Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday June 5 (Wed) June 4 (Tue) June 3 (Mon) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 29	May 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 16 editors have argued for deletion or "draftification," making a strong case that Wikipedia is not a news outlet. 17 editors have argued to keep the article as it has received substantial coverage beyond a run of the mill traffic accident. It seems the question is whether coverage of this is sustained---it has continued to receive some coverage since being relisted. Right now, I don't see consensus to keep or delete the article and I don't see a clearer consensus emerging in another week, so I am closing the discussion for now. Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Pune car crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, no significant coverage outside India and trivial commentary by a few politicians, possibly because it happened during the 2024 Indian general election. Borgenland (talk) 07:50, 24 May 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 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated in WP:N(E), "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) [...] are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There's nothing about this event that indicates it has (or will have) enduring significance. Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will have enduring significance, we are seeing members of the current ruling party lauchpadding this case for the movement of judicial reform. 27.63.231.66 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which coinciding with the general election, may as well be an electoral stunt that everyone will forget. Borgenland (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A significance in this case my friend is the fact of how it exposes the 2 different India. The minor in the case was let off in less than a day with nothing more than a month of social service and a puny essay to write on road accident on the account he is not an adult. The minor had been allowed inside 2 pubs and allowed to drive a porsche whichunder indian law can only be done once you are above 18. This makes this case have lasting value to the legal system. This is different from most crimes, accidents and is very notable due to the social media traction it gained. The only political or criminal connection comes as an MLA that is a member of indian parliament's son was in the car at the time and beat up by people at the venue of accident and the judicial system was exposed for its flaw in giving juvenile justice and the police did a bad job on this case. Killing of 2 IT proffesionals cannot be termed as a electoral stunt. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much a routine automobile accident, you could replace "Pune" with almost any city around the globe and the story would be the same. NOTNEWS Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say so my dear friend for this accident has waters much deeper than most cases, it involves an MLA, a renowned builder and incompetency of a bribed police and hospital staff. The mom of the minor was reported to have swapped her blood making this veryyy different from an average automobile accident in las vegas etc. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The accident isn't notable, the investigation and allegations around it could be notable; that would be a different article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment makes no sense yet let me explain, This accident involves a builder's son crashing into 2 IT proffesionals at 3:30 AM at a speed of 200 km/h. Accused was handed to police and was giiven bail in less than a day without any notable punishment making this a notable accident. This article should not be deleted. Publichelper1011 (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Automobile accidents are very common, run of the mill incidents, sure, this incident may have gotten a tad bit more attention from politicians and the news, but at the end of the day, its frankly not really news. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This incident is different from your run of the mill accidents. This time it involves rich parents saving a brat from rightful justice as he was released in less than a day and was given a punishment of writing a "run of the mill" essay and was entitled to a few days of community service. An average murderer is remanded to 2 years of juvenile custody I must add dear dellow samoht. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has got significant coverage for now. It will take sometime to see if it meets WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And until then, relevant policies stipulate that the incident is not notable, and an article on it therefore cannot be sustained. If this is still in the news two years from now, I expect anyone still interested can recreate it at that time. Ravenswing 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. Not the right time to decide notability of the subject that has already got enough coverage. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is incredibly MILL and probably didn't need the usual pointlessly rageful Republic/NDTV overcoverage which seems to be openly turning a simple vehicular death incident into exactly what they want. There won't be lasting coverage and it will likely end with private settlements and other justice currently happening now. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its may 30 today 1 week after the incident and News show that minor was released in 17 hours, Hospital staff was bribed of 3 lakhs, the minor's father and grandfather in police custody. thier uncle has ragebaited the public, minors mom has faked blood reports by swapping her own blood for her childs reminding us of drishyam 2 and its amazing climax. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still getting coverage.[1] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ reiterate a minimal casualty toll, non-notable victims (that the suspect was driving a Porsche is mere WP:TRIVIA) and no significant coverage outside India. Borgenland (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This above comment is posted by the same editor who also nominated this article for deletion.[2] Ratnahastin (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken for emphasis. That's right. You need to sign + timestamp all nominations, Borgenland, which already count as your preference to delete (!vote). El_C 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t notice that in the starter. Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all good. El_C 07:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS and above in general. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons others have mentioned, if this is something that will become notable then it's WP:TOOSOON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To say that an article should be deleted only because it concerns a recent incident is not sensible. Should wait for some weeks before doing AfD in these cases. Shankargb (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's recent so much as it's a completely run of the mill drunk driving crash that killed two people. It quite literally is not notable. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... which was stated in the OP. What isn't sensible is to base an opinion at AfD based on cherrypicking only one element of the nomination. Ravenswing 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run-of-the-mill car crash of which hundreds of the same scale occur every day. Just because something receives a small burst of news coverage does not mean it is notable. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
1 week after the incident, multiple arrest have been done in the case. The investigation for the mother is on way, bribe of 3 lakhs has been noted, police have said this is not an everyday car crash. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment no longer applies as the crash, while still fairly run-of-the-mill, has clearly has had some sort of broader impact. Curbon7 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill accident without the depth or extent of media coverage, such that it is not notable. The only thing setting it apart is the odd bail conditions, but that is insufficient to give it notability. Local Variable (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
local variabled is unable to see the news i assume PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable to me at all. These types of crashes occur every day. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sadustu tau must catch up to recent news. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being vague about this is not going to change my argument. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also my comment was made before more recent developments, which do seem to make it more notable than usual, however. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While vehicle accidents are not automatically notable, this one is a different case. 2024 elections are not really relevant for this incident. This car crash has gained significant worldwide coverage, [3] contrary to this AfD nomination. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful over its sustainable coverage though. At this rate it is a mere eccentric news from abroad. Borgenland (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's basically a car crash, which will not generate sustained coverage. If it does indeed generate long-term coverage, it can be recreated. OhHaiMark (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case is in no way trivial. Each day has only got the case more coverage in national media. The involvement of politicians in the case has nothing to do with the General election. The Porsche case is a national phenomenon in its own right. In addition, the case continues to cause arrests and interrogation of multiple individuals involved presently.

Appu (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Such accidents are prevalent worldwide. However, this news has got India-wide coverage and is still getting coverage.

~~TNS~~ (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1)The case has garnered significant media coverage with each & every update of the case being telecasted and covered across the board. Multiple national politicians have already made comments on it during the ongoing 2024 Indian General Elections. Therefore the subject is already notable enough for an independent page. The incident is of national coverage and has already brought the discussion on the Judiciary and Police executives to the forefront. (2) Being a recent news, as per WP:RAPID it is better to keep the page for now since there is no deadline to delete the page. Moreover, if its not WP:SUSTAINED in future, it can always be deleted. (3) For WP:TOOSOON multiple developments have already taken place in the investigation with reactions from many notable people. Therefore it is not too soon and sufficient time has already passed. EditorOnJob (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep the incident is clearly notable, and it passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). The incident is being covered all over India in reliable sources. Nominator's rationale "no significant coverage outside India is also inappropriate. Most of the murders, and missing persons cases (from all over the world) do not get international coverage, very few do. When the car crash took place, I thought the coverage was sensationalism, but later the decisions were cancelled, and now three generations are in custody source. The resulting coverage is now not sensationalism. According to this, (posted on 23, crash was on 19) it has grabbed national attention. The car crash has also reopened the investigation of a hit placed by Surndra Agarwal on a corporator through mafia/underworld don [4] Two doctors of state-run hospital were arrested source. These things do not happen with run of the mill car crashes. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. If there are significant changes in popular media, legislation etc. because of this event over the next few years then we can recreate the article. Also to the nom, that "no significant coverage outside India" is definitely uncalled for. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment calls for deleting every case even those of deaths of head of state if they had no change to popular media, please use common sense brother lentical. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a poor choice of analogy comparing a dead world leader with a local councilman bhai. You do need to make your arguments have more sense. Borgenland (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a multinational news story. It is not about a car crash, but instead about social issues such as wealth avoiding legal consequences, bribery, rich young people using alcohol, the rights of common people versus rich, and others. This is not a routine report of an automobile collision, nor is it local, and the story is very likely to have ongoing updates because of further developments including the bribery accusations and accusations of corruption of doctors, police, and the courts. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not least because of the enormous BLP violations contained within, including claims of criminality and intent that have not been fully adjudicated and the publication of minors' and non-notable victims' names. If the topic eventually does receive sustained attention, it can easily be refunded, but right now it is doing far more harm to victims' families in addition to contributing to sensationalist non-NPOV political reporting. JoelleJay (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is still viral on social media and spokesperson of multiple politcal parties, and news channel still report the incident and cover it about 10 days after the reported rage break in social media. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This incident rather exposed a number of doctors and other people involved due to the public pressure which isn't a normal occurrence if it hadn't been public pressure the incident would have been like any normal accident out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.89.170 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident has recieved notable media coverage along with multiple independent sources covering the topic over a prolonged period. The Indian General elections have ended, the media coverage should be observed over the next few days in order to access whether it was a politcally motivated topic or a notable topic of interest. Keep it for the time being and continue the discussion for the a few more days. Xoocit (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion ongoing here. I tagged the article as lacking NPOV but I'm also baffled by editors claiming this article is about " a routine automobile accident" as this article has been greatly expanded since its nomination. What matters is not whether or not editors believe a car crash is just news but whether reliable source establish this subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID It has got significant coverage till date. The question whether it is WP:LASTING will be only known in due course. The trial has to take place .Hence for now it is keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is not a random car crash but a unique one. It is still getting enough coverage and this coverage is going to happen for a longer period of time. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident has caused a stir in India like no other car crash has. Deeper themes of the exploitation of the poor by the rich with money (rich kid killed the poor, but almost got away with it by bribing with money) exist, and it also highlights the injustices that India’s current legal/police system allows. Coverage by many major Indian news providers still continues, alongside social media discussions by citizens.JayTea2910 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and news coverage alone does not demonstrate notability. Come back after the news coverage ends and there are articles explaining how significant the fallout was. Creating articles for events before that happens is irresponsible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appallingly written, but clearly extremely notable and will continue to be extremely notable in highlighting preferential treatment of the rich in India's justice system. So yes, contrary to claims above it's already very clear that this will have enduring significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. WP:BLPCRIME advises that editors should seriously consider not creating articles about living people accused of a crime, before they have been convicted, as they are presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. It is too soon to have this article. Allow the judicial process to play out first. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe: Hi. this article isn't a BLP, it is about a car crash and aftermath. The article doesn't even name the accused perp. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: True, the article is not a BLP but WP:BLPCRIME applies to all articles. The same consideration is set out at WP:PERPETRATOR, too. The article is about a fatal vehicle collision in which two motorcyclist have died. In most countries that makes it a double homicide, which is a crime, not just a "car" crash. Several other people who assisted the perpetrator are named in the article and they are also accused of committing crimes. WP:BLPCRIME applies to them too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is obviously biased but the incident has pretty wide coverage across India, and there appears to have been ramifications for social discourse in India about corruption, rule of law and wealth inequality stemming directly from this incident.Cyali (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm all for shaming the rich and powerfully connected, but I'm not sure that has been the consensus since at least 2007. Argue amongst yourselves, but please ping me if there has been a new precedent created by keeping this article. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per comments above. Notable and unique event, with masive media coverage. Also create a couple of redirects to the page for wider accessibility. Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is an update, and significant coverage in reliable source on the next day of general elections. Signifying that previous coverage was not sensationalism. It has retained sustained coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:33, 5 June 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.

Beastie Boys Square

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

The topic of this article does not meet WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. In short, this is one of many commemorative street names given to locations in New York City. The only coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage of the renaming being denied, then approved. A previous attempt to merge the content to Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square (where the content has already existed since September 2023) per WP:NOPAGE was reverted. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore merge location above, or merge to Beastie Boys. Fair game to mention somewhere, but I'm failing to see why it needs its own stand-alone article when there's so little of substance to say on it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is quite a lot of coverage on the 10 year journey. There are plenty of articles, probably over 100 plus TV coverage.. it will, be included in books and it is a designated Sq in NYc. Def passes Wikipedia:GNG VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MERGEREASON - even if there's sources, its a valid decision to merge things if the article is short and easily placed in the context of a related article, which perfectly fits in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one looking for info on the square would go to an article about an album. I added several articles from 2014, 2019 and 2021 to show ongoing coverage but, there are thousands more and the article could certainly be improved beyond what would be appropriate for a section under Pauls Boutique. There is coverage on several votes, the guy who lobbied for it, and the tasks they had to accomplish to get it approved. I didnt write a front page article.. its 3 days old.. do what you want but there is 10 years of I n depth coverage.. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point about "no one looking for info" will be easily met by leaving a redirect from Beastie Boys Square. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to WP:REDIRECTs and how they work, people will find it just find it just find in the merge target if they type in the name in the search bar. And if there's "10 years of coverage", then you should use that to write an article with more substance and content. Right now its quite barren. Is there anything else to say other than "they tried a couple times and eventually it happened?". There's not much more than that right now... Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated it with some more info but the idea is they have a huge fanbase to contribute.. the article was 3 days old before he tried to delete it without even leaving me a message on my page. VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldnt anyone think this is an important site that should have coordinates and a map pin for tourists? VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is objecting to the inclusion of coordinates or a map. However, when I merged the article, it looked like this.
I understand you may feel offended that I didn't leave a message on your talk page when I merged the article. I did not delete anything; all of the content in the article, aside from the references, was already in Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square, with some minor wording changes. To be honest, I was looking for reliable sources so the article could be expanded, but all I found were references that parroted what was already in the page, as well as unreliable sources. (This page currently contains four NY Post sources, which are generally not reliable per WP:NYPOST, and an Atlas Obscura geography article, which is not reliable per WP:AOPLACES.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ny post is fine except for politics. Its the oldest and most read paper in ny. If you dont like it, a simple search for beastie boys square before 2020 results in 1000s of hits.[5]https://www.google.com/search?q=beastie+boys+square&sca_esv=cfae4c7047bddcaf&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS945US945&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2013%2Ccd_max%3A2019&sxsrf=ADLYWIIt9UAK34OYWynm8i2jGGNjm9pQxA%3A1716659031135&ei=VyNSZv7xB_7GkPIPmqGEqAo&ved=0ahUKEwi--YCeramGAxV-I0QIHZoQAaUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=beastie+boys+square&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2JlYXN0aWUgYm95cyBzcXVhcmUyBBAjGCcyBBAjGCcyERAuGIAEGJECGMcBGIoFGK8BMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSO0OUIkDWPwHcAF4AJABAJgBYKABowOqAQE1uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIFoAK5A8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BmAMAiAYBkgcDNC4xoAftIw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp VeniceBreeze (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to post an external link.. not sure why that all came out. I posted more sources incase the ny post doesnt represent reputable coverage of The Beastie Boys and NYC events. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what WP:NYPOST says... Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be an experienced editor.. why are you purposely being ignorant and obtuse? I said i added additional articles.. LA Times, Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone.. all prior to the 2020 coverage.. there is plenty for an article and its a tourist attraction. VeniceBreeze (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do what I said? You said NY Post was okay to use outside of politics. That's objectively not the current stance. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not say i added billboard, rolling stone, variety,and the LA Times if you werent happy w the NY Post's coverage of the Beastie Boys. All before 2020? VeniceBreeze (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't commenting on everything you said, I was merely singling out a falsehood you stated in your argument. You haven't countered that point at all, so I'll assume you're dropping that aspect of your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to provoke me into an argument. You can lawyer all you want but an easy search shows how many articles the nypost is cited in. Also, i feel very threatened and triggered by the messages and attempts to provoke me on my talk page. I would appreciate it if you would keep the conversation here. Im done working on this article.. if 20 years of experience lead you tp these beliefs, fine. I believe in quantum information storage, so if your lying it will be recorded for eternity. Best of luck to everyone.. good bye beastie boys square, no page forever.. thanks to these voters VeniceBreeze (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to provoke you into anything. I corrected your statement on the NYP and notified you of WP:NPA on your talk page since you keep calling me "ignorant" and "obtuse" for not agreeing with you. How you feel threatened by this series of events is beyond baffling to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore merge to Paul's Boutique § Beastie Boys Square, which contains content identical to the article, although missing the Gothamist source. A merge will preserve the visibility of the history and the functionality of inbound links. Folly Mox (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players as a viable if not ideal ATD Star Mississippi 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Heil[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Three professional appearances is not notable, oppose above redirect as he has played for multiple clubs, can't even say he spent the most time at KR. Mn1548 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players as he’s not notable enough on his own. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support of a Redirection or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players: Best option for their stylish type of article. May nearly get notability but not now. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hart and Shepard

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

Fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Christianity, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the Harvard magazine article and Union Leader newspaper article already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Harvard magazine and a single article in the Union Leader may be reliable for use in verifying facts, just those two citations together are insufficient for establishing notability. The two publications would appear to not have the circulation/audience necessary to demonstrate notability beyond a small region or special interest niche. The citations do not show that Hart and Shepard is anything close to a household name. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - anything from that period that is even being discussed today in magazine articles is surely noteworthy. An additional source: the "famous Dorothy cloak" made by Hart and Shepard is held by the Shaker Museum, and is discussed in Beverly Gordon's 1990 research paper "Victorian Fancy Goods: Another Reappraisal of Shaker Material Culture". A different take is provided by Antiques and the Arts ("Smalls Bring Big Prices At Willis Henry Shaker Sale" of 4 December 2007) which notes the high prices fetched by the cloaks. I am certain there are numerous other such sources that credibly establish the importance of this brand, back in its heyday. And "Once notable, always notable". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those article provide in-depth information about the *company* (which is the topic we're looking at here), they all discuss the cloak. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dorothy Durgin. An article on the "Dorothy Cloak" or the "Shaker Cloak" would appear to meet GNG as a standalone topic, but a topic on this organization/company fails GNG/WP:NCORP and therefore a Delete is in order. A search on Google Books for "Dorothy Cloak" provides lots of suitable references. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete, per HighKing. Fails NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg[edit]

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

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: some of her roles in notable productions seem significant enough, so that she meets WP:NACTOR imv and deletion is not necessary. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, In which shows, if I may ask? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Chupke Chupke, Pyari Mona, Hum Tum.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).[reply]

It's not a matter of whether I like a source or not. It's obvious that the sources are clearly not reliable, no even for WP:V purpose. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In looking at the original article and the SPA creation & editing of this article, as well as other articles that mention the subject, it is likely this is an autobiography. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I am 100% certain that this is not an autobiography. Even if it were, that is not necessarily a valid deletion rationale. UPE might be an issue though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sourcing fails to directly details the BLP subject. The subject is verified but in my opinion (based on applied, presented and found reliable sources), doesn't meet GNG, ANYBIO or NACTOR. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to IRIX. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4Dwm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think this fails WP: N. There was a previous nomination in 2021 that failed on the basis that there are mentions of the software in Google Books and Google Scholar. However, these sources are either not independent (published by Silicon Graphics) or are not in-depth (passing mentions in a book chapter or a paper). HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IRIX: no independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IRIX per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew's Best Hit TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic vulnerability[edit]

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

Likely not notable, the listed reference is the only one I can find that has the same use of systemic vulnerability, others refer to "systemic vulnerability" usually in information technology. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 14:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 14:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this [6]. Maybe it helps? Conyo14 (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Relying on a single source is the very definition of original research, for which we have never been the appropriate forum. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shapiro (journalist)

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

Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves. ~~- I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep.~~ ResonantDis_tortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDis_tortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDis_tortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ : I've also found this [7], but it also appears on the article author's (Howard Blas') website. I suppose it's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and this in Variety [8] Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this article refers to a different Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) - who also writes books on the music business. Which makes source finding doubly tricky! ResonantDis_tortion 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b - in the article are cited 14 secondary refs covering the books written by the subject of this article. This includes seven full page reviews of one of his works, multiple other reviews of his other works and further WP:RS stating the importance and recommending these other works. I personally do not see how WP:NAUTHOR is not met, and there's easily enough coverage to, at minimum, build a start class article based upon the works this individual has created (it took me about 5 minutes to expand the article by ~400%). ResonantDis_tortion 06:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bolze[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing GNG in SA newspapers. JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiaan Dorfling[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only seeing namedrops in player lists, no GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe van der Hoogt[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 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!} 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. I can't also find a possible redirect. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Motijheel Thana. Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalapur (neighbourhood)[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Does not meet wp:notability. A neighborhood in the city of Dhaka. Clearly does not have presumed wp:notability under the SNG per the criteria there which leaves GNG. The only source is a blog and even that just gives it a one word mention. So no sourcing much less the required GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kamal Siddiqui et al.'s 2010 Social Formation in Dhaka, 1985-2005: A Longitudinal Study of Society in a Third World Megacity ISBN 978-1-4094-1103-1 contains half a page about the concentration of the city's Buddhists in Kamalapur and the adjacent Basabo neighborhood, describing the related viharas, pagodas, and schools there. Other than that, sources of any depth focus on Kamalapur railway station, about which we already have an article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Motijheel Thana, of which Kamalapur is the easternmost slice, until sufficient in-depth reliable sources are written about the neighborhood to justify a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested to Motijheel Thana. Right now, there is a single source in the article, which constitutes WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Op:l Bastards

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable band. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Bio in Allmusic. Album review in NME, review in Allmusic, review in Sonic Seducer, review in Visions (which has a printed magazine). Small news piece in Billboard magazine. Single review in NME, another in Music & Media, another in Sonic Seducer. Review in an outlet I'm not familiar with. That's a start without even looking into Finnish media Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Jamal Al-Omar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was speedy deleted but immediately re-created; sourcing is largely promotional or non-RS. I don't find any additional information we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~If it's substantially identical to the version that was speedily deleted, this could just be speedied under WP:G4.~~ jlwoodwa (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely false, never mind. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional vanity page. All refs appear to either not be independent or reliable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. We understand your desire to see this article on Wikipedia.

