". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
  The article notes: "When it opened in 2000, Lollicup, which began life as a single tea shop in the San Gabriel Valley, was one of the only boba shops in the United States. Then came the boba craze, during which the company expanded like, well, bubble tea. Today the company distributes 70% of all the boba in the U.S. and has nine shops in the greater Los Angeles area. Last year, Lollicup upgraded to a 300,000-square-foot facility in Chino. Staffed with 175 employees, the company has a full manufacturing operation for disposable dining ware and a commercial kitchen used for training sessions."
4. Faubion, William (2006). Faubion, Cindy Tilley; Lee, Mary Beth; Smigelski, David (eds.). Treasures of Southern California: Orange County Edition. Medford, Oregon: Morgan & Chase Publishing. p. 42. ISBN 978-1-933989-00-6. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "It's a new wave of tea and blended coffee at Lollicup Coffee & Tea-Fullerton.... Lollicup is known for its Royal Milk Tea, popcorn chicken and relaxing atmosphere. There are over 200 drinks on the menu that can be hot or cold and customized to your liking. If you are not ready to try a Boba drink yet, other alternatives include flavored milk drinks, slushes, smoothies, coffee drinks and a variety of unusual tea drinks. Coffee and tea drinks can be ordered hot or cold, with soy or regular milk. Fruit drinks can be prepared with more or less sugar. It's all up to you. A healthy alternative is Teaology. This is a sugar-free, naturally decaffeinated, botanically- infused antioxidant-rich green tea. Lollicup Coffee & Tea offers food choices, like tofu salad and Chinese specialties, to go with that special drink. ... The great color on the walls and lively night atmosphere will make you lose track of time. Bring the kids; Lollicup provides a special hangout just for their amusement."
5. Cain, Jacqueline (2015-07-17). "Super 88 Food Court Is a Cheap Destination for Heaping Helpings of Asian Fare". Eater. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
  The article notes: "Lollicup has a few snacks, but this stall is mainly a spot for a variety of hot and cold drinks. The chain has outposts all over Asia and the United States, including one nearby in Quincy. It specializes in boba milk tea, but it has numerous combinations of fruit and milk flavors and add-ons as well as fruity slushes, smoothies, and hot beverages."
6. Tomiyoshi, Tricia (2005-10-29). "More than 100 tea drinks on menu at Lollicup in Stockton". Lodi News-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
  The review notes: "Call it a tea zone. At Lollicup Coffee and Tea, customers can pick from a menu of around 100 different tea drinks from milk teas to flavored teas, tea slushes to tea smoothies. It's a veritable tea-venture. Lollicup first opened in California's San Gabriel Valley back in 2000. In the last five years, it has become a chain, which has expanded to more than 90 cafes over 12 states. ... I ordered the honeydew milk tea, made with golden tea, and added flavored lychee coconut jellies to the drink. It was a light mint green-colored concoction, on the rocks, with thin, light green, Jello-like slivers that collected on the bottom of the cup. The drink was sealed air-tight with plastic. I grabbed a giant-sized straw and punctuated the top. Within seconds, I was getting my fill of the sweet, honeydew flavored drink."
7. Ulloa, Sylvia (2006-05-11). "Hip, Casual Tea House Serves Fun Island Fare - Indulge in Lollicup's Bubble Drinks". The Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
  The review notes: "Bubble tea and Hawaiian barbecue. They're guilty pleasures. And at Lollicup Coffee & Tea on Winchester Boulevard in San Jose, you can indulge in both at the same time. ... The real reason to drop into Lollicup, though, is the bubble, or pearl, tea drinks. There is a large selection of teas, slushies and smoothies all spiked with large, chewy tapioca pearls that zip up a wide straw. My favorite is a delicious honey milk tea reminiscent of Thai iced tea but not as sweet -- perfect. The peach tea is smooth and refreshing but a bit on the sweet side. Taro tea has a subtle chocolate flavor. All the drinks suffer from too little ice."
8. Qi, Luo 啟鉻 (2015-05-06). "有波霸奶茶才有樂立杯" [There is boba milk tea. Only Lollicup.]. World Journal (in Chinese). Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via PressReader.
  The article notes: "華裔俞宗明（Alan Yu）於本世紀初從台灣引入美國的樂立杯品牌波霸奶茶，有雄心將它做成年產值3億美元的企業，讓波霸奶茶飲食文化遍及北美。... 台灣在上世紀90年代末，興起波霸奶茶熱，這時也是俞宗明經營錄影帶出現轉捩點。他到台灣試圖將波霸奶茶引入美國。2000年在聖蓋博市設立樂立杯飲品店，推銷波霸奶茶系列飲品。三年間做到了70餘間加盟店。"
  From Google Translate: "Chinese-American Alan Yu introduced the Lollicup brand of Boba milk tea to the United States from Taiwan at the beginning of this century. He has the ambition to turn it into a company with an annual output value of US$300 million and spread the Boba milk tea food culture throughout North America. ... In the late 1990s, the boba milk tea craze arose in Taiwan. This was also a turning point for Yu Zongming’s video business. He went to Taiwan to try to introduce Boba milk tea to the United States. In 2000, a Lollicup beverage store was established in San Gabriel City to promote the Boba milk tea series of beverages. In three years, we have opened more than 70 franchise stores."
9. Less significant coverage:
  1. Ling, Huping; Austin, Allan, eds. (2015) [2010]. Asian American History and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 544. ISBN 978-0-7656-8077-8.