Updated Reliable Sources: We've incorporated, reliable sources to support the information in the article. These sources should meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, such as published news articles, or independent biographies.

Notability: We understand Omar Jamal Al-Omar is a well-known businessman in Kuwait City. To ensure the article's inclusion, Wikipedia requires evidence of this notability through significant coverage in reliable sources beyond just press releases. Khushboojain191 (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? If you are working on behalf of an individual, you must declare a conflict of interest. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. I apologize for using 'we' in a way that could be misconstrued. Since We represent Mr. Omar Jamal Al-Omar as his social media team, we have a conflict of interest in editing his Wikipedia article directly. please gudie us to how can we declare a conflict of interest. Khushboojain191 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time they have referred to themselves as "we" and in a tone indicating that they represent the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're using an AI to write this. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. It also matches the writing style of the PR branch of the subject's company, which usually indicates that the claims made in the article and refs are likely not even accurate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. A close match between the article's style and the subject's PR materials can raise concerns about neutrality, regardless of who wrote it. Khushboojain191 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not using the AI to write up. Khushboojain191 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Khushboojain191 has now been blocked after admitting to being a shared account for use by the subject's PR Team. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a reason to speedy the article? Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A CSD was already declined, so deletion via AfD is probably the best option. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see nothing outside of promotional links; when the PR team (as "we") comes out to play, that's generally a red flag here, that the article isn't notable. I don't see any RS in the current list, nor do I find any. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. This is an obvious case of WP:NOTRESUME; all of the sources are PR type websites, none are reliable. In 2024, everyone knows, or should well know, that Wikipedia is a private charity, not a place for cyber-squatting. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UHO MZF F.C.

(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. Coverage and sourcing is just They exist" and champions of two cups of some type. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The combined sources already in the article, and including the additional source in the Bahasa article, are exactly the sort of GNG-passing coverage I would expect of a lower division football team. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like saying that it can't meet the actual GNG (and so IMO is not wp:notable) and so we need a different GNG to make sure that non-notable lower division football teams get in. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy at the way you've completely mis-represented my keep !vote. The article easily passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I posted in a way that highlighted what I felt to be issues with your argument. In hindsight, viewing it from another angle, such is a "spun negative" description of your post. I did not intend to do something like that. Please accept my apologies for that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SF. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article only cover the game results, not the subject itself. As a team playing in the lowest division of football, its notability is limited to its region and it's relatively unknown on a national level. IMO, it doesn't meet the GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. These are not match reports, but rather articles about how the team won the championship, failed in the round of 16, et cetera, and football club notability is not based on whether they're important regionally, internationally, et cetera. They are also covered on an ongoing basis by the newspaper in their local area including sources not currently linked in the article, such as [9]: this is about the competition but the club is clearly the subject of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a routine coverage. According to WP:SPORTCRIT; Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. None of reference in the article provide reports beyond routine coverage, such as information about the team itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fantastic Beasts characters

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

There are two big issues: Firstly, there's no citations outside of the one character that already has his own page, Newt Scamander. Secondly, this is for a three-film series - so not really a huge body of work - and, outside of the main four or five characters, there's one or two sentences for each person. Worse, the articles on the films have cast lists with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters, so it's redundant as well (The main characters' longer bits just being the plot summaries of the films). Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CSC #2, no argument for deletion made that cannot be remedied by editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it rises to the level of notability where it can ever be sourced. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles a little weird if we are trying to go by consistency. List of Harry Potter characters exists, but that is for characters who appeared in any of the books, which a lot of these do not and are not mentioned in that article. There is also List of Fantastic Beasts cast members which compliments List of Harry Potter cast members (a featured list.) Maybe it might be beneficial to merge the two Fantastic Beasts articles since the cast members one is well sourced, while this one is not. Aspects (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to Fantastic Beasts having multiple articles, but the number of secondary articles on it seems vastly out of line with the material. Fantastic Beasts (film series) and the three film articles are sensible enough, Newt Scamander seems to have enough independant coverage - and crossover content between various things - that it's justified, but when you get to a list of the characters, and a cast list as a table without any context, it feels both redundant and weird. It feels like the cast list should be at the end of the article on the series, and the character list... well... it's really hard to see why that exists at all if this article the most we can come up with, and I don't think anything in it isn't in the cast sections of the articles for each film; indeed, I think those may be doing a slightly better job.

Harry Potter isn't a good guide to what should exist here, as that was a much, much bigger phenomenon than its spinoff, and, as a book series, had both a lot more characters than could plausibly fit in a plot summary and a lot more development and recurrence of minor characters (and Rowling talked a lot more about the development of those characters in interviews). Films just don't have the depth of books, and, if there's material about secondary characters that got left out of the films, as far as I'm aware, it's not reported on.

And, of course, Harry Potter in particular had a lot more secondary sources that went into detail about every character; Fantastic Beasts doesn't have anything like that depth of coverage. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there has to be a merge target as an WP:ATD for this. The one suggested above seems less intuitive than if the main article had a characters section. Perhaps each individual film should have a characters section? Conyo14 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They already do, is the thing, with one or two sentence descriptions of the characters. And it covers pretty much all the information on this page except for the main cast, who are redundant to the plot summary. If I've missed that one doesn't appear, by all means copy it over. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Fantastic Beasts cast members. I think there is enough to write about these characters, both as a group and individually, based on pop culture sources like [10], [11], and scholarly sources like here and many others. While it is indeed a problem that there are almost no references, this can easily be addressed through normal editing by using such secondary non-independent book-length sources like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Character Guide or Harry Potter: Characters of the Wizarding World. The latter also sets a precedent for a possible merge with List of Harry Potter characters, if a collective treatment is somehow seen as beneficial. (Which would pose the naming problem, where surly there can be a compromise if needed.) No strong opinion on that particular question. List of Fantastic Beasts cast members to me seems to have less content, so this could be merged here, discussion on the name notwithstanding. Or that list could be merged to Fantastic Beasts, as suggested this discussion, leaving the our list here with solvable problems to solve. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further pop culture sources, if somewhat focussed on a specific film of the series would be [12], [13], and with a fun bit of analysis, [14]. So again, that there is not enough sourcing to constitute an article does not at all seem to be the case. Daranios (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it feels redundant to the film articles, and there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article, but, well, sure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: there's an unstated presumption people care enough to actually make this into a decent article: On the one hand I think that's a valid concern, seeing that some articles stay tagged and unimproved for long periods of time. But on the other hand I think that is the basic premise of Wikipedia, and the project is immensly successful! So I prefer to err on the side of hope in accordance with WP:There is no deadline and especially WP:Work in progress. Daranios (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, but I think when the article's a spinoff that has redundant information to other articles at present, it's perhaps more of a question. As it stands, it's just the character lists already in the three films, but as an unreferenced, alphabetised list. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not turn List of Fantastic Beasts cast members into a Redirect as that article is being discussed as a possible Merge target article which can't occur if the page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but do note the entirety of List of Fantastic Beasts cast members is merged to Fantastic Beasts now, so unless we do combine, should redirect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Indiscriminate list full of unsourced original research. The few sources don't concern the subject matter at large, but specific pieces of fiction listed. Zanahary (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A completely indiscriminate, poorly sourced, example farm. Actual prose information on the topic of depictions of suicide in fiction could very likely be developed, either under the "Social and Culture" section of the main Suicide article or even potentially as its own article. But this list would not be useful at all in that endeavor since, as pointed out in the nomination, it does not actually include any sources on that topic, just a handful of specific examples, mainly just sourced to the pieces of fiction they are from. Rorshacma (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. The topic is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, besides being badly sourced. The subject of this article cannot practically built or maintained in a way that meets our policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a gigantic collection of indiscriminate information that could easily include a significant portion of every single fictional work ever created. Furthermore, the vast majority of it is completely uncited. It is simply impossible to maintain this type of list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Odd and seemingly random, it's totally unencyclopedic and poorly sourced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric K. Little

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

I tagged this for speedy deletion as an attack page, which was declined. Nevertheless it is not evident to me that the subject is really notable, and the purpose of the article appears to me to be to memorialise his misconduct. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sexual assault in the United States military: Seems to be the logical redirect, there is some coverage [15], but it's more about the scandal than the person here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. A US Major general removed due to sexism is significant. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was added with the intent that it demonstrates the issues that have come with US military confronting systemic issues that are prevalent within their ranks. Skuzbucket (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the article creator for this explanation. Please see WP:RGW. We don’t create biographies of living people to highlight broader issues. An article on the broader issue would be absolutely fine, but personalising it isn’t what we’re here for. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Not just an attack page, as he is a general and therefore plenty has been written about him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit

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

WP:OR / WP:MADEUP coinage. I find no evidence of the term "Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit" existing prior to this article's creation in 2012; every source that has used it has come afterward. Even in post-2012 material I see no WP:SIGCOV in sources that clearly qualify as WP:RS. The "circuit" is not mentioned in any of the article's references except for RetroSeasons (which postdates the WP article by several years and on one of its pages copies almost verbatim from it). One might agree or disagree that the early independent teams of western PA loosely constituted a "circuit", but it's not for Wikipedia to make up a capitalized name for it and treat it as an established concept. This isn't a case like the Ohio League, which, while not a league in any strict or formal sense, is attested in its own time and by historians. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination appears to be flawed as the nominator is taking issue with the title of the page, rather than the content. This is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. Article can be moved to a more appropriate title if desired. The content of the article satisfies GNG, so the article should be kept at this or another title. Frank Anchor 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the content, too, treats the "circuit" as a real (albeit loosely defined) thing that "operated from 1890 to approximately 1940", had its own championships, and lived on as the W. Pa. Senior Indep. Football Conference -- all apparently OR claims. The article could perhaps be rewritten as an article about a related but somewhat different subject -- the early history of professional football in Western Pennsylvania -- and be titled accordingly, but the content as it stands now relates to an OR concept. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam's Chicken

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

From this IP editor, here:

After attempting to clean up the article (with resistance), it has instead become apparent that it's a pretty clear fail of WP:NCORP. The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability. Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company. It might belong on some kind of "Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself. Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions. This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself. I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either. TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article.

Zanahary (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the IP editor. I tried to protect this article from spam promotion, but I did not stop to consider that the available reliable sources were non-existent. Be done with it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially thought the article might have a bit of notability but on a deeper analysis it is true the article is very weak and should be deleted Wiiformii (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks tasty, but GNG doesn't stand for generalized noshing guidelines. Actually mildly surprised by how little independent coverage about a place with this many locations, but if the sources don't exist, neither can the entry. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is clearly not notable per WP:NCORP or WP:N. OhHaiMark (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated of lack of notability. The article hasn't gotten any better in the eight years since it was created (compare) and is unlikely to in future, short of a radical change of circumstances for the subject. — Scott • talk 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete per the anonymous editor's unofficial-turned-official nomination statement. I did my best to correct the issues others raised only to find that once I'd cleared the article of junk, there was barely anything left. It's frustrating because while I understand others' notability concerns, I'm skeptical that a restaurant chain with dozens of locations has little to no potential to get there. City of Silver 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a UK fast food chain with 44 branches. Mostly in London, but as far north as Northampton, and as far south as the Isle of Wight. No one has done a proper WP:BEFORE search. There are plenty more sources out there. For example:

'I taste-tested KFC and Sam's and now I have a new fried chicken favourite'

WHAT THE CLUCK! FULL EXTENT OF SAM’S CHICKEN FOOD HYGIENE RATING REVEALED

Isle of Wight takeaway Sam's Chicken improves hygiene rating

CHICKEN LOVERS CLUCKING HAPPY AS SAM’S CHICKEN RE-OPENS

Bid to set up Essex's first Sam's Chicken in Southend

SAM’S CHICKEN BRINGS FRESH TASTE TO RYDE

Food in Herts: Five chicken shops in Hertfordshire that are 'better' than KFC

Does Harrow have too many chicken shops?

Kettering piri piri chicken shop plan gets green light despite nearby competitors' pleas

Hope that is enough. More available. Edwardx (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Edwardx and thankyou for doing that reasearch. Does enough to satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the sources above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Draftify‎. Malinaccier (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lindelwe Lesley Ndlovu[edit]

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

Another in a questionable series of articles created by this user on African businessmen and companies. Sources in this one are all WP:TRADES, WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS,WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, or links to data aggregators and mass awards that don't confer notability in and of themselves. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Nice resume (and the article reads like one), but not notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable business person, most coverage is what seem like non-RS, but I can't confirm which are or aren't. Happy to revisit if others can confirm the quality of the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Zimbabwe, Singapore, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, I would like to take my time and re-write it. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I would alternatively support draftification, but since another editor has !voted to delete, we now need to let the discussion proceed. (I can't do a non-admin closure in this instance.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in computer science[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inherently original research/synthesis. Previously survived AfD in 2006 when those policies weren't enforced I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, History, Science, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without clearly defined criteria for what "important" means, this article is as OR as it gets. The three criteria listed are subjective and (more damningly) unsourced. Only reference 11 approaches a treatment of this subject as a whole, and it's based on an informal survey conducted by somebody at Penn who made the results into a personal webpage. That's pretty weak. Other sources are all primary and don't discuss the topic of the list as a group, so this is a failure of WP:NLIST and grossly OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very much a violation of WP:OR to create a topic this way. Even with that aside, you'll often get some listing somewhere (course material, reviews in annals, etc.) describing seminal papers that may be required or important reading for those purusing advanced degrees in a specific field. That generally would not satisfy WP:NLIST and at most would just be a secondary source in the main article (in this case computer science) at best. This isn't a useful redirect either, so this comes across as a pretty unequivocal case for deletion. KoA (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swofford, Washington

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

Meany's (source 3)[16] definition of places is less stringent than Wikipedia's definition, which is legally recognized places. Meany wrote that Swofford (the man) set up a post office in the Swofford valley and later moved it to Mossy Rock. Places don't move, but post offices do (sometimes in shoe boxes). Washington State place names published in 1971 [17] Doesn't list swofford as a place. A rather unreliable source [18], but commonly referenced nonetheless lists this place, but all of the reliable sources used for their mention call it "Swofford Valley". Reading newspapers from the area reveals that the post office served the Swofford valley, and the people who lived in the valley used it's name to define where they lived. The Centralia Daily Chronicle in 1976 (July 1, 1976 Page 31[19]) explains that the valley had a rural farming community with a post office and a drug store. The reality is that these were probably not separate buildings, and it would not be all that unusual for this to actually be Swofford's residence as well. It is not a legally recognized place. Furthermore it's full name is "Swofford Valley". The confusion arises because post offices in the 1800's could only have one word names. If it is not deleted here I want want it moved to Swofford Valley, Washington. James.folsom (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must have missed this one when I was trying to clear Washington of non-existent place articles. Nom sums it up pretty well, a onetime rural post office named for the person who said "hey, my neighbors and I need a post office" isn't a community, and saying it "is" a community is plainly false as there is clearly nothing there: [20]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A couple books from 1922 and 1923 describe it as a town, and Swofford cemetery is nearby, though it's described as now being in Mossyrock. I've also seen conflicting contemporary reports that say it's just a post office from a smallpox outbreak around the turn of the century, and that people were listed as being from Swofford in cattle and education reports in 1920 and 1923. There's some conjecture in the nom, and I think we can say there was a small community there at one point, even if it's clearly not referred to as Swofford any more. SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only place that was called swofford was the post office, in was in Swoffard Valley, but the postal service only used single words to name them at that time. The area was always known Swofford valley. Any newspapers that reported local news from "Swofford" did so because that was the post mark on the letter. The newspaper got that news by mail from who ever in the valley wrote in to report it. James.folsom (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention could you please source the claims in your argument. James.folsom (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strongly so. I asked on the Talk:Swofford, Washington page to pause any slotting of the article into AfD as I have sources (and still collecting more) to rewrite and expand the article to provide proof of a community. However, the AfD went ahead 4 hours later... I ask any admin or editor with AfD closure rights to please pause any action for a few days so that I (or others) can work on the page; see per WP:RUSHDELETE. In case there is any doubt, please see my efforts at Ceres, Washington, Cora, Washington, and Forest, Washington. Would a Template:Under construction be necessary/appropriate? Also, I have viewed similar sources that back up SportingFlyer's mentions. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finally finished updating and expanding other articles under AfD via the GNIS cleanup process so I'll be able to devote time tomorrow to add sourcing and expansion on the Swofford article. I again ask admins and those involved for a couple extra days before any potential actions to delete the Swofford page. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No. 2 The article has been expanded, mentioning both Swofford and Swofford Valley synonymously as the community does and backed up by sourcing. Relied on local news articles, as one does for small, rural communities in the USA. Article is written and sourced well-enough now, IMO, to further warrant Keep status. A quick note - news articles ref'd on the page consistently refer to Swofford as a town or community. I decided to go ahead and do the work straight to the article rather than my previous AfD-saving attempts of listing sources first on the talk page. It's just doing double the work and is by no means trying to circumvent anything. Being WP:BOLD? I dunno, just don't have the time to do twice the effort. Feel free to add or subtract from what I wrote on the article page...or leave some notes on what could be improved. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Schleicher

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

There is already a draft for this that has been rejected a few times. Pretty sure the author of the draft got tired and moved it to mainspace with no concensus. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was wrong. Turns out that the author of the draft is different than the user that created the page. The person who created the page has been not warned however has created NUMEROUS speedily deleted articles through copyright. Assuming that the user that created the page just wanted to seem like the one who created it, even though they very obviously copied from the draft- which still exists, by the way. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I copied from the draft. This guy already has articles in Russian, Hebrew, Spanish, and Galician (?!), so I don't understand why there are issues with the English version. This is an obviously notable Jewish painter; Wikipedia has used many of his paintings across a few articles, such as on the Talmud. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Then just resubmit it, if you think it is "obviously notable" 48JCL^TALK 11:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Your argument is a different version of WP:WAX. Look at Draft:Nahal Rafiah. Just because it has a Hebrew version does not immediately make it notable. 48JCL^TALK 11:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally ignore Wikipedia essays and only follow the policies and guidelines, so I do not accept the premises behind WP:WAX. I agree with you that an article existing in just one other language does not make it notable; however, I get a feeling that this article about Carl Schleicher would exist without any issues in *every other language* except in English. Maybe the original creator of the draft had a poor first draft which attracted (now undue) attention? Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Austria, Italy, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, why do you think he is non-notable? FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am putting this for AfD is because it is completely stolen from a draft. Also, wouldn’t it still be in draftspace, as that draft was rejected twice and never touched again? 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, I'm not sure on the specific policy implications. However, I don't think we should delete an article about a notable person if it is avoidable. Do you happen to know what the policy on this sort of thing is? FortunateSons (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the comments left by the reviewer:

Comment: This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion. You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse. In particular, see and refer to WP:NARTIST for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against. Where are his works on display? What has been written about him by art critics? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where are his works on display? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been moved back from article space to draft space. Please read the comments by the draftifying reviewer and address them. Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. If you do not understand why this article was sent back to draft space, please ask the reviewer rather than simply resubmitting. You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.) If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement, it will probably be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL^TALK 11:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That provides context, but unfortunately does not answer any of my questions? FortunateSons (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons It could be notable who knows? But all the real sources providing notability like BBC are dead links. The references are formatted very sloppily. Using ref tags to make Efns is definitely not something a normal person would do. 48JCL^TALK 03:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article is less than great, agreed so far. However, being in significant need of improvement is not a deletion criteria.