    The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Among the most successful of entrepreneurs to take advantage of these markets was Roger Chen, founder of the Ranch 99 supermarket chain, and Alan Yu and Marvin Cheng, cofounders of Lollicup Coffee and Tea, a national chain of cafés featuring popular Asian boba teas."
  2. Zhen, Willa (2015). "Taiwan". In Long, Lucy M. (ed.). Ethnic American Food Today: A Cultural Encyclopedia. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 614. ISBN 978-1-4422-2730-9. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Google Books.
    The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Lollicup Coffee & Tea is a Taiwanese American chain of tea shops that serves Taiwanese snacks such as popcorn chicken and bubble tea."
  3. Engle, Shaena (2011). The Cheap Bastard's Guide to Las Vegas Secrets Of Living The Good Life—For Less!. Guilford, Connecticut: Morris Book Publishing, LLC. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-7627-6002-2. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "If boba is your beverage of choice, head to Lollicup in Town Square. In addition to a large variety of bobas, they offer more than 150 different types of drinks including milk teas, flavored teas, smoothies, slushes, juices, and coffees. Sign up for their VIP card and get 20 percent off drinks and 10 percent off snacks."
  4. Kwong, Stacey; del Mundo, Beyah del (2020). Boba: Classic, Fun, Refreshing - Bubble Teas to Make at Home. New York: Rock Point. The Quarto Group. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-63106-715-0. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "I grew up in the San Gabriel Valley (aka the SGV), and I remember when the first Lollicup (a popular Taiwanese American chain of boba stores started in 2000) opened in Arcadia, California, around 2001. Eventually, they opened another location within walking distance of my school, so grabbing boba tea was an after-school must! If it wasn't boba, then it was shaved ice, and it was like a ritual. Meeting at a café with friends was the go-to activity. But it wasn't the fancy-schmancy boba drinks that you see nowadays. This was just powdered milk tea, sometimes even served in Styrofoam cups. You wouldn't believe how much it cost—just a dollar! And it was refreshingly delicious on a hot summer day."
  5. Fulford-Jones, Will, ed. (2004) [1997]. Time Out Los Angeles (4 ed.). London: Time Out Group. p. 167. ISBN 0-141-00943-8. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "LA's latest craze—chai latte was so five minutes ago—is boba, served chiefly at the various Lollicup Tea Zone cafés (pictured; 1-626 965 8882 or www.lollicup.com for locations). Angelenos call it bubble tea; certainly, it's an odd-looking concoction, comprised of black or green tea, flavoured milk and boba, dark, starchy balls made from cassava root that you suck through a gigantic straw. The first Lollicup opened in California in 2000; three years later, over 50 branches had followed."
  6. Vuoung, Zen (2015-03-28). "Zen Report - Growing up as Asian kid in '80s in San Gabriel Valley". Whittier Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
    The article notes: "Lollicup Coffee & Tea began infiltrating the SGV in the mid-1990s. Before that, us Asians had to settle for what the Americans were drinking. When I was in high school, my friends and I jumped into a clown car and drove down Valley Boulevard for some spicy popcorn chicken and Thai tea with tapioca balls. We sat in Lollicup (which is now at the bottom of the totem pole, but back then, it was top notch), played Big 2 with our Bicycle Playing Cards and complained about immigrant parents who just didn’t get it."
  7. Persaud, Babita (2007-07-21). "Bubble teas: How did drinks with soft blobs become hip?". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
    The article notes: "The destination du jour: hangouts such as Mai's Lollicup Coffee & Tea that serve bubble tea and bubble drinks, which look like smoothies or Frappuccinos -- except for the pellets of tapioca at the bottom. ... In the United States, bubble tea has caught on through chains such as Q-Cup, Lollicup and Tapioca Express -- all started by Asian entrepreneurs. ... Lollicup is the largest and has about 100 locations, including three in Central Florida run by Quang Vu."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lollicup Coffee & Tea (traditional Chinese: 樂立杯; simplified Chinese: 乐立杯) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the extensive sourcing shown above by Cunard. Left guide (talk) 07:56, 27 March 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 14:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Drummond[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ENT. He's a lawyer who's had some notable clients, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The book is self-published, and the only review of it I could find in reliable sources is the St. Joseph News-Press review cited. He has appeared on some local news broadcasts, appeared once on Court TV as a legal commentator (at 4:00 - 8:26 in the source cited), and wrote a commentary piece for the News Journal, but the sources for that are all primary. All I could find about him in a WP:BEFORE search of secondary sources was passing mentions, with no significant coverage of him, apart from him speaking publicly about cases where he was counsel. Article creator is a declared paid editor for another Las Vegas company, and both the unsourced personal details and repeated uploads of promotional photos suggests conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Law, Military, and Nevada. Wikishovel (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns regarding the notability of the subject as per Wikipedia guidelines. However, I would like to clarify a few points regarding your assessment.

While it's true that Craig Drummond may not meet the notability standards outlined in WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:ENT, it's important to note that notability is not solely determined by a person's profession or the significance of their clients. As you rightly pointed out, the book associated with Craig Drummond is self-published, and the coverage of it in reliable sources is limited.

Regarding Craig Drummond's appearances on local news broadcasts, Court TV, and contributions to the News Journal, I acknowledge that the sources provided are primarily primary in nature. However, these appearances and contributions do demonstrate some level of public engagement and recognition within Craig Drummond's field, albeit not to the extent required for Wikipedia notability.

Furthermore, I'd like to address your concerns regarding conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing. While it's important to remain vigilant against such practices, it's equally important not to make assumptions without concrete evidence. Accusations of conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing can be damaging and should not be generalized without proper verification.My last article was marked as 'paid,' but that doesn't imply that this article is also paid. I have been working on this article for the past month. Therefore, it would be more appropriate for Wikipedia to consider marking it for deletion with proper evidence rather than making assumptions.

In conclusion, I appreciate your attention to detail and adherence to Wikipedia guidelines in evaluating the notability of subjects. However, I encourage further discussion and collaboration to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of the information presented in the article. Potpart (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: as irredeemably promotional per WP:G11. Alternatively, delete because the only arguably significant coverage is about the one book he's published (which doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR). I will note that the article creator's comment above is almost certainly LLM-generated and pretty much consists of arguments to avoid. voorts (talk/contributions) 07:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per what Voorts said. - Master of Hedgehogs ^(converse) ^{(hate that hedgehog!)} 14:54, 22 March 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. ✗plicit 13:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Dumont[edit]

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

Notability of the person is not clear. Looks like promotion Rodgers V (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Games, Basketball, Nevada, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The majority shareholder of an NBA team seems like a notable figure. The article doesn't seem blatantly promotional, and it cites several valid sources. Zagalejo (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the majority shareholder of a franchise in the NBA, one of the top sports leagues in the world, this person is notable and it can be presumed GNG-appropriate sources can be found about him. Even if no such sources are found, this would be a clear case to apply WP:IAR. Frank Anchor 02:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fulfills WP:GNG. Vague reasoning for deletion by nom. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets the criteria for notability and should be kept. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG. Not sure where the nom sees WP:PROMO. Longhornsg (talk) 01:49, 28 March 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. ✗plicit 13:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CreditWise Capital[edit]

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

Not sufficient sourcing per NCORP; promotional and not-notable company Rodgers V (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists, has raised funds and makes loans for two-wheelers. Sources are based on press releases with little independent analysis so do not satisfy WP:ORGIND. Coverage falls well short of that required by WP:ORGDEPTH. Rupples (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the nominator for spamming, but I believe this nomination should be considered on its merits. MER-C 14:50, 24 March 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack.Net[edit]

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

The Time mention is brief and doesn't even include the alleged "Top 20 Music Websites of 2005" designation that the page claims. The ScoringSessions.com just links to the front page of that site and I couldn't find anything about its relation to this one. The rest is just this site, and nothing that suggests notability to me. As is usually the case, finding coverage of a website is not easy, but I couldn't see anything and my doubts remain. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Websites. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by conflict of interest; see User talk:Dgoldwas#SoundtrackNet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 19 years since the TIME Magazine piece came out, so I guess we need to look at the print evidence. I uploaded a YouTube video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3mzVWkcL98

The "relation" between ScoringSessions.com and Soundtrack.Net is obvious if you go look at the "About" page of ScoringSessions.com