The dead BBC links are a problem, and I couldn’t find an archived one, so this probably does not meet notability criteria now. FortunateSons (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on CBC commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I found only this so far [21]. So, maybe more exist? Otherwise it's WP:LISTCRUFT mixed with WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source appears to be from the CBC, and as such isn't independent. I can't find much else so far. Let'srun (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should as a secondary option, be merged with the main CBC Olympic broadcasts article. Otherwise, a lot of great effort has hopefully recently been made to provide better context and information (there are now, about 60 references that have been added) behind the extensive history of CBC's Olympic Games coverage in Canada dating back to the early 1960s and to make it less "bare bones" looking. Here's some additional information on CBC's Olympic telecasts of recent times: Steve Armitage retires after 50-plus years calling Olympics and more for CBC, Famed CBC announcer Steve Armitage will miss Rio Olympics over heart problems, CBC’s Devin Heroux shares how he won’t be going to Beijing after December positive COVID test, illustrating wider media concerns, With Canada’s women’s curling team eliminated from Olympic medal contention, Canadian Twitter is upset…at the CBC’s Colleen Jones?, Support pours in for CBC’s Elliotte Friedman, who’s still hard on himself, VIDEO: CBC announcer mixes up Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte during 200 IM Final, CBC hot mic catches swimming analyst saying 14-year-old “died like a pig”. Also from the CBC Media Centre, CBC'S TOKYO 2020 BROADCAST TEAM, CBC'S OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES BEIJING 2022 .... A "full" list of CBC's television personalities can be found here. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the sources; the first three sources are about the announcers, the one about Canada’s women’s curling team (source 4) are about the team, the other three about the games itself and the last two are WP:PRIMARY. Anything supporting this list is doing nothing for it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep copy/paste rationale, no evidence of a WP:BEFORE check. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you accuse me of a copy/paste rationale, I have made a WP:BEFORE check. I already debunked the new sources above. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 62 sources have been added since nomination. WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This does not meet the WP:LISTN as the group isn't discussed in non-primary sources or really any RS whatsoever. The sources are either YouTube links, press releases, blogs, or are from the CBC. Another example of WP:REFBOMBING. Let'srun (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found this [[22]] (1/3), [[23]] (2/3), [[24]] (3/3), but it appears to just republishing a press release. Probably should be a delete unless better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added at this very moment. Thus, far sources for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 1964 Winter Olympics, and the list of hosts that ABC utilized have been added. Also, a lead section has finally been added. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main ABC Olympic broadcasts as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the new source: some of those are about the announcers, some are about the games itself, one is links to YouTube videos. In short, not helping much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there is a book on the subject within the ABC Olympic broadcasts article. Willing to change my !vote if sources from the time period are found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on ABC on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT applies. A merger would be better. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination, WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 23 May 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, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ABC Olympic broadcasts: Subject does not have the needed coverage from secondary sources as a grouping to meet the WP:NLIST. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all of the names of the commentators and what respective events that they worked on for each of ABC's Olympic broadcasts that have been listed are for the most part, accounted for reference/sourcing wise. There are now over 200 sources spanning from 1964-1988. Also, the article touches in depth, arguably two of the most significant or well known moments in ABC's Olympic history, Jim McKay's reporting on the 1972 Munich massacre and Al Michaels' calling what would become known as the "Miracle on Ice" in 1980. So it isn't merely just a list of commentators, there's some context behind it. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gordon University – Garthdee campus

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

This whole page reads like an overly detailed promotional pamphlet for the Robert Gordon University, and the main Robert Gordon University article has most, if not all, of the useful information from this article in its Garthdee campus section UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Robert Gordon University Charlie (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like one very-detailed long-winded advertisement promoting the campus. I wouldn't even suggesting merging it as the main Robert Gordon University article seems to already have all the relevant information about the campus. 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:984F:1071:4595:9DCE (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)— 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:984F:1071:4595:9DCE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I created this article as the content was making the university article very long. Concerns about it being promotional can be addressed through editing. However, there is sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having edited down a couple of articles with the same or similar issues, I edited down a couple of sections on this article and they ended up resembling the main Robert Gordon University article - the RGU:Sport section on here is now shorter than the one on the main RGU article. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ludwig of Wettin[edit]

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

I am not convinced this person exists. Louis Frederick of Saxe-Hildburghausen is listed as his father, but that article says he was childless. He is listed as being made a cardinal but none of the lists of cardinals created between 1741 and 1830 list his name. He is listed as an archbishop of Olomouc but List of Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops of Olomouc does not mention him or have any gaps during his lifetime. The German Wikipedia article that text is apparently copied from is about a different person. I cannot find him mentioned in the online copies of either of the article's references. Various Google / online book searches only turn up text from this article and unrelated princes called Ludwig. Mgp28 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Religion. Mgp28 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a misreading of sources or a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Austria, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations. Contradicts other articles that say his supposed father was childless. Probable hoax. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. And the contradiction with other articles is not really helping. Keivan.f^Talk 13:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Article creator only made 4 mainspace edits. C 679 06:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live with Moeed Pirzada[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Page relies mostly on what I safely can call [unreliable sources]. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 86.130.244.141 (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNCE-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Filipetto[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The 2 sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Ethiopia, Cambodia, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. If there were more sources then it would've been fine. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Boshoff[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect (no list for Zimbabwean internationals currently exits) per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hein Potgieter[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could only really find this. More needed for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Beerwinkel[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found three sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of team announcements etc, but struggling to see anything else to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He helped people or did something which leads to an award isn't notability. Though there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, they don't independently and significantly cover him. However, there is still clue for notability maybe in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memento Exclusives[edit]

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

WP:COI article moved to mainspace, skipped AfC in contravention of policy. Paid editor created an article for this company and its founder, who is also up at AfD. In the case of Memento Exclusives/Memento Group, the sourcing does not support notability under WP:NCORP. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sources are almost exclusively WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like press releases, WP:INTERVIEWS or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Other coverage is limited to WP:TRADES publications, which do not contribute to notability for companies. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO, and without sufficient WP:SIRS, this article doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Motorsport, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom. All the independent coverage is not WP:SIGCOV and all the WP:SIGCOV coverage is not independent. Article moved to mainspace in clear contravention of WP:AFC rules for WP:PAID editors. No real claim to notability. Surprising to see an established editor with 4000+ edits and with apparent affiliation with Wikimedia act with such brazen disregard with settled policy. Melmann 19:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete - "independent" coverage is limited to brief passing mentions ("X teamed up with subject to do Y", focusing on X and Y and not subject, with the sources often being closely related to X in the first place). Possibly worth reporting to WP:ANI due to being a paid article made in obvious violation of relevant policy. I do have to wonder what this "research" is that the user is undertaking that would cause such atrocious paid content to appear in mainspace. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As above. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Oh I wanted to AFD this but thanks I saw this after voting from the founders page. A promotional WP:PE and doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Gough (businessman)[edit]

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

WP:COI article moved to mainspace and skipped AfC in contravention of policy. Paid editor created an article for this businessman and his company, Memento Exclusives, which will also be sent to AfD shortly. In the case of Barry Gough, the sourcing does not support notability under WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are almost exclusively WP:PRIMARYSOURCE or WP:TRIVIALMENTION. For example, the Mirror piece solely interviews the subject, and the Times article is an as-told-to WP:INTERVIEW. Other sources, in-article and in BEFORE search, are similar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Motorsport, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete - Rich guy paid a few outlets to interview him, then paid a Wikipedia editor to compile those interviews. Barely ambiguous enough that G11 probably wouldn't work, but barely. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paid articles don't establish notability. Azuredivay (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PR published source and unreliable sources. The company doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. In TOTAL, a promotional article that doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notcoin[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:NCRYPTO as it has no real coverage outside of crypto-centric news orgs. – Hilst [talk] 16:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. – Hilst [talk] 16:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I guess A7 doesn't cover crypto stuff. E: Oh well, may as well pile on another delete, I really think crypto stuff should be included in A7. Maybe I should start a discussion on getting it added. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) (E: 14:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator as failing WP:NCRYPTO without independent source interest. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCRYPTO. Not notable, one sentence of content, and an orphan. The page creator also seemed to have foreseen this outcome in the edit summary for its creation here, justifying the article's existence using wishful thinking. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 18:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if not A1. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was ‎ speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Jamal Al-Omar[edit]

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

Lack of notability. I got fed up with looking at the references; as the identical titles suggest all thosse I looked at were mirrors of the same content. Which is spam flavoured, and is not about the subject of this article. TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheLongTone, thanks for raising this. You're right that press releases often share similar titles, and that can be frustrating when searching for references.

However, in this case, the references we have come from credible sources. For instance, the OJO Group website lists Omar Jamal Al-Omar as their Chairman and details his role within the company. URL: https://ojogroup.net/chairman-message.

Additionally, the University of Notre Dame's Kroc Institute website showcases Omar's work as their Program Coordinator for the Peace Accords Matrix.

While the titles might be similar, the content itself should provide distinct information about Omar's accomplishments and experience.

If you'd like some help evaluating the references or finding additional ones, feel free to ask! We can work together to ensure this Wikipedia article is well-sourced and informative. Khushboojain191 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 15:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources present which can be considered reliable, third-party sources to support notability, because literally every source here is a press release. Although some of the venues that opted to publish these press releases may produce their own content and have that content deemed reliable, press releases never establish notability. Lubal (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:A7 and WP:G11. No independent refs and horrifically promotional. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was redirect‎ to Mathematics (album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Energy (Melissa Manchester song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Dug through everything including WP:LIBRARY and only found passing mentions. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, no significant coverage in reliable sources and fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSINGLE. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematics (album); absolutely nothing to suggest that this song meets notability criteria.TheLongTone (talk)
Redirect - agree with User:TheLongTone Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematics (album) - It was released as a single and someone else did a cover version, but neither of those rose beyond fan trivia. The fact that it was released as a single can be described at the album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul (scientist)[edit]

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

Unnotable individual fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines see WP:SIGCOV. Most of the existing sources are unreliable and not independent of the subject. The individual also has no significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Scotland. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 15:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – After being appointed to a personal chair, Paul was appointed director of a cancer institute and then during his tenure the research capability was transformed with the Beatson becoming an internationally acclaimed organisation. He was awarded an honorary Dsc. The obituary published in the Independent included that "During his most productive years his publications were among the 1,000 most-cited scientific papers in the world". Clearly meets WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a hint: when someone gets an obituary in the top journal of their field, they have made a significant impact on their field. Also with an obituary in The Independent, etc. speedy keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above he passes WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, supporting/agreeing with the comments above. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Klenkle[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, biographical coverage in independent sources is absent. Cited sources largely just describe FreemiumPlay, a business the subject founded, which might be notable; if an article can be created for that subject, it would make sense to redirect there, but until then I don't see a basis for a page at this title. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. I don't know who wrote this, but the use of bare links to his own website(s) and a head shot are red flags. In 2024, everyone knows, or should know, that we are not your free web host. WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Ireland Historical Society[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Sources cited in the article are all primary. Searching on Google Scholar and Google Books, I was able to find mentions of the COIHS in citations and acknowledgements, but no significant independent coverage. Searching online, I was able to find some concerning, scandalous, coverage that still appears to fall short of the ORGCRITE line: two letters to the editor in The Independent ([25], [26]) alleging that the COIHS played a key role in covering up a child sex abuse scandal in the Irish church, and two articles in The Phoenix making the same assertion in passing ([27], [28]). I was able to find exactly one likely (but paywalled) example of significant coverage in an independent RS ([29]) reporting on the same allegations, although even if we assume the absolute best of this source, we fall short of ORGCRITE's requirement of multiple such sources. I tried to look for potential merge targets on Wikipedia but didn't find anything promising. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, and Ireland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator source analysis. I also tried to identify a redirect, but the organization appears independent from the Church of Ireland and I couldn't identify another option superior to deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own WP:BEFORE returns the same coverage/mentions that the nominator identified in their own. Namely things like ROTM announcements in the Irish Times and mentions in letters to the editor in the Irish Independent. Or this in The Phoenix. A search in RTÉ returns only a single similar/fleeting passing mention. The only substantial coverage I can find is the same article (titled "Historical society accused of 'rewriting' its own past" and subtitled "Church of Ireland Historical Society removes references to founder following accusations of child sexual abuse") noted by the nom. Which, on its own, doesn't establish independent notability of the org. I also can't conceive of target for a redirect. Or other WP:ATD. Guliolopez (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully, since my paternal grandmother was a member of the CoI. There's just not enough sourcing. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not many reliable sources out there. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets criterion 2 of WP:NALBUMS as it charted in Japan. Plus I added another reference. J04n(talk page) 15:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Japanese chart source is dispositive. Also discussed in reliable sources from BEFORE search: Rock Extreme and DiPerna. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stnh1206 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Energy Water[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, sourced only by press releases, and in a WP:BEFORE search all I could find was even more press releases. They've worked with some notable companies, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. No indication of notability for any of the awards they've won. Spammy tone can be fixed, but notability issue will remain, so I can't really be asked to clean this up. Wikishovel (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. Wikishovel (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I honestly don't think the tone can be fixed here without effectively starting from scratch. Blow it up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find independent significant sources. Most are press releases. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Hkkingg (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulaye Boureima Katkoré[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, essentially no coverage in secondary sources. The cited secondary coverage in the article is primarily about an incident where Katkore was treated by a field medic during an international friendly match ([30]), and goes further to establish the notability of the medic than of Katkore. I was unable to find any additional coverage searching for variations of his French name as well as his Arabic name (بوريما كاتاكوري ), as well as the alt-spelling "Katakore" (which turns up some additional mere mentions in rosters, but nothing GNG-worthy). Somewhat confusingly, Arabic sources (including the prior Al-Jazeera link) appear to prefer referring to the subject as Katkore-Boureima, rather than Boureima-Katkore, and often omit his first name; searching for these permutations in Arabic and French did not turn up any significant coverage, however. There also appears to be an unrelated Algerian player named Boureima Katkore ([31]) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Africa, and Saudi Arabia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep—Obviously a fixture on the Niger national football team with 48 caps over the course of a decade. This should easily stand in for a lack of WP:SIGCOV, especially given that he is from an area that is well within the limits of WP:BIAS and plays in a league that does not garner much genuine media coverage. There must be some reasonable measure of significance based on senior international appearances, regardless of nation or league, and 48 caps for a national team that does not play a heavy yearly schedule should easily fall within that measure. This player is clearly very important to Nigerien football and the country's national team. Anwegmann (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though he actually has 59 caps for Niger, making him the third most-capped player in Niger national football team history. And according to this article, he is also the captain of the Niger national team. Anwegmann (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anwegmann, there are clearly sources out there and he has a significant claim to notability. Giant Snowman 16:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He actually has 55 caps [32], the problem with Africa, it really doesn't have the same media coverage like America and Europe. So that can be a problem, but with the amount of top football he has played. There must be more on him, that what is online. I am going to have to put my faith for WP:OFFLINESOURCES here. Hoping there is more. Govvy (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The player spent time in Lebanon. I'm therefore pinging @Nehme1499, not to sway the !vote, but to attempt to find constructive sources. Geschichte (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article is good enough to establish notability. Aside that, WP:ANYBIO is sufficient for a entry. Per such an article, more sources exists. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Draftify‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bartosz Brzęk[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG--other than publications affiliated with his team, Lechia Gdansk, there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of Brzęk available, with several pages of Polish search results containing only very brief mentions in match reports. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify—Appears to be a clear example of WP:TOOSOON. He's a young player who has made a handful of meaningful but inconsistent appearances for a senior professional team (that is now in the Polish first division again). He definitely only starting out. Anwegmann (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 16:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà[edit]

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

No assertion of WP:NBIO for a living person. The article is largely a very dubious exercise in claiming titles defunct since the Middle Ages. Main 'scholarly' source is an article at the Social Science Research Network that does not appear to have been published in academic journals and thus not subject to peer review. Constantine ✍ 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, the only substantive source here is effectively self-published. Nor does there appear to have been any interest in reliable sources of the holders in pretense to a title that has been irrelevant since the mid-15th century. Lubal (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Respectfully, why do you view this as dubious? There are many articles, of various descendants, of various Houses on WP. This is no different, and as a researcher of this particular area of history, Frankokratia and the Principality of Achaea, it absolutely seemed appropriate for there to be an article created, especially after seeing that a recent case study was written about the topic. As to your other points, a good portion of the paper discusses the claims of the extinct Italian Tocco family until 1933, with the death of its last claimant, less than one hundred years ago, so this is not something that hasn't been thought about since the middle ages as you said but it has been present almost until WWII. The case study that you mentioned was in fact picked up by the "Legal History eJournal," curated by a known professor at Yale University, Reva Siegel of the Law School. I would not have used this source if it appeared that a trusted expert had not laid eyes on it as I fully know and understand the rules of WP.