https://scoringsessions.com/about Dgoldwas (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Time magazine page is just a brief listing but any thoughts on these? [1] [2] StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StreetcarEnjoyer it appears those are the same thing on different websites. Does look like a solid source, but it only puts us at one which still isn't enough to meet GNG. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the best I could find, so delete as not having sigcov. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reads like WP:PROMO, the page was seemingly written by one of the sites creators, and many of the references are from the site itself. InDimensional (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wright, H. Stephen (September 2002). Davison, Stephen (ed.). "Film Music Web Sites". Notes. 59 (1): 128–129. doi:10.1353/not.2002.0150. ProQuest 1108699.
  The article notes: "SoundtrackNet is probably the oldest comprehensive film music site on the Web, if one takes its entire genealogy into account. The site's banner proudly proclaims 5th Anniversary, 1997-2002, but in fact its origins can be traced to 1996, when Ellen Edgerton founded filmmusic.com, the first Web site to attempt an all-inclusive view of the film music world, rather than concentrate on soundtrack album collecting or a single composer. SoundtrackNet was created in 1997 and eventually absorbed the contents of filmmusic.com, thus creating a megasite of surprising breadth. (The domains soundtrack.net and filmmusic.com are now functionally equivalent.) ... SoundtrackNet, for all its virtues, is not always easy to use. Navigation bars that one expects to spawn drop-down menus do nothing of the kind."
2. Rome, Emily (2011-12-04). "A movie music maestro". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Soundtrack.net, a web- site devoted to music in film and television, is getting an upgrade courtesy of Sean Saulsbury. One of the founders of Box Office Mojo, the Studio City-based movie enthusiast is hoping to build the site into a comprehensive resource for songs that appear on official soundtracks, orchestral scores and music integrated into movies and TV shows. The website has been around since 1997 but had been updated very little in the last several years. Saulsbury, who left Box Office Mojo in 2009, bought Soundtrack.net in mid-October."
3. "SoundtrackNet Radio launches 24/7". The Independent Film & Video Monthly. Vol. 27, no. 1. Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers. January–February 2004. pp. 10–11. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "SoundtrackNet, where web surfers have gone for years to find a trusty database of even the most obscure movie music, can now listen to the tunes they love nonstop with the October 1 launch of SoundtrackNet Radio—a free, 24/7 streaming internet station for film music buffs. ... In the beginning, the site, which boasts over 3,000 soundtracks and a whopping 40,000 songs, was merely a place to go to for composer interviews and agent contact information, but with the introduction of this round-the-clock radio station, Goldwasser hopes to see a big boost in visitors-up from an already not-too-shabby 188,000 unique visitors a month."
4. Hewittchewitt, Chris (2009-01-05). "What Was That One Movie With That One Actor Playing That Guy in That Town Where That Stuff Happened? - Here Are a Few Sites That Might Be Able to Help". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The review notes: "SoundTrackNet: I'm a fan of film scores, and so are the folks who put this Web site together. There are lots of sites devoted to movie music -- filmscoremonthly.com is another -- but I've found soundtrack.net the most helpful. It has in-depth interviews with composers, a good question-and-answer section, info on hard-to-find CDs and a "Score of the Day" feature that lets you listen to (and, usually, download) movie music you never knew you needed."
5. Abramowitz, Jeff (1997-09-19). "Read All About It". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: ""Soundtrack.net" is a newish site devoted to film and television music. The site (http://www.soundtrack.net) has a large list of soundtracks, but unfortunately, there does not seem to be any facility letting you download or even listen to them. So what we're left with is a site about this form of music, with a discussion board and a data base and reviews, but it's still short of the mark. Nonetheless, it is a welcome resource for a genre of music which is often overlooked but which, at its best, is an essential part of any classic movie."
6. "On the Web". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 2002-12-20. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The review notes: "SoundtrackNet is a great source for news and research on movie and TV soundtracks. It currently features an interview with "Two Towers" soundtrack composer Howard Shore."
7. Bainbridge, Jim (2005-03-13). "'Local' function sets topix.net apart from Google News". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The review notes: "Film music: Soundtracknet is a specialized Web site dealing with all things having to do with "the art of film and television music." There you will find news, features, interviews and 969 reviews of new and old movie soundtracks, including "Hotel Rwanda" and "The Courtmartial of Billy Mitchell.""
8. Douglas, John (2001-03-05). "Soundtrack Net - On the Web". The Grand Rapids Press. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The review notes: "If you like music from movies, www.filmmusic.com is the place to go for a wealth of information on composers, including what soundtracks are in print as well as complete track listings for soundtracks."
9. "wwwhere? - Site of the day". The Age. 2001-07-18. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes that the site of the day is oundtrack Net. The article notes: "Learn more about the music that accompanies the silverscreen blockbusters. Read the latest news, reviews and interviews relating to cinema soundtracks."
10. "Here & Now". Watertown Daily Times. 2014-09-12. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "That's where the website soundtrack.net comes in handy. The site is a source for news and information about movie and television soundtracks and original scores. A typical film page will list its music tracks (whether or not there was an official release) and the artists who sang them; director, music supervisor and composer credits; and album release date, its publisher and a link to the soundtrack and/or score. Plus, there are release dates for upcoming films about 60 days in advance."
11. Douglas, John (2001-09-10). "On the Web". The Grand Rapids Press. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The review notes: "I love movie soundtracks -- and I'm not talking about those new soundtracks with "music inspired by the film." The soundtracks on this site contain music composed for a movie. Some of these are new soundtracks and some are for older films. The site will clue you in on what is included on each CD. It also contains news and articles about soundtracks along with interviews with composers."
12. Rothman, Wilson (2005-11-21). "Online Music Guide 2005. Whether you're searching for the next big hit or creating a personal web radio station, our top 20 music sites will get you in the groove". Time. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "soundtrack.net/trailers. Movie trailers usually feature mesmerizing songs that are, incidentally, not always included on the movie's soundtrack album. This site tells you what's playing in the trailers, plus an abundance of information about scores and their composers too."
13. Pool, Jeannie Gayle; Wright, H. Stephen (2011). A Research Guide to Film and Television Music in the United States. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-8108-7688-0. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "SoundtrackNet (www.soundtrack.net). Includes a database of film scores on compact disc, as well as reviews and news."
14. Roat, Ronald; Contini, George; Barnes, Michael J.; Barr, Linda R. (2003). iSearch: Mass Communication, Theatre and Film. Boston: Pearson Education. p. 149. ISBN 0-205-37644-4. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "SoundtrackNet: http://www. filmmusic.com/. An awesome online magazine that not only provides excellent articles on scoring for film but also has an extensive composer and soundtrack database."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Soundtrack.Net to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that's plenty. Withdrawn. Thanks @Cunard! QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree that Cunard's sources enable WP:GNG to be passed. There are a couple of early delete votes which prevent a speedy keep for nomination withdrawn, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 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. ✗plicit 13:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Williams (academic)[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, misses the bar for WP:NACADEMIC #8 as was never editor-in-chief, not much I can find in books or google. BrigadierG (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Health and fitness, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you list getting a PhD as an "award"! Athel cb (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went through the page and tried to improve it, but it wasn't worth the time - does not satisfy WP:PROF. Qflib (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scopus profile shows c. 850 citations, I don't know if that is high or low for the field: [21]. ResonantDis_tortion 19:26, 22 March 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 11:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travis County Republican Party[edit]