Thanks. Eugene de Moree (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Eugene de Moree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article itself is about a non-notable person, whose biographical details occupy a handful of lines and are nothing extraordinary. Most of the content is about the titles, rather than their current presumed holder. This might be OK for a blog article, not an encyclopedia. On the various articles about various descendants of nobility, yes, they exist, but then the descendants are notable, or at least the titles are notable; the pretender to the throne of France is of a different order of notability than the Damalades. Wikipedia also has deleted articles for nobles who did not satisfy criteria for notability, even from royal houses, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark. The most important problem with the rest of the article is that it makes unsupported claims. Assuming the lineage is correct (which is always a big if with genealogy, especially the Zaccaria-Damalas connection, I have had quite a few battles over this over at the Damalas talk page), at one point one of his ancestors had the title 'King and Despot of Asia Minor', which was a one-off symbolic award without any real substance, as Asia Minor was lost to the Turks at the time. The article makes the casual reader think that this title had substance, through the entirely erroneous and unsupported assertion that Martino did control a sizable portion of the defined boundaries of this Kingdom, he did not control it in its entirety...reclaim the said territories, which is patently false as soon as you look upon a map and compare Chios, Phocaea, and Smyrna to the rest of Asia Minor. Furthermore, I am not aware of any Damalas-Zaccaria claim to the title of Prince of Achaea, in contrast to the well attested Tocco claim. Whether the Tocco had the right or not, they laid claim; the Damalades, who for most of the period were an obscure Chiot family, did not. The article suggests that these titles are claimed by 'Prince Constantine' by virtue of descent, but whether he knows or is interested in such a claim is uncertain; the phrasing of the article is almost teleological, but thin on evidence on that matter. It is not for Wikipedia's users to award him these titles because of Salic (or any other) law, or making judgments based on the observed dynastic succession. This is the essence of WP:NOR. If this person makes these claims and if these are recognized by independent authorities (i.e., not someone who was paid for the job), and if this claim, or any other of his actions, attract notability sufficient to satisfy our criteria, then he is to be included here. Constantine ✍ 15:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how being heir to the patrimony of this historic family is not noteworthy in its own right. Not to mention the close relations to the last members of the Byzantine imperial family through blood and marriage. As a historian, I would absolutely say that this is worth people being able to read about. Perhaps make some corrections, sure, but this should be out there, and this is why I created the page after finding the very valuable case study. I do think that you may have some misunderstanding on what I wrote about Martino though, because the Lordship of Chios (which I linked in the text) was more than Chios and Phocaea. So I am not sure how one could think that I was being misleading. Martino's kingly title was titular in nature, yes, but a high hereditary honour nonetheless. Actually, the fact that it was not attached to an actual fief means that it's transmission to descendants is cleaner than that of other royal titles that were attached to territories that are now lost. It is one of the very few instances in history where the title of king has been given as a titular honour, and therefore would legally remain fully intact today. Just these few things are notable. Lastly, the case study plainly states that Constantine knows about his patrimonial inheritance. It also says the strict method of ascertaining the proven genealogical connection. The fact that you thought otherwise leads me to believe that you did not fully read the study. Eugene de Moree (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, all the information about Constantine Zaccaria Damala is taken from "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea". “The handful of lines” is because I am not in a position to know further insights about this person apart from what is already written in this particular article. Also, personal information can be found in the new publication of the Annuario, on the page discussing the history of house Zaccaria-Damalas, and was sent to me through mail. The Annuario does not approve nobility status without a rigid reflection first. Obviously, the British Royal family members have a greater degree of notability than each member of the house Zaccaria-Damala. Still, this article is about the Head of the House, not a brother, sister, cousin, or a distant relative and certainly, this is NOT the first case of a noble in WP with only a handful of information to adorn his/her page. The few insights provided (parents, wife, place, date of birth) do not mean this person doesn’t exist.

Martino indeed controlled Chios, Phocaea, and half of the city of Smyrna for some time, the titular imperial couple of the Latin Empire recognized this sovereignty. The diploma was granted in 1324 and Martino lost Chios in 1329, certainly, the Kingdom that Emperor Philip and Empress Catherine envisioned and for which they even crafted a crown and appropriate regalia was one where Chios, etc were included. This is why I linked the page Lordship of Chios to the chapter of the article. If you read the diploma -I linked it to the page references- you shall see that the imperial Latin couple of Naples are especially specific on what they offer to Martino and that this is very true and not a vague idea.

The article makes it clear that after the mid-15th century, the Zaccaria-Damalas family did not openly claim the title of the Prince of Achaea, and the title was monopolized by house Tocco (where in the article I mention that the post-1469 Zaccarias held the title?), though it concludes that with the extinction of the Tocco line in 1933, the senior descendant of house Damalas (for reasons analyzed in detail by the author) can rightfully claim the title now that is vacant for decades.

“not someone who was paid for the job”

These accusations are concerning and it is more useful to be avoided as they are potentially directed against an academic of Yale University and a researcher for whom we know nothing in order to insult them this way and are not present in the undergoing discussions to support their thesis. Eugene de Moree (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The study is interesting, but it is not WP:RS as it has not undergone peer review. I have perused it, and though it states that Constantine Paul Damalas is interested and took steps to verify his descent and lineage, that's about it. The very abstract of the study is clear IMO: "This study delves into the intricate succession landscape surrounding the medieval title of Prince of Achaea...its theoretical rehabilitation in favor of the Damalas descendants of the Zaccaria Princes of Achaea", and this is reinforced later on "since the current claim that is available to Constantine Paul Damalas" (p. 98). I.e., this study is an examination of descent and possible claims under a legal perspective, and nothing more. The assignation of these titles as is done in the article is yet to be established.

Plus, as I have stated in a different discussion we had, this cannot be seriously considered a WP:RS without the actual study to examine and verify. My reference to being paid for something is exactly on this, as the study was clearly commissioned by someone, and not undertaken in the interests of scholarly research (MyHeritage is not an academic institution, but a fee-based service). Taking an uncharitable view, this is no different than all the medieval upstart monarchs who paid some scholar to 'discover' links to the ancient Greeks, Romans, or Jews. As a lot of the argument hinges on this study, color me unconvinced. But the veracity or not of the claim is indeed somewhat beside the point: the article simply does not establish notability of the subject per WP:NBASIC. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on upstart monarchs conducting fraudulent discoveries, still Annuario della Nobiltà holds some very strict requirements on accepting new houses to be included on its pages and there's no way to grant nobility status without extensive research. As there is a scientific committee conducting independent research. The paper of Stornaiolo Silva cites Annuario and makes it clear that the aristocratic status of Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà has been approved. The Annuario would thoroughly examine her work and would not publish it if she could not provide the extensive proof that they require. The MyHeritage chart seems like a simplification of her research to help the reader have all the genealogical information in one file.

I think there is even a small degree of notability through Annuario and "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea" and the little information available is not against the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia. Especially when we are dealing with members of old dynasties lost in history, usually, we have scarce information known, but that doesn't stop many editors from actually establishing a small article about them with four or five lines.

The paper states clearly that Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà is actively pursuing the princely title since 2023. Eugene de Moree (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Annuario della Nobiltà still hasn't published the newest version that is referenced in the article though, so verification remains an issue... And again, the veracity of descent is one thing, the active pursuit of the nobiliary claim another, and notability a third. The deletion request is based on notability, not of the family or the title, but of the holder. Even complete frauds like Peter Mills or Eugenio Lascorz have some wider presence in scholarly literature, which attests to their notability. Here we have no information other than this person exists, and that from a non-RS. Constantine ✍ 20:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding proof of inclusion in the Annuario. For the same reason, I reached out to the author of the case study to see proof of this when writing this article. He produced this proof in the form of a PDF, which is an extract from the Annuario's database and is exactly how the pages will appear in the next edition. I received this as well as an email where the editor confirmed the successful review of all documentation and approval for publication. I can readily provide the same proof that was provided to me.

As I mentioned in several other comments, being the head/senior heir of this lineage is historically notable in itself. There are many examples on WP where this is sufficient to demonstrate notability, but a few examples would be: "Princess Vittoria of Savoy", "Prince Jaime, Duke of Noto", and "Joachim, Prince of Pontecorvo." All of these either have little biographical information, nothing truly noteworthy besides the noble lineage that they come from, or both. Furthermore, none are heads of their respective Houses either, unlike Constantine.There are many, many more on WP, and if really necessary, I will share more. I should hope that this is strong enough reasoning to conclude that notability shouldn't be an issue here, and the only way that it could be would be to pick favorites. We should be encouraging the coverage of all history, not only the mainstream and I know that you agree with that.

It would be one thing if this person had some ridiculous imaginary Order of Knighthood or was granting bogus titles, but as explicitly mentioned in the case study, he nor his family have ever done anything of the sort nor they claim to be "the last Palaiologoi alive" and I found that refreshing and worthy of recording/highlighting their respectable patrimony for others to read.

The thing is, an argument for his notability would have been more legitimate if he had "granted bogus titles", because then there would be press about his actions. The fact of the matter is he has not done anything worthy of note, especially in regard to this noble family that he is supposedly the head of. It doesn't matter if you find it "refreshing" and "worthy of recording".. it hasn't been "recorded" by legitimate independent sources. He is not notable. Virtue is not a credential for establishing notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I will agree with you on, is that there needs to be an explicit mention that Constantine claims his hereditary inheritance. It is clear from the study that he is interested, but it doesn't explicitly state that he is claiming it. I don't think this is a reason to delete the article, but it is reason enough to reword it to reflect this current understanding.

Actually in the article one can find much more information about this case, that I did not added at the current WP article, but now that I rethink of it, I should have. These will boost the notability of this person as they include information that prove that this "Achaean case" is too singular to be ignored. Eugene de Moree (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that could establish notability of this person would be reliable, independent sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any kind of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As someone interested in late Frankokratia, I welcomed the addition of previously unknown information on the topic. Just as with other defunct countries, if there are heirs living to this day, then it is definitely notable and this page should ex as the articles of other heirs doist. Also, I would like to add that perhaps editors responding here should take the time to read the entire case study as I have done, since all the points against this article are not accurate or true. This reis is longer than the time it took some to reply here. Alfor tome to so say that there is no notability of any kind is absurd, and likely anti-monarchist biaOtherwise, one would have to delete all pages on the topic of heirs. s. Laurelius (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Laurelius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I can assure you I have no "anti-monarchist bias" as I have created hundreds of articles on royal and noble persons. But I see no notability established within this article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I was not referring to you, but the user that only wrote that it was not notable. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Laurelius (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been included in the Yale ejournal and has been curated by an academic of the university. I contacted the author of the article before establishing the page and he mailed me that this article is going to be published as a book in the near future with a greater decree of information available about the topic. He mentioned that the publisher is an active one in the academic field. By what I understood, the book will be concluded in the next months. Eugene de Moree (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things may change in the future. But right now, "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea" appears to be only on SSRN, which is considered a self-published source here (it's a pre-print archive with no peer review), and as far as I can tell, no edition of Annuario della Nobiltà supporting this article's claims has actually been published yet. If that comes out, and "Achaean Disputes" gets publication in a book with reliable editorial oversight, it may be appropriate to revisit this. Also, keep in mind that "notable" is a term of art at Wikipedia; just because something is "not notable" in Wikipedia's sense doesn't mean it isn't interesting or even important, just that it does not satisfy the requirements for inclusion. Lubal (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not self published https://www.ssrn.com/link/legal-history.html, the professor reviewed and agreed that it was worthy of posting in her eJournal at Yale. Also Annuario is going to be published this November and its content is most likely finished thus it's hard to imagine that an author whose working with Yale University would use references from the Annuario without having access to the text. Also the genealogical research of Ms Souli has been approved by the committee of Annuario as they informed me.

I understand your concerns and I share some of them. My proposal is for the article to remain but it must be heavily edited as its current form is problematic. More personal nformation about Constantine Zaccaria Damalà should be added (taken from the "Achaean Disputes, one can find more there) while the passages discussing the titles of this person should be reduced.

If in the next months the research of Stornaiolo Silva is not published as a book with academic editorial oversight and the publication of Annuario makes no mention of the protagonist of this case, then I will nominate it for deletion myself. Eugene de Moree (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion nomination discussion is happening now, because sources do not exist. If sources are created after the deletion, then you could re-write the article. But as it stands now, this subject is not notable in any way. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with some of the previous voters. Self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability, no matter where they are published. Keivan.f^Talk 13:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - scion of a country that hasn't existed for hundreds of years is not the allegation of notability that a few folks think it is. Otherwise, hundreds of people would be notable. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many people do you know are senior agnates/legal heirs to any former sovereign state? Even if there were hundreds, compared to over eight billion people, that's rather notable. It is one thing to argue that it doesn't meet WP guidelines, sure, but let's not be ridiculous. Royal and even noble families routinely die out in the legitimate male line, and that is the rule, not the exception. When there are extant families, the only relevant person is the senior heir if we're being honest with ourselves. Sorry to be so blunt, but some of the comments need stay in reality instead of becoming emboldened by the scales of opinion here. Laurelius (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, Wikipedia's guidelines on notability are not established by who we do or don't know. If he were notable, he would have been written about. No one here is sharing personal opinions on the matter.. we are simply reminding you of Wikipedia policy and guidelines for articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understood, this is about WP guidelines. I think the disconnect here is that WP's idea for notable is not the same as in reality/everyday life. The actual definition of notable is: "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable," and the definition of remarkable is: "worthy of attention; striking." If you were to go to a party, and someone pointed out that the individual of this discussion was there, and disclosed the facts about them, it would absolutely be remarkable and striking because it is not something "run-of-the-mill" as one commenter erroneously tried to suggest, it's very rare to come across. If he has been a private individual, you wouldn't find much on him, but it doesn't reduce the fact that his existence is infact notable. I can respect that WP can do whatever it wants with its guidelines/rules, and I respect the very successful platform that has been built, but let's at least acknowledge the glaring difference of what the dictionary/humans says notable is, and what WP says it is, even if only for the sake of helping newer users understand this and not polarize discussions. We don't have be androids about it when you're not speaking to an android at the other end of the keyboard. That is just my two cents, and I'm sure it will be met by some technical, rule based response, which will completely miss my point just like the other points made here, but that's okay. Laurelius (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Annuario has already confirmed this person as a noble and head of house Zaccaria Damalà. It is only a matter of time until it's published and I have the full reference so to use it in WP and I will! I've made contact with them before making the article as it would have been absurd to establish an article without further knowledge of the situation. Actually house Damalas Zaccaria has a confirmed connection to the rulling families of Byzantine Empire (house Kantakouzenos, Asen, Palaiologos) and of course the Principality of Achaea-Morea and its nobility status is not something debatable (also confirmed by Annuario). Eugene de Moree (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is not notable. The Annuario does not establish WP:GNG. If he does not meet the GNG guidelines, he is not notable. If it is "only a matter of time", then you can wait to write the article again. As it stands now, there are no credible, independent sources that establish his notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wun-Chang Shih[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. No international medal placements at all. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Taiwan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of Chinese sources with SIGCOV (eg, Liberty Times[33], [34], Central News Agency [35], My Formosa [zh][36]). His coaching career has also received media coverage (eg, TVBS News[37], Mirror Media[38], Central News Agency[39], [40]) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Prince of Erebor. /Julle (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources for SIGCOV.WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Paws[edit]

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

Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb (talk) 17:23, 14 May 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 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Procedural Close, as no deletion argument has been presented. The article certainly needs to be rewritten to remove POV issues, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the references in the article already present the subject's notability. Silver seren^C 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is requested based on dated news articles, no more relevant. 1nicknamesb (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being sourced to older articles is not a basis for deletion alone, but only [41] appears to be significant coverage of the organization itself so I don't think it passes WP:NORG. The sources seem to be news (WP:NOTNEWS) about an injured dog and imported pets or routine coverage of a small local organization. Reywas92^Talk 17:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.

These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. Silver seren^C 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also likely external influence on the article (and possibly this AfD) due to some controversial claims in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone (2nd nomination) Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A flawed nomination is not a reason for a procedural close once a valid Delete !vote has been voiced. Please address the sourcing to determine if this meets our guidelines. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Orzech

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Artur Orzech

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

Seems to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL reality show host. Fails WP:GNG. 178.164.179.49 (talk) 06:43, 8 May 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 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which reality show? He did not nor does he currently host a reality show. He is an accomplished artist and journalist with very wide recognition in Poland and pretty cult following because of his hosting of the Eurovision transmissions. I wholeheartedly disagree with RUNOFTHEMILL label. 84.188.101.102 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-known Polish presenter and Eurovision Song Contest long-running commentator having commentated 26 contests. If we consider this RUNOFTHEMILL, we will need also to consider Peter Urban (presenter), José Luis Uribarri, José María Íñigo and many other well-known Eurovision Song Contest commentators' articles for deletion. Qcumber (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known" is not a valid reason for deletion. And don't do the Pokemon test. - 178.164.179.49 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, sir/madam, please, be polite. And explain me what does it mean "pokemon test". And if we need to consider this article for deletion, why don't we need to consider for deletion the articles I mentioned above then?

Thanks! Qcumber (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that the article is not expanded enough. Because of this 2021 events take the most part of the article. It's not good. The label prompts that someone will at least take the information from Polish Wiki. But I agree with 84.188.101.102 - I don't think that there is a srong reason to delete the article with RUNOFTHEMILL . Qcumber (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source in the article are routine mill entertainment news, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. BEFORE found similar, but nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be a well-known Polish journalist, and his references to music broadcasters and cited content appear to be verified.Sanwalniazik (talk) — Sanwalniazik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep. Could find more and better sources than on e.g. Fredrik Renander or Amun Abdullahi.Atlassian (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's focus on existing sourcs that establish notability, not on a subject's reputation or notoriety.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick googling showed many sources: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50].