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

County-level branch of a political party. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Most of the sources at the article are not secondary sources, those that are are not specifically about this organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Texas. AusLondonder (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Sal2100 (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom and WP:ORG. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 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 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 SkyJet Elite Astra crash[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:EVENTCRIT, minimal coverage other than local news sources. No reason to expect WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep 5 fatalities did occur in this accident and as of right now, sources still seem to extend coverage: [22], [23], [24], so this already does satisfy 2 of the three criteria in the WP:AIRCRASH essay, albeit its too early to call whether this incident is notable or not, given that we do not exactly know the circumstances of the emergency. GalacticOrbits 19:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still hold my stance of keeping this article. I found the adsbexchange track to it, accessible here: [25]. Also, one of the passengers, Alfredo Diez, seems to be the CEO of Atlantis Flight Academy, a private jet charter and flying school company:[26], [27], [28]. Furthermore, this seems to be the first hull-loss & fatal hull-loss of the aircraft type since its operation in 1984: [29] GalacticOrbits (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Furthermore, this seems to be the first hull-loss & fatal hull-loss of the aircraft type since its operation in 1984"

The accident involving the first hull-loss of a G650 doesn't have its own article so that argument seems pretty bland combined with the fact that a lot of aircraft don't have a separate article for their first fatal accident.

The rest of the guidelines mentioned are more than enough to warrant a delete of this article. Other than WP:AIRCRASH which is an essay, you haven't provided solid evidence to prove why this article should be kept. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is the only criterion available, WP:AIRCRASH is at the end of the day an essay. Do not use WP:AIRCRASH as a criteria unless you can find other guidelines that prove that this article should stay.

If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article, if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few articles two weeks after the event, simply naming the victims and repeating the details of the crash, do not constitute WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This definitely should NOT be deleted, 5 deaths occuring and has made its way around aviation news. TyHaliburtn 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so should we create an article for every single accident that has more or less five deaths?

All the guidelines that users SunDawn, Rosbif73 and I have stated overrule WP:AIRCRASH which is an essay. This article fails all the guidelines stated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So with ur stupid logic 2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash should also be deleted??? 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make personal attacks against other editors. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then tell wikipedia to fix its guidelines 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1) Do not call anyone's logic "stupid" - that is uncivil. 2) The word is spelt "your" - you are not texting to a friend. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
M̶i̶l̶d̶ Delete / support Fails WP:GNG, WP:SUSTAINED and I have doubts on whether this accident can meet WP:LASTING. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article didn't satisfy WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG. Light aircraft incidents are generally not notable, and this article is not notable enough. Some news articles are expected, but it didn't satisfy WP:GNG as the coverage is too routine, not in-depth, and didn't have any lasting precedence. If this incident changed how Gulfstream G100 are flown globally this article might be notable, but it seems that it's not the case. However, this incident can be added in its respective accident aircraft article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the Japan airlines collision with that small plane isn't notable too??? It only had 5 deaths 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

look at 2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read any sort of guideline whatsoever? Both of these accidents involved commercial airliners, one widely accepted start criterion and both events ended with all aircraft involved being written off. The Astra Jet is a business jet.

And did you even read user SunDawn's argument? This accident fails all mentioned guidelines against the article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WHY DOES Hop-A-Jet Flight 823 HAVE AN ARTICLE THEN¿¿¿¿¿ ITS A PRIVATE JET AND LESS THAN 5 PEOPLE DIED, WHAT IS U TRYNA SAY BRO 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please act and respond in a civilised manner and see my reply below. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @SunDawn:, For clarification, "Light aircraft incidents are generally not notable". The IAI 1125 Astra is by no means a "light aircraft". Light aircraft are by definition, those who have an MTOW of 12,500 lbs or less (see Light aircraft), while the Astra has an MTOW of nearly 25,000 lbs. FYI, MTOW means maximum takeoff weight. GalacticOrbits (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is beyond stupid, Who the hell cares what the criteria says, 5 people died and made worldwide news, stop being silly. 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go reading though all of the guidelines mentioned in this page like this the next time you join a debate, you can make a logically and pieced together argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then why does Hop-A-Jet Flight 823 have its own article??? its a private jet???????????¿¿¿¿¿¿ 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the pilots reported a dual engine failure might suggest lasting effects as it could change procedures. It was also a chartered flight. The accident also had multiple secondary sources covering the accident.

That doesn't mean that there won't be a discussion on whether the article should stay or not. It's just that for now, certain guidelines have been met although that could change.

And remember, if in the end, the accident does result in huge changes, there is always the possibility of reversing the delete, it's just that for the moment, nothing notable has been shown. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i can find atleast 1 million sources on google 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:3DF3:2638:4B06:2550 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post the link of your page then? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of deaths isn't directly a factor in deciding whether the article meets the notability criteria. Even one death is tragic for the families, of course. Fatal accidents are generally newsworthy, but being newsworthy is not the same as being encyclopedic. There are hundreds of light aircraft and general aviation accidents with fatalities every year, and very few of them have any encyclopedic value. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of feeding the trolls "Who the hell cares what the criteria says" is probably the most laughable argument I've seen at AfD in a while. AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People dying in accidents is not uncommon, and it does not inherently warrant an article. This article should only be created if widespread ramifications or analysis come afterward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Small plane crashes are literally daily occurrences worldwide. Continued coverage is limited and only routine local news regarding the identity of the victims. Per WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." AusLondonder (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This accident isn't too notable, despite all the news reports when searching for the accident on Google. This story was mainly reported from 3/10 to 3/12, then on the 20th did the news return back to the story onto identifying the victims and not to sound too ignorant but they were stories you took some glance at, and just forgot about. But for the families of the victims, a story to remember. 70.167.194.163 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 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 2024 Indian Premier League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Indian Premier League squads[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK, as all squads already exist at 2024 Indian Premier League#Participating teams and the useful information on team changes already exists at List of 2024 Indian Premier League personnel changes. As such, we don't need this article which is just a repeated table of squads, and these reasons are why every other IPL season doesn't have this either, because it's so unnecessary. Generally, we only have separate cricket squad articles for major events for international teams, not franchise tournaments Joseph2302 (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2024 Indian Premier League. RangersRus (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Indian Premier League for reasons given above. AryKun (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Indian Premier League a separate article not needed for this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No need for the same information to be copied in a separate article. Robo^Cric Let's chat 16:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Indian Premier League 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)

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 Restore to disambig‎. Further rewriting can be done, but the general consensus is to restore the article to its state as a disambig. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Ottoman Wars[edit]

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

All of these Wars and conflicts have their own wikipedia page and all Sections are almost unsourced. It makes more sense to make a new article called "List of wars between Poland and the ottoman Empire", just like: Polish-Russian wars and Polish-Swedish Wars Olek Novy (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal Another proposal by me is not deleting the page but Reverting all edits done since January 5th and Rewriting the article with the lists of wars Involving Poland and the Ottoman Empire. Olek Novy (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lithuania, Poland, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that Infobox is seriously crazy! Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to disambig. This was a disambig until a new user rewrote it (sadly, they also got banned, which I don't think was fair, but that's off topic here). Anyway. this should be restored to a disambig. No prejudice to creating an article that is an overview of Polish–Ottoman Wars. In fact, the disambig should be at Polish–Ottoman Wars (singular), so we need a move as well. What the new editor did was to create a poorly referenced overview topics, good effort but the low density of references reminds me of what we used to do 10-15 years ago. Sadly, I cannot recommend keeping their article; if they were not blocked I'd encourage them to work in this in their sandbox. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes more sense to make a List of wars just like Polish-Russian wars and Polish-Swedish wars Olek Novy (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to disambig per Pioturs. No prejudice to a future broad concept article, but this is just recycled material that competes with dedicates pages. Srnec (talk) 23:44, 23 March 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Jørgensen[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG criteria. He played only a few matches at the professional level, and the only source used does not confirm his notability. Just WP:NOTJUSTYET, but maybe he deserves an article in a few months or rather years. FromCzech (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – The athlete can become notable in the medium term. Svartner (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify There is at least one somewhat substantial source I found—[30]—but this comes across as slightly WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - additional references and resources have been added. Pospeak (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:49, 26 March 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 deleted‎ by Bbb23 per criterion A7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Parra (singer)[edit]