As well as article collections with and about him [51], [52], etc. Atlassian (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider myself competent to evaluate their quality, but taken on face value, the Polish Wikipedia version of this page appears more thoroughly referenced. Lubal (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously passes GNG per sources on our WP page and Polish page, which also include a printed encyclopedia, more is easily findable via Google (see Atlassian examples above). The RUNOFTHEMILL label seems like an excuse to ignore the coverage and not provide an adequate deletion rationale, and describing the subject as a 'reality show host' shows that the IP (who has since made a lot of questionable edits) didn't even bother to read the page, let alone do a minimal WP: BEFORE. --Cavarrone 07:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First thoughts: this article in its current form is rather lopsided to focus on the "dismissal" and reads more like a news article about that occurrence rather than being a biography about Orzech. After review: other editors are correct in pointing out that the sources used here (and actually in the Polish Wiki as well) are passing mentions that he served as commentator, mainly for Eurovision. While at first I was impressed with the size of the Polish Wiki page and the idea that perhaps his bio was more developed there, it is in fact just a prose version of a list of times he'd provided commentary or hosted a program; more like a resume than a biographical overview. The provided sources do not go into any depth about the positions to establish his notability; the sources are instead about the events he was part of. Overall, I do not believe that the subject meets GNG and NBIO. Grk1011 (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per coverage which are extensive. Per sourcing which are third party and reliable. Overall I would say WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would concur with Grk1011's assessment of the article. The parts on his background and career at TVP are wholly unsourced, and background is also wholly unsourced on the Polish article. Even within the Polish article, which would be the main start for improving this article, it reads more like a CV/resume than an article, and there are large chunks which are unsourced and thus fails WP:VERIFY. WP:BLP, and specifically WP:BLPRS, means that we have to have sources for any information which is potentially challengeable, which would result in cause for the the first two paragraphs to be likely for removal. Taking that aside, we then have an article which is exclusively about the subject's issues with TVP management and the resultant removal from TVP and return following the change in government; having an article with only this means it would fail on WP:SIGCOV. In general I don't believe even with the sourcing available on the Polish Wikipedia or mentioned here that there is enough verifiable referencing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He is important enough that his departure from TVP in 2021 was covered by Polish newspaper of reknown, Gazeta Wyborcza, [53], and said article even included a (very short, yes) paragraph about his background (earlier career). Considering other sources present, I think the notability is here, sufficient if not impressive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is very popular and recognizable journalist and presenter in Poland. Besides, he is an iranologist and authored a book about Iran, as well as a musician, member of popular rock band. I have expanded the article basing on its Polish version and added some sources. Niegodzisie (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the appreciated expansion by Niegodzisie. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radix DLT[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill non-notable crypto project. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No claim to significance in the wider technological or financial community. Lack of WP:RS, the majority of sourcing is either blogspam or press releases. Principal contributor has only edited this article, and nothing else. Likely WP:PROMO, potentially in support of a pump-and-dump effort as cursory research indicates a recent promo push. Possibly undisclosed WP:PAID. Melmann 11:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it clearly has no claim to notability. OhHaiMark (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage in Finyear, Cryptonews and other non-RS sites are what I find, this is not a notable subject for wikipedia. Delete for lack of sourcing. What's used in the article is of the same quality... Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The project has blog articles going back many years, and has had peer reviewed academic papers published, unlikely to be pump and dump with that history. 2A02:C7C:F118:D600:8CE:2581:B679:4325 (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blog articles are really useless for notability as they have no editorial oversight. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more info. Could you show us some of the peer-reviewed academic sources covering the cryptocurrency? OhHaiMark (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a Forbes article covering the company. Forbes is a reputable source. https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2019/01/09/this-hermitic-engineer-is-plotting-the-death-of-blockchain/ Marepy (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's only one source. We need three to make this article notable enough to stay. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you the IP who noted the blog articles. If so, you'll need to edit exclusively logged-in so people won't think you're socking. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. I have seen so-called academic papers on the underlying algos written by Radix staffers. That does not count as an academic source, not least because it was not peer reviewed. MarcGarver (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. The Cerberus Paper has been peer reviewed

Source: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6h427354#author 2A02:C7C:F118:D600:8CE:2581:B679:4325 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Keadle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP does not meet GNG for WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Only elected office is hyper-local county commissioner which would not normally qualify as notable outwith exceptional circumstances.

Somewhat of a perennial candidate, but given that they generally failed to get past primaries (much less general elections) and lack the WP:SIGCOV that would be needed for a perennial candidate to be notable (c.f. Howling Laud Hope or Count Binface), I don't believe they're over the line.

Promo/Peacock in "Community and family" section implies originally written by someone associated with his campaigns. That can be fixed/rewritten, but he's not notable to start with.

A previous AfD in 2013 came to no consensus, seemingly based on currency/recency of elections. But 12 years later I don't see that any enduring notability has been demonstrated. Hemmers (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, North Carolina, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable county commissioner/congressional candidate. No real claim to notability BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree not notable lower office-holder and frequent candidate. Shrikesong (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva International Peace Research Institute[edit]

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

It is not clear why it should be relevant as an NGO. The article is short, and there are not so many links in the Internet that help understand its relevancy Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created by prolific sockmaster User:Chaudeau. The external link goes to a non-English site. It is not clear what this is, but it is not related to the Geneva Conventions. — Maile (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Sparta Sollentuna[edit]

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. The article contains some very obscure "accomplishments" supported by primary sources, but the history of the club would not attract any significant, independent coverage as they played on the eighth and ninth tier. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—A ninth-tier team is not notable in any country and any sport. And it will likely not get any meaningful non-local coverage unless it makes a massive, years-long run of promotions. Is there an appropriate place to redirect? If not, "Delete" is the only option. Anwegmann (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allecks Godinho[edit]

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

Footballer with very limited career. First he played 7 minutes for Trnava, the next year he played 8 minutes. Sources I could find was a short transfer announcement that was duplicated in three outlets, as well as a Q-A interview. Therefore fails WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. The transfer announcement is basically a press release, the Q&A interview is a primary source and not independent. Pilaz (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Played seven matches over three years and then disappeared. CLearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Databases aren't sources but reserved for MOS:EL. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only source is soccerway which is not entirely reliable. Rest are listings on database sites. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 03:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early Mughal–Sikh wars[edit]

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

No particular source is discussing any "Early Mughal-Sikh wars" thus this article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Some of the sources are outright unreliable while others are discussing particular battles for which we already have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either Delete or Redirect to List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Template containing "Early Mughal-Sikh wars" have entries with articles about them anyway, which are also listed in List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. The "Late Mughal-Sikh wars" template, which has a lot more entries in it, doesn't have an article, so why should the early one? Also note: article was stubified in January for apparently POV-pushing, which got rid of basically everything in it. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above SKAG123 (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a clear case of WP:OR. PadFoot2008 17:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Principality of Seborga. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Menegatto[edit]

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

This page is really bad, it's presented as an actual biography of a politician/monarch when the country in question doesn't actually exist. It presents the subject as holding actual positions and titles, which do not exist. Not to mention that the page uses a few primary sources from the micronation itself. Presenting a micronation roleplayer as a real head of state is misinformation at best. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Italy. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - there are a few fairly long media reports in addition to those on the page. There may also be more in non-English publications. On that basis, in my opinion the GNG is met. JMWt (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content from reliable secondary sources to Principality of Seborga. Insufficient independent coverage for a stand-alone article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject meets GNG (mostly established in non-English sources: [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63], although English sources also exist: [64][65][66]). Notability is not determined by the validity of her claims/titles/positions/offices. Many articles exist on pretenders and claimants to defunct and non-existant monarchies. The question is if Menegatto is has received significant media coverage, and the answer to that is yes. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Principality of Seborga. She is no more notable than her so-called predecessors, Giorgio and Marcello. Keivan.f^Talk 19:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per the user above. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I sincerely disagree with Di's and Celia Homeford's arguments, however I believe it indeed deserves a redirect as per the user above. Demagoras^talk 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I don't see how she's notable on her own. She can be adequately covered on the main page for Seborga. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput Mughal marriage alliances

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR written to promote a POV. The topic itself is not notable that it would need a separate article.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It isn't well written and could use a more analytic overview, but the large number of sources is more than enough to establish notability. Marriages were an important aspect of diplomacy in many countries, as shown in Royal intermarriage. Zero^talk 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are comparing a GA article with a poorly written article that mainly relies on outdated unreliable sources and fails to establish notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Poorly written" is totally irrelevant at AFD. Also only a fraction of the sources are primary and more than half do not date from the RAJ. The fact that you link "unreliable" to PRIMARY suggests that you don't understand either. This article needs a good clean-up, that's all, as the topic is obviously significant. Zero^talk 12:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This is a good article based on NPOV. I don't think so this article should be deleted because it has more than 53 reliable sources produced by various independent writers. It would be a significant loss if this article were deleted since it may require copyediting but not deletion, practically all sources are reputable, and the article fits the general notability criterion. The Mughal Rajput marital partnerships were a significant occurrence in Indian history during the 16th and 17th century so it should remain on free encyclopedia.2404:3100:188E:2F21:1:0:94AA:65C8 (talk)— 2404:3100:188E:2F21:1:0:94AA:65C8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete WP:SYNTH at best. I don't see any need for having an article on this subject. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess. There was no such thing as "Rajput-Mughal marriage alliances" in the cited sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not denying that these marriages didn't happen, but the topic is not notable. Lorstaking (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Mughal Empire. Some reliable sources on the page from John F. Richards (historian), Ruby Lal (historian), Bonnie G. Smith (historian), Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), Anthony Reid (historian) and few others help with verification of the content on the page. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mainly see it as a fork of various articles. I don't believe a merge would be needed. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly pass WP:GNG Most sources are reliable and meet the criteria of notability, as most of the references are written by notable individual authors, viz., Jayashree Vivekanandan (senior research associate), Barbara Ramusack, Satish Chandra (historian), David O. Morgan (historian), and some others.Feniles (talk)— Feniles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Page seems to be illogical and a mixture of Tales. There isn't any particular record of such marriages Rudra Simha (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic mainly in western india (as the most classical example of Mariam uz Zamani and Akbar marriage belong to Rajasthan), cleanup of this article is required for better overview and number of reliable sources is also enough. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is as trivial as it gets and Wikipedia appears to be the only source right now that happened to make a topic out of it. There are no WP:HISTRS sources that have provided coverage to this topic. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any validity of the topic or existence of an actual "marriage alliance". Article just lists some marriages that are speculated to have been between a Rajput and a Mughal. That is rather trivial. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strongly. Am I seeing double? There is a preponderance of reliable sources on that article, some even discuss the dynamics of these marriages overall. Few of them are old primary sources, most of the sources that establish notability are from the 90s and later. I have not gone source-by-source (will do in a while) but is difficult to believe that the multiple Rajput marriages of Akbar and Jahangir alone would not generate sufficient scholarship for notability, let alone all the marriages of Shah Jahan, Aurangzeb, minor princes and nobles. Those bringing up OR, SYNTH, and RAJ don't mention a single specific example where the article fails these policies when it has inline citations for almost every sentence as well as overarching citations that unify them into a si gle topic. @Ratnahastin: what is the POV supposedly being pushed here? What am I missing? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said the article has been created for pushing a POV because it relies on primary sources like Akbarnama, Jahangirnama for info and none of the references are exactly showing how this is a notable topic. Then there are some examples who have been hijacked by caste Rajput writers despite there is no evidence if they were Rajput. These things are better for discussing on the articles of the particular individuals instead of creating a list to impose a contradictory point of view.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not difficult to find sources even for the very trivial subjects but the major problem here is if WP:GNG was satisfied. I don't see if it has been. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1226273371 by 2409:4085:9197:EABD:0:0:1C8:8B1 I had to revert your comment here. You need to write a comment without making WP:NPA. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. Caste-pushing are we? I see this too often. I can't remember, but I saw an editor like this recently who did the exact thing. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: One part of me wants it deleted, but one it kept. — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting seems unlikely to achieve consensus, but with this much discussion, let's give it a try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not my favourite kind of page, but I think it is undeniable that the phenomena is covered in scholarly literature, so the only WP:SYNTH argument is that the facts of individual relationships have been marshalled into a list. If that's SYNTH then all lists on en.wiki are at risk. JMWt (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic does not require a page of its own. WP:NOT specifically WP:DIRECTORY disagree with the page. (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (already voted keep above). I strongly object to the claim that this topic is not notable. Back when kings and princes ruled the world, arranged marriages were one of the most important ways that alliances were cemented and empires waxed and waned. This was true in Europe also. The political map of the world would be different today otherwise. So in fact this phenomenon is a key part of history. Zero^talk 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention which sources convinced you that the topic is notable?Ratnahastin (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seek and ye shall find. The Politics of Marriage in Medieval India is a book about it published by Oxford University Press, but surprisingly not cited. Zero^talk 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me where this book is focusing on this subject? The summary of this book that I have found tells it is rather talking about Rajput#Culture and ethos.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is scattered throughout the book. Note the emphasis on political marriage and marriage alliance — this was not just a matter of some people marrying each other. For example, on p80-81 we have "Political marriages soon came to play a significant role in the establishment of the Mughal rule. Akbar wanted to use political marriage alliances as an important means for building and consolidating local support. In fact, Akbar’s conception of the Rajput role in his expanding empire was responsible for a number of matrimonial alliances with the Rajputs, and he made at least 40 political marriages for himself, his three sons, and his eldest grandson. Ultimately the emperor made marriage alliances for himself and sons with almost all major Rajput chiefs." And on page 80, "the first Rajputs to make marriage alliances with the Mughal dynasty were seeking support for their efforts to gain or retain land. Raja Bharmal Kachwaha, involved in a long and bitter contest with a brother for the control of Amber and Mertiya Rathore, Jagmal Viramdevot, was similarly struggling with his brother Jagmal for Merta, both married their daughters to the young emperor in 1562–3 respectively." And the drama surrounding marriage alliances is exemplified by a quotation on page 79: "The Mugals demanded the hand of princess of Roopnagar, a junior branch of the Marwar house. But she rejected the proposal offering herself to Rana Raj Singh in return for her protection. The priest deemed it as an honour at being the messenger of her wishes. The Rana then appeared before Roopnager and took her away to his capital. This led to a war between Mewar and the Mughals." On page 84, "Marriage alliances were also entered into as a face saving device in order to bring an end to prolonged hostilities over land." On page 141, "When the Rathores of Marwar rose to prominence in the mid-fifteenth century, marriage alliances with them were keenly sought after." That's all taken from random pages and is more than enough to demonstrate not only the relevance of this book but also the notability of the topic. Zero^talk 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be discussing a broader topic, which is not just "Rajput Mughal" marriage alliance but more than that. Will you support moving the title to something like Political marriages in India? That would certainly clear up things and allow meaningful expansion and removal of WP:SYNTH from the present version.Ratnahastin (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have preferences as to how the topic is divided into articles. It can be discussed on the relevant article talk pages. Meanwhile it would be counterproductive to delete the part of the story that this article tells. Zero^talk 01:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This book also appears citable and contains a fair amount of relevant information. In particular it could help to move the article away from being a boring list. Zero^talk 06:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above discussion. First move the page to draft space, then remove the content that isn't supported by the source with regards to politically motivated marriage, and then change the title to Political marriages in India. After that, we need to include other examples such as political marriage of Chandragupta Maurya and move the page into article space. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : This article is created by main contributor, User:Adhinayaka, appears to use multiple accounts to push a caste-biased narrative favoring Ahiras/Yadavas on Hindi Wikipedia. This politically motivated article compromises the article's neutrality and reliability. For this reasons, the article should be deleted.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 19:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NXcrypto, if you have evidence, please file a case at WP:SPI. But AFDs are not an appropriate place to cast aspersions and make undocumented accusations against another editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above proposal to draftify as laid out by ArvindPalaskar seems good. I am not opposed to it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. - AlbeitPK (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article clearly meets the WP:ACADEMIC policy 4 no criteria. Because, some books written by him are taught in the university of Bangladesh, See here. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 09:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent and reliable sources are available. Also, several academic books are taught in university.Md Joni Hossain (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based arguments would be appreciated. The fact that books written by the article subject are used in university courses is not a valid argument to Keep. We delete plenty of articles on academics who have written books used in coursework somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not able to find reliable sources in English that show his academic profile, I assume they must exist in non-English languages so would appreciate it if someone could offer them for consideration. Currently there are claims on the page but, as far as I see, not much which can be verified per WP:V. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: "Dr Abu Bakar Muhammad Zakaria - Curriculum Vitae" see here. 202.134.9.128 (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, a self-published CV is not suitable for WP:V JMWt (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His tafsir is the only bengali tafsir, published and approved by Saudi government printed by King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Quran https://quranenc.com/en/browse/bengali_zakaria and his book "Shirk fil Qadim wal Hadis is a famous book, many scholars quoted from it including Ali al-Sallabi, his Book Hindusiat wa tasur is the most famous Islamic academic book on Hinduism in Arab world after the book "Fusulun fi Adianil Hind" written by Ziaur Rahman Azmi, and he wrote the book as his thesis in Madinah University under the supervision of Ziaur Rahman Azmi and followed him, he is an official bengali representative of Saudi religious propagation ministry who supervise the bengali section of www.islamhouse.com/bn and he has also entry in shamila library https://shamela.ws/author/1532 and there is a possibilty that he may be going to be an emeritus professor of Islamic University, Kushtia by university authority as his age is now 65.202.134.11.243 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is WP:GNG . Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. We haven't had anything offered which meets this standard in any language, so we can't WP:V the basics. Those who want to !keep cam of course rewrite thr page as/when they find acceptable sources. JMWt (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt Are you want to say that Offline Source is not acceptable? You should remain in WP:good Faith. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which offline source meets the standards of the GNG? I am remaining to assume Good Faith in the part of other contributors and don’t really see why you are suggesting otherwise. If there is an offline source that shows the importance of this person, which they’ve not written themselves, that I’ve missed then I’m happy to correct myself. JMWt (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt I mention my opinion in first comment. [Please see here]. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well, as others have already stated, being the author of university textbooks is not regarded as suitable notability for en.wiki

I'm not saying that you are not offering an opinion in good faith, but I am saying that this is not a policy reason for !keep JMWt (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 see here, his book about hinduism is highly praised in Zad TV by Muhammad al-Munajjid and the presenter also telephoned the publisher and requested hum to translate the book in English. His book Hindusiat wa Tasur was highly praised by Abdullah bin Salam al-Batati in the program "Al-Khajanah" of Zad TV owned by Muhammad Al-Munajjid and wished to be translated in English giving the book highly importance as a detailed work on Hinduism from the Islamic perspective.[67] His book Ash-Shirk fil-Qadim Wal Hadith has been partially translated into Indonesian by Abu Umamah Arif Hidayatullah as "Syirik pada Zaman Dahulu dan Sekarang".[68][69] Besides, the same translator also translated some of his other works into Indonesian language.[70] - 202.134.14.139 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chambers[edit]