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

Propose this article before you make it. Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, Mexico, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 22 March 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. I'm closing this as No Consensus as it has been open for a month now. Editors are somewhat united that "something" should happen with this content but there is no consensus on what that is. It is out of a closer's purview to "export" or "wikify" content from an article to another project. Maybe start a talk page discussion and return to AFD when there is a sign of more participation. Or raise the question on the Military History WikiProject and perhaps folks there might have some opinion on either what should be done with this article or how it could be improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military designation of days and hours[edit]

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

There may be something useful here, but right now we have a mess. The lead talks about NATO, but the title suggests more general topic, and what we have is a poorly referenced list of various A-Day to Z-Day as used in various contexts, from WWII, to NATO to US military. Right now this is an ORish mess of military trivia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure it needs (massive) improvement, but it's a collection of hard to find definitions, not all of which appear (yet) under the corresponding standalone entries. Urhixidur (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't know what it is. It's not an article, not really a list. The title is global, but the entries are exclusively US/NATO (okay, this could be fixed). There's a mish mash of operational jargon like "F-Hour" mixed in amongst historical terms like V-E Day (which already redirect onto the appropriate - notable! - article). Feels like trivia/fandom. The opening line sets the tone: "NATO designations are specified in Allied Administrative Publication AAP-6 (STANAG 3680) NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions," Um, okay. So go read STANAG 3680. There is no need to duplicate it here. Similarly, the terms marked (US) are lifted directly (often verbatim) from JP1-02 (Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms). WP:NOTDICT.

It could be a Wiktionary Appendix - "Appendix: US Military Day and Hour Designations" and "Appendix: NATO Day and Hour Designations" but I don't see it as encyclopaedic content. Hemmers (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're advocating for a Move, don't label it Delete. Urhixidur (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not advocating for a Move on en.wikipedia. I’m advocating for Delete. This content could be useful on Wiktionary, which is a parallel project. This involves Deleting from en.wiki and creating new page(s) on Wiktionary. Hemmers (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call it Export then. Urhixidur (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen people say Transwikify... but who will do it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable list. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or glossary as presented by Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I am the nom here, I keep thinkng that this might be saved through listification perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:02, 22 March 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Otterbeen[edit]

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

A Lugnuts stub, this was created at Claude Otterbeen and then moved to Joseph Otterbeen; one of the sources refers to a Claude and the other a Joseph with no explanation, though it seems unlikely these are two different Otterbeens running the 3000m in the 1920s Olymics. The best source is the one-paragraph obituary and the rest are databases, I haven't been able to find better and even his name is unclear. Rusalkii (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SR piece is outdated (became Olympedia, which has since updated to reflect that the Olympian was actually named Joseph) – also note that the Nederlands Wikipedia has some more text and lists a bunch of offline sources, including some that specifically seem to be about him (being mentioned in the title). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources from the Dutch Wikipedia. Remember that per WP:NEXISTS we only have to show that sources exist, we don't actually have to have physical or electronic access to them to keep the article. We know that these sources exist, even though I don't have access to the Dutch media, we can find someone who does to help improve the article:

"Beroepsloopen - Over onze vervlogen Olympische droom. Jos. Otterbeen verdwijnt uit onze sport". Sportwereld. 4 March 1925.
"Athletiek". Sportwereld. 18 July 1920.
"Voetloopen - Ronde van Brugge". Sportwereld. 17 October 1919.

Thanks, --Habst (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep per Habst. The offline sources appear to be likely to have significant coverage, especially the 1925 Sportwereld piece which features him in the title (it seems to be translated, "Our shattered Olympic dream: Otterbeen disappears from our sport"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Even if the Sportwereld sources above were all SIGCOV, that would count as one source, while GNG needs more. If we actually knew that those sources were SIGCOV we would at least have SPORTCRIT and could potentially delay deletion based on that, but without access we have zero evidence they offer anything beyond routine coverage (and we are explicitly discouraged from assuming anything from headlines). NEXISTS requires the sources to be SIGCOV if they're supposed to contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a point when...this is just ridiculous. How the heck, then, are we supposed to determine notability for subjects whom we have no access to sources from their time period? Its ridiculous if knowing there's articles featuring and focusing on them is not enough when there's no way to access any sources from that time period! Common sense would indicate that if a newspaper has a title mentioning someone in such a high light (seems to be saying that the Olympic dreams for the region the paper covers are shattered due to this athlete retiring) in a title of that sort that it would be sigcov. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strike that; remembered that Otterbeen is from Belgium, and the discussion on Georges Demulder mentioned a Belgian newspaper archive. There's over 150 matches for his name here but none are accessible without registration (not sure how to do that personally). @Gidonb: At the Demulder discussion it sounded like you were able to get access to that source. Can you tell if any of the results for Otterbeen are sigcov? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks for your response.