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

This article has a lot of citations, but it's not as impressive as it first seems. Of the 36 pages cited: 3 are routine campaign coverage from local outlets, 1 is a Decision Desk HQ election results page, 9 are press releases or other pages on the Indiana Economic Development Corporation's website, 2 don't even mention Chambers, 2 are paywalled, 6 are campaign website citations, 5 take the format of "Brad Chambers announces ____ plan" and seem to be based off the aforementioned campaign website pages, and 2 are duplicates of other sources. The remaining few are more in-depth articles about his gubernatorial campaign or his appointment as state commerce secretary from Indiana-based publications (not anything he did in office, just his appointment). Nothing stands out about his candidacy that would warrant a standalone Wikipedia article; he was never a frontrunner and didn't really do anything noteworthy. And he certainly doesn't have any other argument for passing GNG, either via his (appointed) position as state commerce secretary or otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indiana. Kpg jhp jm 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: State secretary of commerce is a notable position; we have enough for at least a basic article, maybe needs a rewrite, but the individual would meet political notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: On what basis are you arguing this? If it was a statewide elected office, you would be correct, but a statewide appointed official is not considered automatically notable. There are thousands of unelected positions in state government, they aren't all notable. Can you link me some other state secretaries of commerce who have Wikipedia pages? Or anyone else who's held an appointed position in Indiana state government that got a Wikipedia page solely on that basis? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a ministerial position in the state government? Here in Ontario, the Minister of Commerce would get their own article. Elected or not, if it's a cabinet-level position, we've always held them to meet NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: In Indiana, the secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp. is part of the governor's cabinet. [71] AHoosierPolitico (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that still passed NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it not a member of the state's legislature? It would fall under here [72] Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Please try to familiarize yourself more with US politics before participating in discussions like these. No, the state secretary of commerce is not part of the state legislature, nor is it a particularly high-profile position. Again: if you're so confident that this position satisfies NPOL, you should be able to link some people who served as Indiana Secretary of Commerce (or any other equivalent appointed position in a US state's cabinet) who got a Wikipedia page on that basis alone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Oaktree b. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Baxter Jr. for precedent of state cabinet secretaries kept. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Struck TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what I explained above? I participated in both votes that you've linked, one had good coverage, the other doesn't. He's a member of the sub-national gov't. US Politics is pretty much like Canada, we have the parliamentary system, the US doesn't. Both work basically the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the vast majority of coverage is about his failed gubernatorial run, not about his appointment to a position which doesn't necessarily pass WP:NPOL (there is very little coverage of him in his cabinet position.) So I don't think the position merits the NPOL assumption when it clearly does not receive significant press coverage apart from his appointment. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does not appear to be presumptively notable under WP:NPOL; cabinet level positions are the widely agreed threshold (see detailed discussion here for state-level executive branch NPOL thresholds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer), however, Commerce does not appear to be part of the current Governor's Cabinet in Indiana. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: and @TulsaPoliticsFan: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [73]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I'll strike my keep vote. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @TulsaPoliticsFan in fairness to the GF responses to my contributions, see developments below. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [74]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AHoosierPolitico Agreed, the Governor's cabinet includes a seat for a representative from the Indiana Economic Development Corporation. According to the article you've linked, which includes the headline "Lathrop elevated to cabinet", it is Ann Lathrop, Chief Strategy Officer, that took the cabinet position; so the President/CEO of the IEDC does not necessarily appear to automatically take the seat. From that article, there's nothing explicit that indicates Brad Chambers previously held the Cabinet seat. I have no problem accepting an NPOL pass if there's sourcing that explicitly shows Brad Chambers held a cabinet seat. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn Perhaps I should have referenced a different article, as Governor Holcomb's decision to appoint Lathrop to his cabinet, in addition to Rosenberg as secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Ecomomic Development Corporation, was unique. As the state's new release on the appointment notes, "Lathrop will join Rosenberg on Gov. Holcomb’s cabinet." [75] For sourcing that he held a cabinet-level position, see this article. [76] "Chambers signed a two-year contract with the state when he accepted the cabinet-level position in June 2021." Best, AHoosierPolitico (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the extra sourcing, that's enough for an NPOL pass for me. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with an NPOL pass is that it necessarily assumes there will be GNG coverage, which is almost always true. Problem is there's not - he's basically just covered by his failed gubernatorial run. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer I disagree. If you search "Brad Chambers" during the timeframe that coincides with his tenure (July 2021 - August 2023), you will find consistent coverage in Indiana media. The article itself talks about some of what earned him coverage: the Regional Economic Acceleration and Development Initiative, the LEAP District, the Indiana Global Economic Summit, record-breaking committed capital investment, first-ever electric vehicle battery facility investments (Samsung SDI/Stellantis and Samsung SD/GM), etc.
Keep (edit conflict) Actually I'd say this is a GNG pass, per NEXIST. Indepth, SIGCOV reliable sources, for example: Brad Chambers' company received 'bailout' from Indy after missing loan repayment deadline (Indy Star, April 25, 2024), Former Indiana Commerce Secretary Brad Chambers joins the crowded Republican race for governor (AP News, August 18, 2023), Chambers loans his gubernatorial campaign another $2 million (NWI Times, March 24, 2024), GOP Ind. governor hopeful donates to both parties (The Indianapolis Star August 29, 2023), Fishers Mayor: Brad Chambers is leader Indiana needs (Indianapolis Star, April 4, 2024). We need to be mindful about misapplying WP:ROUTINE; our job is ~~not to judge editorial content, our job is~~ to assess whether content is indepth and reliabale, not judge editorial decision making. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valmir Nafiu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any of the WP:SPORTS criteria. None of the other language wikis have sources that are either a)independent or b) provide significant coverage of the subject. Doing WP:BEFORE reveals only a few pieces of routine coverage. Out of the sources here: [1] and [2] go in depth, and seem to be independent. No clue about reliability.

[5],[6],[7],[9] aren't independent, due to being published by his former club.

[8] does not mention him.

[3]&[4] are just routine coverage mentioning that he played in a certain match.

[10] is a data base entry, which isn't in-depth.

This leaves us with two sources, both of which were published the last time this article was deleted.

(Disclaimer: found this page through a CCI, and I've deleted a paragraph over copyright concerns. The only source I deleted, however, also did not mention the subject.) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and North Macedonia. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources in the article are independent, as the first two are by the governing sports org. Still fails GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the article has weak sources which are pretty much primary sources, but that doesn't negate the article, it needs a clean up. Besides you have other sources at de:Valmir Nafiu, [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], lots more with stuff on him, poor nomination, WP:BEFORE clearly not done correctly in my opinion.. Govvy (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The German wiki has 9 sources, 7 of which are not independent. Of the other 2, one is stats and the other contains little info on him. Your sources are interviews, non independent websites and match reports which isn't sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Did you actually read those sources? They clearly do not amount to GNG coverage. 1: interview by his football club N. 2: interview in Telegrafi with 1 independent sentence on him N. 3: his football club N. 4: part of 1 sentence in a routine transaction announcement N. 5: part of 1 sentence in a routine match recap N. 6: 1 sentence in a routine match recap N. If you're going to accuse others of being lazy with their BEFOREs maybe don't use such obviously garbage sources as examples of what they missed. JoelleJay (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 07:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I think important context is needed here... The sources do have secondary coevrage and even then if you look at Macedonian media it tends to cover players in the form of seemingly "routine" media (see [83], [84], and [85], as opposed to e.g. Indonesian media which tends to write about players in more long-form profiles). He has been covered by various Macedonian news outlets. As a result, I feel that the fact that he has received lots of coverage by many Macedonian outlets in the form of shorter seemingly "routine" articles ([86], [87], [88] etc, has Wikipedia pages in eight languages and has played in German Bundesliga, made 100+ appearances and helped Macedonian team win three keague titles and has ongoing career is enough all put together. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are "seemingly routine" because they are routine... those are all routine transaction announcements and match reports, which we see loads of for every footballer. Which source specifically meets SPORTCRIT's requirement for IRS SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, leaving aside the first three links, because they're not about this footballer, [10], as JoelleJay caught, is a site run by the governing sports organization and can't help show notability due to lack of independence. I clicked on a few links from [12], which is when I noticed that none of those pages had an author listed. Looking at the site a bit further, their about page reveals this:
Through "TEAM" readers receive original, exclusive, but primarily verified, reliable and accurate information. In addition to the team of professional sports journalists, the top Macedonian athletes in the role of columnists have their own space and say in "TEAM".

Given that the articles written by athletes don't seem labeled, we're going to have a really hard time verifying that anything in this site is independent. And, given that this is a WP:BLP, I don't think articles with unclear authorship can even be used. Can they?

And as for the links in [11]- The previews just seem routine, but I clicked on them all only to get 404 pages. I've been having lots of trouble with Internet Archive for the past day, and I don't feel like struggling with it for what seems to be, again, routine coverage.

@GiantSnowman I trust your judgement, and you obviously saw something I'm missing. Could you give me the sources you saw that show notability? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In fact, there seems to be a lack of independent sources that provide more in-depth coverage (the best one is from KF Shkendija's own website), but the recreation of the article does not seem to be in bad faith, SALT would be too much. Svartner (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner:, For further context, see my comment above, (GiantSnowman has also changed his vote to keep). Thanks Das osmnezz (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the best source is from the player's own club. For me it is a case of weak keep, but it is on the limit to establish WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's always routine coverage, talking about parts a player played in a game, Cristiano Ronaldo has huge amounts of what you call routine coverage. You people voting to delete never look at the cumulative amount of sources. This players has more than enough cumulative sourcing to pass WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Obvious keep. Had a long, established first-team career, and the sources shown clearly meet WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? Because, so far, nobody's linked to any source that is independent, reliable, or gives WP:SIGCOV, so I'm not sure how they can count to the GNG. Could you please link the ones you found convincing? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Govvy's and Das osmnezz's comments above. Also, as Govvy argues immediately above, collective effect is important and real. Anwegmann (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy gave no independent or significant sources- just interviews, database entries, and routine coverage. Das osmnezz also linked to no sources- just a search result, which was annoying seeing as they specifically filtered one of their search results to a non-independent site, but none of the sources seemed to help the subject pass the GNG. I would just like a link to one source that is independent, provides significant coverage, and is reliable. If the subject "clearly" passes the GNG, this should not be hard to provide, and we shouldn't have to fall on a "collaborative effort" style argument.

I also disagree with Govy's interpretation of WP:BASIC, which establishes that
trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability
but I suppose that's a point of policy for the closer to decide. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian: Firstly it would be polite to ping me when you talk about me, secondly, of the sources I posted, there are multiple independent sources. To say that of the sources I posted above are not independent is a false statement. I look at cumulative count per WP:BASIC, which has multiple published in bold! Followed by secondary sources that are reliable. Yes there are drips and drabs, but under the guise of BASIC you're allowed to hunt down all sources to build that cumulative count. I am using straight forward simple logic. The first part of BASIC is significant coverage, however that does not indicate it needs to be to one article and never has. There for you are allowed to determine sigcov over multiple articles. This is a constant battle and I really don't understand why seasoned Wikipedians constantly fall into the trap thinking that SIGCOV requires a full storied article, why understanding the BASIC rule allows it to built over multiple articles. I strongly suggest you read and re-read the first bullet point on WP:BASIC. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any independant source, sorry. --SGaurier (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Closer needs to take into account that this user was created on May 11 and 2 out of 3 of his eidts came in football AFDs... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—And it has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia before or after 28 May (as of 4 June). Anwegmann (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not saying there's any bad faith from anyone involved but I see it as WP:GAMEing the system to say that coverage is just news about signings and games. As Anwegmann and Govvy had been saying, why would media even be interested in those stories if this man didn't have some sort of a following? Anyway, here's a source from Hamburg's Morgenpost documenting his whole career, which is clearly not routine coverage [89]. And before anyone cries "local media", Hamburg has a metro population of 5 million and that newspaper's website is ranked #32 among German news sites. Please also search the native name "Валмир Нафиу", there are tons of results, you can't honestly say that they count for nowt because they are covering individual events over a sequence of several years. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this source actually from Morgenpost, or HSV? It's not on Morgenpost's official website (www.mopo.de). Rather, the URL is www.hsv24.mopo.de - thus implying it's some form of collaboration between the tabloid and the Naifu's former football club. While I appreciate the serious allegations you and others have made towards my conduct in this AFD, I still find myself questioning this source's independence. I also wonder why, if this man is obviously as notable as everybody is saying, why nobody can produce even one source that is independent, reliable, or in-depth. I have seen a lot of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:OTHERLANGS, and WP:MUSTBESOURCES type-arguments, however. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even though I didn't mention you by name: @Govvy, I tangentially mentioned you in the above comment, and you requested above that I ping you in these situations. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of Morgenpost's domain. I don't see how including the name of a football club on a website indicates that it is operated by the club, and something like that needs assertive proof rather than your gut feeling that it's non-independent, which seems to me to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even the newspaper's press releases about this website don't mention this supposed golden endorsement [90]. I imagine a lot of people buy/read that newspaper just for the football and it helps to have a specialist part of the domain. It's not serious allegations if people think that you're poo-pooing every single source until we find some 1,000-page biography or academic article on this player. I haven't argued WP:OTHERLANGS in the sense of saying foreign Wikipedias are reliable, because they aren't, but have you even searched for his name in his native language before I brought it up? Or Greek for his career in Cyprus? WP:BEFORE. Quite frankly, I'm not going to learn Macedonian to evaluate all of these sources, did you check them before [91] Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Raees Khan[edit]

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

Close to 20 sources are routine coverage from the Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 17 show which is typical for all contestants. She was eliminated on Day 55 and did not play a significant role WP:BLP1E. The remaining sources are passing mentions from the cases she was handling. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, India, and Maharashtra. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Hello @Jeraxmoira, She is not only known for Bigg Boss but also for her high profile cases and she was in BB House for 55 days and had lots of controversies which kept her in significant role till she was in Biggboss house., Notability doesnot mean how many days you spend in bigboss house but how notable you were in those days matter and references for same are as follows: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]
The article also has references for the high profile cases she handled like Sheena Bora murder case, Aryan Khan Drug case and following are few references which can prove the notability : ^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]

She is also seen in major role in the web-series titled The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth.^[10]^[11]
Points to consider : She is been known for the High profile cases and then she was called for BiggBoss and then while in biggboss she was in many controversies and was notable by almost all reliable sources. SAN2221 (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 5 is a paid article authored by Bizz Impact.

Source 6 is a video from Big boss.

7 is unreliable.

8 Big boss.

9 Big boss.

10 and 11 - are routine announcements from the docu - series and Pinkvilla's gossip section is unreliable.
All sources related to Big Boss count as one. The high-profile cases she has handled were only covered with Sana as the primary subject after she entered Big Boss, whereas previously, the coverage of her was only a passing mention on those cases. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check following references as proof and considering notability:

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97] SAN2221 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jeraxmoira, Kindly reconsider and review the references given above. SAN2221 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to reconsider as whatever you are adding are just paid articles and more Big Boss related coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Jeraxmoira, the references are not about bigboss its about the cases. and check this latest interview of her too [98]https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/entertainment/tv/interviews/sana-raees-khan-discusses-post-bigg-boss-life-isha-samarths-breakup-bollywood-debut-and-more-video-110472213 and following reference of bar and bench is about her bigboss enterance as she is wellknown before bigboss too. [99]https://www.barandbench.com/news/advocate-sana-raees-khan-contestant-reality-show-bigg-boss.

If she has so many news articles covering her with few reliable sources, that means she is notable enuff to pass [GNG] and to be on wikipedia. SAN2221 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A contestant on Bigg Boss show does not make the subject notable and neither any of her high profile cases have any significant coverage in the reliable sources. The subject is not well known who had any significant achievements, incidents or an allegation (even if negative) worthy of notice or relevant to warrant a page on her. RangersRus (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check following references as proof and considering notability and reconsider your views:

[100]

[101]

[102]

[103]

[104]

[105] SAN2221 (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @RangersRus, Kindly reconsider and review the references given above. SAN2221 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being a member of the Women in Red Movement, I always try to improve the articles related to women, increase the number of women's articles on Wikipedia. But unfortunately, at this time this article is not passing WP:GNG. good luck! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check following references as proof and considering notability and reconsider your views:

[106]

[107]

[108]

[109]

[110]

[111] SAN2221 (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Youknowwhoistheman, Kindly reconsider and review the references given above. SAN2221 (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are PROMO, trivial coverage or non-RS. Working as a lawyer isn't notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are all about the tv show, not about this person, I don' see any we can use. delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom sources are about the show rather than the subject.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Speed limit#Maximum speed limits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th percentile speed[edit]

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

I do not think this concept merits its own article, and believe it is adequately covered at Speed limit#Maximum speed limits, which actually goes more into depth than this standalone article (which is nothing more than a dictionary definition). This article should be redirected to that section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speed limit#Maximum speed limits per nom. Stubby tidbit of information more at home in an article section. BD2412 T 01:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Speed limit#Maximum speed limits: Agree that this fails DICDEF. The citations here can be merged. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that article should be expanded, but deletion is not cleanup. I will work to expand the stub soon and welcome help from others.

The 85th percentile speed is a policy decision that was perhaps in the past considered a minor component of Speed limit#Maximum speed limits. However it is now being covered by reliable sources as a large component of Transportation safety in the United States, with criticism directed solely at the 85th percentile rule (as opposed to high speed limits in general) and laws being written to eliminate the rule (but not high speed limits). The rule has significant coverage and meets GNG.

Subject deserves its own article to track the development of 85th percentile rule usage and decline, as covered by reliable sources. Just like Parking mandates is a different article from Parking.

PK-WIKI (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a civil engineer, I agree it needs its own article. 71.115.83.120 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a civil engineer, I disagree. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Traffic engineering (transportation) - per nom, this is a stubby DICDEF; however, merging into traffic engineering (transportation) seems better than putting this in Speed limit. If kept, it should be retitled "85th percentile speed rule" or the like. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now expanded the stub past DICDEF, including an academic paper dedicated to this subject and recent Federal Highway Administration lobbying specifically on this rule. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess article changes. It's also become more complicated now that there are two Merge target article suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Speed limit or grow. Traffic engineering (transportation) seems like the wrong merge target; it doesn't actually mention speed limits at all right now. It should at least link to speed limit; setting speed limits is one of the tasks of traffic engineering. I was going to suggest merging into Speed limit#Maximum speed limits as a good outcome, preferable to deletion, as this is an important safety topic.

If the article isn't going to get any bigger than it is now, merging would be appropriate. If we're going to start adding maps that track where in the world this rule is used, and follow along with reform efforts, a standalone article is appropriate. I don't mind merging and then re-splitting later if the section in question gets too long.