Even if the Sportwereld sources above were all SIGCOV – We know for sure they are WP:SIGCOV, we don't have to assume based on titles or otherwise, because we can read the facts cited to them on the Dutch Wikipedia. The sources speak to Otterbeen's intentions ("Otterbeen was originally a professional runner, but with a view to participating in the Antwerp Olympics, he joined the amateurs..."), we know that it would be impossible to read someone's intentions from just a database or results listing. So, based on the reading of WP:SPORTCRIT cited above, we are obligated to delay deletion.
Thanks to @BeanieFan11's great research, I created an account on Belgica Press and retrieved the 150 matches. For example, look at page 3, top right corner here for some coverage (you shouldn't need an account to view this): [31]. Or see right hand side of page 3 here: [32] I don't know the language, but there are hundreds of matches for Otterbeen's name and I can see many more of them in prose. Would you consider changing your vote to at least "delay deletion" based on this evidence, as your reading of the policy would obligate us to do? --Habst (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know it is IRS SIGCOV because we do not know whether the facts are being relayed through secondary analysis by independent journalists or if they are coming from non-independent, primary quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks, we do know that it is WP:IRS because it comes from a newspaper, Sportwereld, which has an editorial team and it is not sourced to an advertisement. We also know that the facts aren't coming from quotes, because in the Dutch Wikipedia they don't say that Otterbeen "was quoted" or similar, they simply state the facts as relayed through the journalists. If they were being sourced from quotes, we'd expect wording such as "Otterbeen said" on nlwiki or even an inclusion of the quote. Because that isn't there, we know that it's SIGCOV, obligating us to at least delay deletion.

As proof of this, I found the actual cited article here (click the 4th page at the bottom, middle left hand side of the page):
"Beroepsloopen - Over onze vervlogen Olympische droom. Jos. Otterbeen verdwijnt uit onze sport". Sportwereld. 4 March 1925. p. 4.

You can see by reading the article, Otterbeen is not merely quoted, but there is substantial analysis by secondary independent journalists done on the subject. Based on this, could you please change your vote to delay deletion as obligated by SPORTCRIT, or keep if you think that the multiple sources provided and shown to have existed are sufficient to establish notability?

Thank you, --Habst (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That indeed looks like non-trivial coverage so I will strike my !vote. However, just because something comes from a newspaper does not mean it is IRS! PR notices, specials to the paper, etc. do not get labeled as "advertisements". And certainly we cannot assume Dutch wikipedia would attribute as a quote every single fact about the guy that was sourced to a quote (by him or anyone else). We know that editors routinely state basic info derived from quotations as fact. JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for striking your vote. I appreciate your point of view. In this case, I think we did know it was not sourced to a PR notice or paper special, because the title and contents were known and I can't think of any way that combination could have been part of anything but a standard news article in context. The editor @Akadunzio has a great reputation with over 37,000 edits and 14 years of experience, so I think it would have been stated as such if facts were obtained only from quotes. Now with hindsight, we know that the facts were not obtained from quotes anyways, because we have the full article text and it contains enough non-quote information. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks to much work by Habst (and agreement with Beaniefan11's exasperation). Ingratis (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nom, withdraw my nomination per alternative language sources (which I really should have remembered to check) and Habst's research. Rusalkii (talk) 19:02, 26 March 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 nomination withdrawn, plain and simple (non-admin closure)‎. Ouro (blah blah) 06:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slacks (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Utterly useless, as the measly two entries are already listed in Slack. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. I'm just going to boldly redirect there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 22 March 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 00:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The royal crowns of the Maldives[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Of the 4 sources, 3 don't even mention the topic and the 4th is a twitter/X post. Plus I couldn't find any sources. Tagged by others since December 2023. North8000 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 11:01, 24 March 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 00:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Polarities of Democracy[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. Appears to be a neologism created by one person (Benet) and all of the real coverage in the sources is him and his institute. Tagged by others for source issues since December 2023. North8000 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:32, 23 March 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. ✗plicit 00:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snehil Dixit Mehra[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Article content is basic resume material with flowerly wording. Lots of references but all appear to be brief announcements or press release material. In some cases the exact reference is repeated, in other cases the exact same press-release type material at different sites. Author is current blocked for multiple account abuse. North8000 (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 March 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 List of U.S. county secession proposals#Washington. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independence County, Washington[edit]

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

Not notable at all with very few sources, and the only two sources used in the article seem to not work anymore. Parts of this could probably be merged into the Whatcom County, Washington article too PersusjCP (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_U.S._county_secession_proposals#Washington. Reywas92^Talk 01:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We can add more sources and use archived links for the broken sources - Master of Hedgehogs ^(converse) ^{(hate that hedgehog!)} 14:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into List_of_U.S._county_secession_proposals#Washington, where it is already referenced. No prejudice against re-creation if enough WP:RS-based coverage to pass WP:GNG can be found. Sal2100 (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support a merge to List_of_U.S._county_secession_proposals#Washington just to be clear :)

PersusjCP (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per previous votes. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:32, 23 March 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.