I'll also note that a third article covers the same topic, V85 speed. That should be merged into this article if kept, or its merge target if not. -- Beland (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Speed limit per voorts. Speed limit is a suitable merge target; in essence this information is a partial answer to the question "how are speed limits chosen?" which is a logical topic for that article. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick[edit]

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

This actress does not fulfill the criteria WP:ACTOR as I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows NOR does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per WP:BASIC, [112],[113],[114]

[115], [116] Otbest (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otbest, I'm curious how a user who just began editing 2 days ago is already participating in AfDs. BTW, the references you provided aren't even RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sourcing seems to be weak (mainly tabloids), but it looks like she may have some notable television credits?-KH-1 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- KH-1, No. Only minor roles. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: some of her numerous roles in notable productions look significant enough for her to pass WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But I don't see any. If that had been the case, she would have definitely received some press coverage, at least some ROTM coverage at a minimum. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:29, 2 June 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage consists either of tabloid coverage (see WP:SBST) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs; no significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Closing a keep in light of the additional sources and the comments on NPROF by others. Thanks for the assistance getting this sorted! (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlese Durr[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Limited coverage in reliable sources, other than the college's own publications. Creator has self-moved from Draft space, so would support draftifying (if that is a word), to allow creator to continue work. Mdann52 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Social science, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails wP:Prof. Small cites in GS in a high cited field. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Citation counts are low but that may be because of the field, and she still does have two triple-digit counts, making a weak case for WP:PROF#C1. Two edited volumes with three published reviews each make a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because edited rather than authored). President of two bluelinked academic societies could be a double pass of PROF#C6. A bluelinked national-level award (and another major award from another society but not bluelinked) could be a pass of PROF#C2. And if the SWS award is not counted towards notability directly, the SWS web page congratulating her and containing in-depth coverage of her career is therefore secondary (because it is only primary and non-independent if it is about the award) and counts towards GNG, as does the JBHE story, giving her a case for WP:GNG. Each individual claim to notability here is arguable, but there are enough varied ones that I think they add up to a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per David Eppstein above, plus, this subject passes WP:NPROF#5. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think being awarded the Jessie Bernard Award is enough for this article to stay. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Plummer (musician)[edit]

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

Article about a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only properly verifiable claim of notability here is that he existed -- it asserts that he had hit singles, but fails to provide any verification of where they were "hits" (spoiler alert, not in RPM). And for "referencing", it just contextlessly bulletpoints a list of mostly primary source websites that aren't support for notability, without footnoting anything in the article body to any of them.
On a WP:BEFORE search, further, I didn't find enough coverage to salvage this -- apart from one concert review in The Globe and Mail on the occasion of him playing the El Mocambo in 1980, I otherwise only get local coverage in Saskatoon, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any sense, and tangential hits for other unrelated Brian Plummers (such as Bill Pullman's character in The Equalizer).
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than he has. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it looks very much as though this was written as a WP:NOTMEMORIAL... the only other edit the article creator has made to Wikipedia is to add some information about Jack Hazebroek to the article about the Rolling Stones Mobile Studio, and Hazebroek's name also appears in this article, so I imagine it was written as a tribute to Mr. Plummer, having worked with him. Richard3120 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage about this person found, other than the usual download/streaming sites. Not meeting musical notability, tagged for a decade to be improved with sources, none added... Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The supplied "references" list is very questionable. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adventist schools in the Philippines[edit]

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

Contested prod. Prod reason states "This list is made up of mostly schools that are not notable and also there are no references it has been like this from day one that it was created". As I am conducting a procedural AfD, I am neutral on the matter. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Adventist universities in the Philippines. As far as sourcing goes, I wouldn't know what is available in reliability, but I figured reducing the list to be just the colleges and universities would be more suitable to WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the majority of Seventh-day Adventist schools in the Philippines are not notable and never will be. And we do not need a separate list for Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities in the Philippines, that is why we have List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. Catfurball (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before a rename is considered, you have to put forth a good, policy-based argument on why this article should be Kept. A rename can be discussed after an AFD if this article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is where a category is much more useful than a long list of which most schools are not notable. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenized Middle East[edit]

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

"Hellenized Middle East" is a made-up term which is not used in scholarship on the Hellenistic Period (a search of google books shows a few uses referring to Greek presence in the Near East, but without any consistency [117]: one book on Gandharan Buddhism, a couple on the Middle Ages, one on Cavafy in the 19th century. This is not a term used with any consistency in scholarship). The article consists of a WP:OR map, which collapses Ashokan India into the Hellenistic world and a bunch of material largely mirrored from Hellenistic Period. Furius (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Egypt, Pakistan, Middle East, India, and Greece. Skynxnex (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH. Aearthrise (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the main issue here is not the title, but the duplication of material that is already covered elsewhere. The topic itself appears to be legitimate, whatever title it's given, and unless there's a specific title that is generally applied to the topic, any reasonably descriptive title would do. There may well be better titles, but that would not be a justification for deletion: it would justify moving the article to another title. Replacing a map with a more accurate one would not be an argument for deletion. So the only remaining issue seems to be duplication of existing material in other articles.

It sounds as though most of this is covered under "Hellenistic Period", in which case a "technical merge" might be in order. By that I mean a basic review to make sure that any useful and verifiable material from here is included there or at other appropriate articles. If so, then simply indicate that the article was merged there, and then change this title into a redirect, as a plausible search formulation. There may also be some details here that ought to be mentioned in other articles, and aren't yet, in which case a full merge may be done. But even if everything is already fully covered, it would technically be a merge as long as one makes sure of that before changing this into a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CFORK. Poor page with poor and unverifiable sources that do not help identify implications that is explicitly stated by the source. The creator of the page inserted opinion by using content from other pages and used it in a circular bit of logic. Page is WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:SYNTH.

As for the fork, I am working add more content into the Hellenistic regions section; the list came from Partition of Babylon, because it gave all of the regions that persisted throughout the cultural area's lifetime. Aearthrise (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "Fork" information borrowed from the Partition of Babylon page, which pertained to the first rulers of the regions, and now the Hellenistic regions list section only includes the region names and important cultural tidbits from those regions. Aearthrise (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strange title, bizarre geographic scope, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH content, WP:CFORK.
- Scholarship on ancient history uses "Near East" rather than "Middle East"; both terms are of course eurocentric, with "Middle East" reflecting Western European strategic concerns during the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Describing much of the area under Seleucid control in the hellenistic period as "hellenised" begs the question of whether that impact was more than superficial and brief.
- The inclusion of all South Asia is bizarre; the Maurya empire is not usually described as hellenised (and the map shows it extending strangely east and south). Mapping Greece as hellenised is silly.
- The text largely consists of an editor opining, without benefit of sources, on who became the ruler of which area after the death of Alexander, largely with no more substance than that. Any reader wanting to know about the area during the hellenistic period will be disappointed and frustrated; they will already be better served by Diadochi for successors and by Hellenistic period, including Hellenistic period#Hellenistic Near East, for the regions. NebY (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You made this comment when the only section was the list of Hellenistic regions. Your claim that the Hellenistic Middle East as a concept is false, is incorrect, and not classified under WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
  
  Further, you make an argument about "eurocentricity", but you forget that this is English wikipedia and Middle East is the English term for these areas. Aversion to the word "Middle East" is simply your opinion, and not a serious point.
  
  You also say that the map is bizarre because it includes South Asia and Greece; I argue the map is a good illustration of the area that generated cultural syncretism, especially for the allied and interinfluential nature of the region.
  
  For the last point, I circle you back to the first sentence of this response. Aearthrise (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: someone seems to be working hard to improve the article currently, and the title has been changed, perhaps in response to what has been said so far here. Perhaps these edits will make a difference to whether this article should be kept or merged (I still don't think deletion is the correct means of dealing with a content fork, if it still is one after the current revision process is done). It may be a good idea to get Aearthrise's take on the content fork issue, and whether he or she has a plan to resolve that, or any of the other remaining issues mentioned in this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Said editor has been adding material about citizenship in the Roman Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate. It's bizarre synth. Furius (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aearthrise was notified about this discussion; I'm not sure why they've not engaged directly... Furius (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You only notified me 7 days after you created this thread. Aearthrise (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this once to get editors' assessment of article changes. But if there are editors who are opposed to Deletion, please suggest a simple alternative outcome that a closer can carry out. AFD discussions are not resolved by complicated rewriting scenarios. The options are limited with AFD closures and they are decided by consensus so if you are arguing for something complicated, you need to win over your fellow editors to your point-of-view which usually requires simplification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not entirely off (the argument that the Hellenistic period extends to the Arab conquests for the Roman East is certainly not new), but currently it reads like a hodgepodge of factoids without a clear plan in evidence, and there are a lot of red flags of bizarre factual inaccuracies (the map, Alexander's conquests 'in the 2nd century BC', the 'state of Judaea', to name a few glaring ones) that lead me to question whether the authors have the expertise required to do this correctly. I am thus also for delete; this should first be properly developed in someone's sandbox, beginning with gathering the relevant literature, before a move to mainspace.Constantine ✍ 12:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your gripe here is that you believe that this article doesn't have a plan, and claim three "red flags" one being the map showing the region of cultural syncretism. Why is the map a red flag? It easily shows the area of the original regions in the Hellenistic Middle East, and the two cultural influences that made the most impact in the early days of the area, this is the area described by Ashoka of culturally allied lands.
- For your other two "flags", it's a simple typo of 2nd century with "3rd" century BC, and writing the word "state of Judea" instead of "province of Judea". I implore you to give a real example of "factual inaccuracies" instead of claiming them from superficial semantics.
- You also say that this article is a hodgepodge of factoids, but the evidence follows the theme of the Hellenistic cultural area and its unique cultural aspects; the section with the partition of Partition of Babylon region list can be refined, as right now it deals with the people who began ruling these regions and has some added information on the kingdoms, and Greco Buddhism. Aearthrise (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The problem with the map is that it comes from a source for territories mentioned by Asoka as having been conquered by the dharma, but is being used to illustrate "the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC". These are two very different things and there are no sources to support using the image for the latter. The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream. Furius (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're making two different points in this paragraph about the map:
  One that Ashoka's declaration of whom he considers allies and peers in dharma, naming rulers of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, is not the same as a declaration of "cultural syncretism". I argue Ashoka's declaration is exactly evidence of the intercultural relation of Greeks and Indians of the time:
  
  Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 34:
  
  The Edicts of Ashoka, which talk of friendly relations, give names of both Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemy III of Egypt. But the fame of the Mauryan Empire was widespread from the time that Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya met Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid Dynasty, and engineered their celebrated peace.
  
  Hinduism: Challenges | Interaction with Buddhism, Jainism and The Greeks (2024), Ashok Mishra, page 221:
  
  A mission was sent to the Hellenistic Kingdoms in the West, including Syria, Egypt, Greece. According to ancient sources, Ashoka sent a delegation of Buddhist monks to these regions, where they engaged in dialogues with the local people and established Buddhist communities.
  
  And Man Created God: A History of the World at the Time of Jesus (2013), Selina O'Grady, page 416:
  
  According to many scholars, it was the coming together of Indian and Greek culture that created the very conditions that would give birth to Mahayana Buddhism. It was here that Indian abstraction met Greek individualism to create a more personal, emotional religion that in its turn would profoundly influence the mergence of Christianity. This Indo-Greek syncretism was reflected in the great statues of Guatama Buddha that the Kushan rulers erected throughout their growing Empire.
  
  Your second point, "The idea that Ashokan India was part of the Hellenistic world (or the Middle East for that matter) is not mainstream", is not claimed by the map at all; the map simply describes the area of cultural syncretism. There clearly had been a long intercultural influence of the Mauryans with Hellenistic States since Chandragupta married Princess Helena of the Seleucid dynasty.
  
  Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination (2023), Rajendra Prasad, page 46:
  
  Seleucus married his daughter Helena to Chandragupta Maurya. After Chandragupta, his son Bindusura became the ruler of the Mauryan Empire. During the reign of Bindusura, Antiochus, the ruler of Syria, sent dry figs, wine to Bindusura. Deimachus, an ambassador of Antiochus I was at the court of Bindusara. Ptolemy II Philadelphus sent an ambassador named Dynosis to he court of Bindusara.
  
  Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism (2008), L. K. Singh, page 36:
  
  A "marital alliance" had been concluded between Seleucus Nicator and Ashoka's grandfather Chandragupta Maurya in 303 BC... This was a common practice for formalizing alliances in the Hellenistic world. There is thus a possibility that Ashoka was partly of Hellenic descent, if Chandragupta's son, Bindusura, was the object of the marriage. This remains a hypothesis as there are no known more detailed descriptions of the exact nature of the marital alliance, although this is quite symptomatic of the generally good relationship between the Hellenistic world and Ashoka.
Aearthrise (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The leap you make from "allies and peers in the dharma" to cultural syncretism is WP:SYNTH. None of your cited sources link the two things. O'Grady does talk about Indo-Greek syncretism, but she's talking about the Kushans. The caption does not mention what the map was actually drawn to depict at all. On your second point, depicting all these places in a single colour, together, without any borders presents them as a united region. Furius (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated claim of "synth" is totally unfounded, not only from earlier comments, but this one too. It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other. That is the literal definition of "syncretism", and to deny so is to play a game of ignorance. Beyond that, to say O'Grady is referring to the Kushans is a total misreading of the quote; she mentions the Kushans only as an example of the presence of the aforementioned syncretism in the great statues of Gautama Buddha they erected.

Furthermore, you say the map's caption does not mention what the map was drawn to depict; So what? You act like repurposing content for use in another topic is something wrong. Regardless of its origins, it's a clean map that helps illustrate the idea of the culturally allied region, which is the point of Ashoka's declaration of who he considers Dharmic peers.

You say "On your second point". No, this was your second point Furius, and I responded to it by showing that your previous claim about the nature of the map was incorrect and your own invention: neither the map nor the caption claimed anything you said.

Now, because you don't want to admit your error, you're changing the argument to that because the map represents the three named regions as one unit, it makes the map wrong. If I showed a map of World War II depicting the European allies as one unit (being the cleanest map found for use) to illustrate the early British contribution to the war, and wrote "map of Britain, France, and Poland in alliance, 1939" would you also say it is wrong and "Synth" because it includes a single color, borderless map of the allied countries? I wouldn't.

As a closing comment: just today, I have encountered another map that has colors and borders. I've changed the map; so now, you don't even have this point to dispute. All of your points, the ones that led you to make this article deletion request, have been defeated. Aearthrise (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good that you've changed the map. You say "It's obvious from art, architecture, written records, that the Indian and Greek cultures influenced each other." That's true.* That is why we have articles on Greco-Buddhism and Indo-Greek art (and Buddhist influences on Christianity on the limits of that syncretism). It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period. It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does). It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another) Furius (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are reaching for straws and now making arguments from ignorance. You repeat the same silly phrasing "it remains" three times:

"It remains very unclear what this article claims to cover that isn't already covered by those articles and by Hellenistic period."

You are saying that because the Hellenistic period article exists, we should delete this article. Following your logic, we should also delete "Roman Africans" because the article shares points with Africa (Roman province) and Romanization (cultural). That's stupid.

"It remains unclear why there should be an article on cultural syncretism in the Hellenistic period that covers the Middle East (and India) but not Europe or the Mediterranean (as Hellenistic period does)."

You are saying this article should be deleted because it covers the specific Hellenistic Middle East area rather than including Europe or the Mediterranean. That's also stupid.

"It remains the case that "Hellenistic Middle East" is not a term that exists with a consistent meaning in scholarship (yes, google books shows that it does appear, but those citations are all using it to refer to different things from one another)."

You have not proven this point at all, and are just claiming it without providing any evidence. Clearly from the work on this article, this region is definable and has certain traits: it's an area of syncretism between Greek and Middle Eastern cultures. The area changed over time, in traits and even religion, and this article reflects that.

If you want to disprove it, show what citations you're referring to that aren't consistent with the definition. Aearthrise (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* It's moot, since the map has been changed, but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole, which is what a map captioned "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record). Furius (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's moot, then why are you arguing? Are you full of hot air and want to let it out?

"...but what I've found synthetic is not the claim that these two cultures influenced one another in Central Asia, but that that syncretism between Greeks and India was characteristic of the Middle East as a whole,Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" implies; there's very limited evidence for Greco-Indian syncretism in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia (Ashoka sent some embassies, which none of the recipients considered important enough to record)"

This is another stupid comment, and not based in reality. There is nowhere in the phrasing "Map of the Hellenistic Middle East, Greece, and Ashoka's Empire in cultural syncretism, 260 BC" that says Indo-Greek culture was a characteristic of the Middle East as a whole. All it says, is that these regions are in syncretism, i.e. they influence each other. You're extrapolation that the caption implies everywhere in the Middle East had Indo-Greek culture is incorrect, and just another one of your misreadings. Aearthrise (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a lot of these delete comments come from people *BEFORE* this page received so much content, namely Mccapra, RangersRus, and NebY; I was only notified 7 whole days after the creation of this deletion request. Furius originally claimed that Hellenized Middle East is a "made-up term not used in scholarship", although his search clearly showed more than 15 different citations of the term; nevertheless I changed the title to the more common "Hellenistic Middle East", with a plethora of citations. Furius also claims a lot of the material comes from Hellenistic period article, which is completely false. The majority of the content comes from books; the section with information from another article is the region list from the Partition of Babylon page and includes its citations. The map doesn't collapse the Hellenistic world into Ashoka's India, rather it illustrates the region of allied cultural syncretism that helped generate the Hellenistic Middle East. Aearthrise (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and copy to a sandbox, per Constantine. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Give a reason why instead of just saying "per Constantine", as his argument hinges on three "red flags": the map, and then two gripes about a typo and a word choice. Aearthrise (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about you read WP:BLUDGEON. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, are you claiming that my request for you to give an elaborated reason is "bludgeoning" you? Aearthrise (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have commented on every delete mentioned here. That is WP:BLUDGEON.

Kurt Behrendt; Pia Brancaccio (2011). Gandharan Buddhism Archaeology, Art, and Texts. UBC Press. p. 10. Doesn't mention Mithraism, Greco-Buddhism, etc. WP:OR

Paul Cartledge (2006). Thermopylae The Battle That Changed the World. ABRAMS, Incorporated. p. 5. Doesn't support, "Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria, Persepolis in Persia, Bactra in Bactria (Afghanistan), and Sirkap in India became important cultural centers of Hellenistic culture". WP:OR

Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, James Talboys Wheeler are not WP:RS. "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and travel guides are not considered WP:RS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims of "WP:OR" are nothing more than nitpicks on the lede of the article; you are saying that simply mentioning the examples of the Hellenistic religions Greco-Buddhism or Mithraism can't be done because the specific citation is not in the lede (despite the fact that these citations are already present further into the article). Furthermore, in regards to the citations for the cities, all the quotes together at the end sentence of the lede establish the importance of those named Hellenistic cities Alexandria, Antioch, Persepolis, Bactra, Sirkap. The single quote you mentioned only references Persepolis.

You claim Ethel E. Ewing, William Oscar Emil Oesterley, and James Talboys Wheeler are not reliable sources. What makes you say that they're not reliable sources of information? Be specific.

This is the section using the sources you claim are "not reliable": The Hellenistic Middle East was an area that facilitated the exchange of ideas between the cultures of Greece, Persia, Egypt, India, and Africa.^[12] Hellenistic culture was defined by its secular aspect, and facility to absorb elements from non-Greek sources such as local ideas and religion. Hellenists formed this diverse world culture.^[13]^[14]

Further you claim that "Indian History NCERT Notes Class 6-12 (Old+New) For Civil Services Examination" and "travel guides" are WP:RS, but don't give a reason why; disqualification of travel guides is not mentioned anywhere in the list of reliable source, so show that too.

It seems like you want to make an opinion, but not willing to provide good evidence to support it. Aearthrise (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under current name (or possibly another). The conquest of Alexander the Great led to a significant Hellenic influence on the Middle East. This is worthy of an article on the spread of Greek culture in the Middle East. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to R. Barri Flowers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of True Crime[edit]

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

No actual reviews, has been tagged for notability since 2016 (it was accidentally placed on the talk page until yesterday, which I fixed). The one "review" contains no analytical content and is a straightforward non interpretive summary of the book (and is also an unarchived dead link). There's another similar summary in Reference & Research Book News. Oct2012, Vol. 27 Issue 5, p106-109, which says basically nothing about the book other than what it is about and that it is exists. Other than that, nothing. There's the Portland review in external links but that website has a note about "sponsored" reviews that makes me unsure of its independence. I don't think either of these sources is enough to build an article on. Redirect to author R. Barri Flowers? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also a Midwest Book Review review but that publication has, since 2011, also accepted paid reviews, so that's not useful here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No book reviews that I can find, only hits on versions of the title/phrasing. not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion on redirect? The author's article mentions the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an WP:ATD. Found nothing usable online, and ProQuest only returned the Reference & Research Book News piece mentioned above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vian van der Watt[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few bits in profiles of his previous U20 appearances, but probably not enough to pass WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Stemmet[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Evans[edit]

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

This article seems to fail WP:SPORTBASIC as well as WP:SIGCOV—he is a college soccer player who signed but never played in the league for a fourth-tier English team for one year. All coverage is local and/or match reports. Anwegmann (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, England, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yingling[edit]

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

Fails general notability; stub article is about an American voice actor whose only credit is for having been the soundalike of a Disney character for one TV show (for which he was credited as merely an "additional voice") and an interactive theme park exhibit. Article only has one citation, which only relates to the aforementioned exhibit winning an award and has nothing to do with the article's subject. Furthermore, the article has a COI issue as it appears to have been created the subject himself years ago. –WPA (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR due to lack of reliable sources. I cannot seem to find any reliable sources that mention Yingling, and even if sources do exist the minor nature of the roles played would still probably warrant deletion. ReedyTurnip (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –WPA (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Amusement parks, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing any coverage on this person. Hkkingg (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

938749233[edit]

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:NNUMBER with zero interesting mathematical properties. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Does not meet WP:NNUMBER and the only source is a random census count. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would be pretty surprised if this doesn't SNOW. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NNUMBER as a number with no discovered interesting properties. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "One number found in a census count" doesn't get you an article, no matter how hard you try. This isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A look at the actual page in question does not find this number — only the consecutive numbers 938, 749, and 233 on one row (the first one labeled "Persons under 18 years"). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete Completely unnotable, I would PROD this article if I could but now that we are having this AfD we should SNOW delete. Air on White (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should take a look through the author's list of contributions and see whether there is anything at all that suggests that they are WP:HERE. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weird, pointless. XOR'easter (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. There's no support here for draftification. But if you make a request at WP:REFUND they might be willing to restore this article to Draft space. Know that it would need to meet approval by an AFC reviewer, if put directly in main space, it would be subject to CSD G4 speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet[edit]

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

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, China, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet has no issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War as you said.
This article is Notable and has been given significant coverage by reliable sources.

Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.^[15]
Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them^[16]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop listing down this big ((tq)) here. It was already a mess at the earlier discussion. Comment down if you've any possible arguments that could potentially save the article. I am pretty sure you haven't read what WP: NOTABILITY, and this reflects everywhere in the AFD. Long paragraphs are not the factor that determines whether it passes GNG or not. And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here. Imperial ^[AFCND] 19:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This event is notable and has received significant coverage in Reliable Sources (WP:RS) and it passes WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV and this isn't WP:OR since reliable sources mention the event as Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet.
Also what do you mean by "And I can see you've duplicated the text twice here."?? I gave you two reliable sources which mentions the event in a similar way. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Based Kashmiri, what you've done is exposed plagiarism. They mention the event in a similar way because one source plagiarized the other, not because this is a conventional way to write about this. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the WP:DEL-REASON guideline, there is no reason to delete this article and I have provided multiple reliable sources about this event here in the replies below. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have evidence that one of these sources plagiarised the other? Cortador (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Bigg Boss 17: Sana Raees Khan On Equation With Vicky Jain - "If He Would Have Come Alone..."
^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan lands in trouble for participating in Salman Khan's 'Bigg Boss 17'".
^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan gets involved in another controversy, Faizan Ansari calls her 'FRAUD' and 'CRIMINAL'".
^ "Bigg Boss 17 Under Fire: Bombay HC Lawyer Complains To Bar Council Over Advocate Sana Raees Khan's Participation In Show".
^ "Sana Raees Khan's Legal brilliance prevails, secures win".
^ "Aryan Khan's lawyer Sana Raees Khan talks about how we can tackle issue of body shaming – 'Education and awareness'".
^ "Supreme court lawyer Sana Raees Khan proves her mettle once again, wins case representing builder Indrapal Patil in the infamous Bhiwandi building collapse case".
^ "Bigg Boss 17: Meet Sana Raees Khan, Lawyer Of Sheena Bora And Aryan Khan Drug Cases".
^ "Advocate Sana Raees Khan becomes contestant in Hindi reality show 'Bigg Boss'".
^ "Bigg Boss 17 fame Sana Raees Khan bags web series titled The Indrani Mukerjea Story: Buried Truth".
^ "BB 17's Sana Raees Khan Defends Indrani Mukerjea In Buried Truth Docu-Series; Shares Promo".
^ Ethel E. Ewing (1961). Our Widening World: A History of the World's Peoples. Rand McNally. p. 59.
^ William Oscar Emil Oesterley (1914). The Books of the Apocrypha: Their Origin, Teaching and Contents. Revell. p. 12.
^ James Talboys Wheeler (1853). An Analysis and Summary of New Testament History: Including the Four Gospels Harmonized ... the Acts ... an Analysis of the Epistles and Book of Revelation ... the Critical History, Geography, Etc., with Copious Notes, Historical, Geographical and Antiquarian. Arthur Hall, Virtue, and Company. p. 28.
^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.

Delete. This is obviously a recreation of the previously deleted article. It does have a better title, in that it is no longer claiming there was a "Pala Tibetan War", but this is the same issue. We can write about this hypothetical conflict (one of the sources you list above even says "might have"!) on Devapala (Pala dynasty). If eventually we find sources to justify a separate article, we can spin out out from Devapala (Pala dynasty). But we did not find those sources in the last AfD, so I doubt we will find them here either. While I'm looking at that article, I note that we also have the sentences There is nothing impossible as the Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharmapāla to submit. Therefore, Devapāla must have also clashed with and defeated the Tibetan kings. Not only does this not follow the sources (our article says "must have", while neither source says so), it is obviously plagiarism. -- asilvering (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a recreation of the previously deleted article, also this article doesn't have any issues like that article, if you think there is any issue in this article then list them down.
The previous article had issues with the "Dharmapāla's Conflict with Tibetans" section and the "Conflict with Nepal" section, which is excluded from this article. This article focuses on the conflict between Devapala and Tibet, with reliable sources mentioning the event as "Devapala's Conflict with Tibet." The main problem with the previous article was the uncited title, but this article provides reliable sources to support its claim.Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean "it literally contains the exact same words as the previous article". If that were the case, it could just be nominated for speedy deletion. I mean "it is in effect the same article with the same problems", which is true. At least one of the two reliable sources you brought up above appears to be plagiarized, so not only is this not two separate sources with in-depth coverage, it's only one source with very brief coverage. This can easily be written about on Devapala (Pala dynasty) if necessary. (But I'd advise against plagiarising a plagiarised source to do so.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article cannot be deleted for the reasons you've provided, as per the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON.

Additionally, here are some additional reliable sources about this event:
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources do not support your case. -- asilvering (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain how? Also you still haven't given any reasons to delete this article from as per the Wikipedia's deletion policy WP:DEL-REASON. Based Kashmiri (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is simple, and it is the most common deletion reason that exists: this does not pass WP:GNG. We need multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per asilvering and Imperial Okmrman (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)~~Blocked sock. Owen× ☎ 05:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have any valid reason to delete the article, Please provide a valid reason from WP:DEL-REASON.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Okmrman And I just checked your User contributions and noticed you have voted for deletion for every single AFD you had discovered EVERY MINUTE, without even reading anything.Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both @Asilvering and @ImperialAficionado haven't provided any valid reason to delete this article from WP:DEL-REASON, how can you agree with them? Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:14, 14 May 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, Owen× ☎ 05:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , this is simply not notable and has wrongly been re-created as an article with a different name. If this goes on a topic ban would be in order for the editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I think I can improve this article based on the concern raised in this discussion, let me work on this article further. I'd request the closer to please draftify it so I can improve this article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 04:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough evidence that this needs a standalone article. Even if it does when all history is put together, it's clear the author does not yet have the requisite experience to write that article. It would have to be started from scratch and by a more experienced editor, which can be them in the future, but I think deleting is best for now to put an end to the disruption. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's so much WP:Synthesis present in these creations. IMHO the new creation seems to dovetail somewhat with the old page's sources, events, and personalities. But so far, there's a general consensus among other content-area editors this material has no place in pagespace (yet, if at all). The page creator's "gaming" behavior in recreating the same basic pagespace without violating specific prohibitions, seems by itself a behavioral issue, and several times repeated. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. Sorry but I don't see any consensus here for any particular outcome and it's not the closer's role to impose what I think should be done with this article. I can always be renominated at a future date if the article is not improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Álvarez (footballer)[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Has only two datbase entry / stats sources. Main statement is that he was on the team for a South American championship but didn't play. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bolivia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the DICCIONARIO BIOGRAFICO DEL FUTBOL BOLIVIANO (1930-2000):

"Nombre completo: Isaac Álvarez Moscoso. Apodo: La “Araña negra”. Nacimiento: Cochabamba, 6 de julio de 1933. Posición: Guardameta, No 1. Padres: ..... Esposa: ..... Hijos: Jorge Isaac, Jenny Carmiña, Martín Erick. Estudios: Primaria Escuela Carrillo, Secundaria Colegio Carrillo de Cochabamba. Otros Estudios: INSEF. Profesor de Educación Física. Cursos de Dirección Técnica. Clubes: En el Club 31 de Octubre (1963), de La Paz. Participación en la selección: Es Campeón Sudamericano de 1963. Jugó por la selección boliviana dos partidos oficiales (1963-1965) y fue batido en tres oportunidades. Es Campeón Sudamericano Invicto 1963. No tuvo participación oficial en dicho campeonato figurando en la banca. Dirección Técnica: Fue Preparador Físico en The 16 Strongest (1990). Otros Datos: Practicó el Atletismo, el Básquetbol, el Voleibol y el Fútbol. Distinciones: El gobierno mediante la repartición respectiva condecoró con la Medalla al Mérito Deportivo en el Grado de Caballero del Deporte, al cumplirse los 40 años de la conquista del XXI Campeonato Sudamericano. Además de ser acreedor a la pensión vitalicia de 4 sueldos mínimos mensuales."

There is also a bit of coverage here, which although not published in a reliable source, is definitely more evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: What's wrong with the ~170 word encyclopedia entry listed above? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Based on Google Translate, it covers the names of his children and the schools he went to in brief list form, and then briefly covers his playing career and then his pension... it's not enough on its own. Giant Snowman 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It gives a decent enough bit of coverage for SIGCOV I think:

Full name: Isaac Álvarez Moscoso. Nickname: The “Black Spider”. Birth: Cochabamba, July 6, 1933. Position: Goalkeeper, No 1. Parents: ..... Wife: ..... Children: Jorge Isaac, Jenny Carmiña, Martín Erick. Studies: Primary School Carrillo, Secondary School Carrillo de Cochabamba. Other Studies: INSEF. Physical Education Teacher. Technical Management Courses. Clubs: At the 31 de Octubre Club (1963), in La Paz. Participation in the national team: He is the 1963 South American Champion. He played for the Bolivian team in two official matches (1963-1965) and was beaten three times. He is the 1963 Undefeated South American Champion. He had no official participation in said championship, appearing on the bench. Technical Direction: He was a Physical Trainer on The 16 Strongest (1990). Other Information: He played Athletics, Basketball, Volleyball and Soccer. Distinctions: The government, through the respective distribution, awarded the Medal of Sports Merit in the Degree of Knight of Sports, on the 40th anniversary of the conquest of the XXI South American Championship. In addition to being a creditor of the lifetime pension of 4 minimum monthly salaries

- Probably could use more sources though... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The above source is pretty comprehensive and he definetly has more offline sources, having won the 1963 South American Championship with the Bolivia national team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:13, 14 May 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, Owen× ☎ 06:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete—One unsourced encyclopedia entry means very little. In my view, this does not come close to sustained and significant coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I actually think the encyclopedia entry does show prominence, especially as it mentions that he was given what seems to be a prominent sports medal by the government and that the Bolivian government granted him a lifetime pension for his sporting career. The blog post, while a blog, should also be considered here as it mentions he was "one of the glories" (of his club?). Considering that no Bolivian sources from the time have been searched, I'd lean towards keeping, considering that it is highly likely someone of such prominence would receive SIGCOV and we already arguably have SIGCOV in the encyclopedia entry for WP:SPORTCRIT. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points. I think a "no consensus" is probably the best outcome here, as this article needs a deeper dive. Anwegmann (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite backups for the encyclopedia. I understand what you mean but for the articles state currently, there is no SIGCOV. I also understand that you argue of possible existing sources, can you help digging? I can't give much weight of the encyclopedia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Backups for the encyclopedia? What do you mean? Why is an encyclopedia discussing the most important Bolivian footballers not to be given any weight, especially when it says the government thought him to be such an important player that they granted him a lifetime pension? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I disagree with the no consensus outcome. How a whole discussion should be on an encyclopedia that didn't give much per WP:SIGCOV. The fact proven is that the footballer isn't notable to the measure of being entered as an article. There are much sources needed to prove all claims in the article as well as being direct of how sources are analyzed. This may meet GNG but for the fact that we can't say a little written about him is enough for citing sources. Its not even a biographical book. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhool (2019 TV series)[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A WP:NTV series, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

- Sameeerrr, NTV is an essay and you have to provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  No, you do not "have to provide" three best sources. WP:THREE, meaning User:RoySmith/Three best sources, is not policy. The word three does not appear anywhere in Wikipedia:Citing sources, nor does it appear anywhere in Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts or Wikipedia:Notability. You keep telling people how things must be done around here, and you keep seeming to indicate that policy says things it does not. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Series received in-depth coverage [118], [119], [120], [121] Libraa2019 (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, I'd like to evaluate each source individually.
  1. This coverage is ROTM and lacks sig/in-depth on the subject, making it insufficient for establishing WP:GNG, though it may suffice for WP:V.
  2. I couldn't find any mention of the subject in this Dawn Images story.
  3. Similarly, the subject wasn't even mentioned in this The News story.
  4. While this Daily Times coverage looks good apparently, BUT it's worth noting that the author has only contributed three articles under their by-line. Given Daily Times acceptance of guest contributions, such articles might be guest contributions. Thus, while they can be used for WP:V, but they may not good enough for meeting WP:GNG. And lastly, please avoid WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mentioned that you could'nt find subject in provided source 2 and 3, i would like to clarify its also known as Daag as it was previouly titled Daag before release and producers change title afterwords. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Libraa2019, OK, I was unaware of this as it wasn't previously stated in the article. But nevertheless, provided coverage (this and this) is still ROTM coverage based on interviews -published in March 2019- to talk about the filming of the series. Remember Existence ≠ Notability. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge‎ to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu. in case there is information in this article that is not in the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 attack on Emmanuel Mwambulukutu[edit]

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

Lack of WP:LASTING - unfortunately a lot of violent crime happens in South Africa, not every attack is noteworthy. BrigadierG (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an attack on an ambassador is more notable than a random attack, but unless there was some lasting impact, I'd probably agree with Nom. 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete the diplomat may well be notable to have his own article, but not this event in particular I would say. Uhooep (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Emmanuel Mwambulukutu used to be an article on the diplomat before it was redirected to this newly-created page on the 2007 attack. It wasn't in great shape, but with most of the sources dead, I can't say much definitively on his personal notability other than it's probably borderline. The attack probably isn't notable enough on its own, but I didn't do any real research into it, so I'm not placing an actual !vote. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Mwambulukutu was a Member of Parliament from 1985-2000 then why was the article binned in the first place. That would make him notable. Even if the article was a mess it could still be improved. Uhooep (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restored his bio. He is clearly a notable politician having been an MP in the Tanzanian Parliament. Perhaps any non-duplicated prose from this afd can be transcribed there where appropriate. Uhooep (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu, not enough content to stand on its own. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emmanuel Mwambulukutu. This is something that happened in his life and should be part of his biography. We don't split random events in someone's biography off to their own articles unless there's so much to write about that it's impractical to keep it in the bio. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no point in merging. All the content is present in the main article. XabqEfdg (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't need a separate article and all info is already in the Emmanuel Mwambulukutu article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arenza Thigpen Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was originally deleted in 2022, and despite many sources, none appear to provide WP:SIGCOV. If they mention him, most sources quote Thigpen briefly or he appears in a photo. Several sources are primary. As for the "Voice of San Diego" source that purports to describe him as the "Michael Jordan of signature gatherers," it's (1) a WP:INTERVIEW and thus a primary source, and (2) the quote is actually Thigpen describing himself (“There’s an inner circle of the Michael Jordan(s) of signature-gatherers. I’m not trying to toot my own horn, but I am one of them."). Bottom line: sources don't support WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG from the sources provided. SportingFlyer T·C 18:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable sources that didn't establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sources aren't enough for WP:N. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TNT. Right now, it's a huge mess of irrelevant and non-essential links, a wall of citations that don't prove anything close to significant cverage. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Goodman[edit]

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

Essentially a resume in prose form. He's held some sub-cabinet state government posts and been the Arizona lobbyist for some companies. No notable accomplishments in those positions are listed. List of military service, education, job history. The references are all directory type listings confirming he held those positions but nothing more, except one ~100 word prose article saying his firm was hired to represent Apple. This wouldn't seem to meet the "significant coverage" standard of WP:GNG.

Article was created 10 years ago by an account that never did anything else, and hasn't gotten any content edits or inbound links in a decade. Those are not criteria for deletion, of course, but they do suggest that there's just nothing to add to take this beyond prose resume form into encyclopedia article. Which is what is suggested by the apparent lack of sources with non-routine coverage which could be cited. Here2rewrite (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no indicia of encyclopedic notability here. BD2412 T 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of what is claimed in the lead, was during his late 20s-early 30s. He was 23 when he was "Associate Director of Government Affairs for the Arizona Multihousing Association" Most likely titles that were non-notable - and possible volunteer - positions. User:Arizonapolitical never wrote anything else for Wikipedia, but this article. Possibly the same person as the article subject. — Maile (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage (but a bunch of quotes and cursory mentions) in the Arizona Republic. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV, no independent, secondary, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just directories/lists as references. Three of them don't even work anymore. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator; listed sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Waqar💬 09:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing much in terms of notability-lending refs. Reads like a promotional CV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wallis-Brown[edit]

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

Biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. I reviewed all sources in this WP:REFBOMB and found no WP:SIGCOV in any of them or in BEFORE search; all coverage is WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a South African business executive resume and nothing more. The entire article tells us his education background, and all the corporate positions he has held, but nothing about any accomplishments while holding those positions. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Sport[edit]

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

Seems to potentially be an accidental hoax? There doesn't seem to be a "Lincoln Sport" vehicle but rather a possible confusion with the Lincoln L series through any of the following:

"Sport Phaeton", a body style which seems to be from both the Lincoln L series and Lincoln K series: 1, 2, 3
This article does mention a "two-passenger roadster" model though is not given a name; the model, along with a "four-passenger phaeton" are both referred to as "sport cars" presumably part of the Lincoln L series but are not shown to have an actual model name.
This advertisement for a used "1922 LINCOLN SPORT MODEL" is interesting, though the most likely scenario is that the particular vehicle is just being referred to as a "sport model" rather than actually being named the "Lincoln Sport". This also seemed to have happened with the Lincoln phaeton model, same with this "Lincoln Sport Sedan".

I've looked at newspaper sources from around the time and what seems to be the probable case from what I have gathered is that the "Lincoln Sport" is not an actual car model, but rather the case is that certain Lincoln models at the time were just referred to as "sport models", such as their phaetons, sedans, or even roadsters.

Here are some additional newspaper clippings: "Lincoln Sport Sedan", "Lincoln Sport Touring", "Lincoln four-passenger sport model", "Lincoln sport roadster", "Lincoln sport model", "Lincoln sport model sedan", "Lincoln sport model cars" B3251 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the references use "sport" as an adjective, as indicated by the fact that it is not capitalized in the body of text. The only one I see that even hints at this being a model name is this advert; it may be that one of the Judkins bodystyles was indeed called a Sport Sedan, but that also doesn't make it a model name. None of the links discovered by B3251 could be considered to meet WP:N or WP:RS.

Furthermore, no one has contributed any actual content to this article since it was created in 2006, because there was no such car. The only change aside from formatting changes was when an IP changed 1930s to 1920s back in 2009. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - by all appearances a non-existent model based on a misinterpretation of something. --Sable232 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KreekCraft[edit]

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

This streamer is not notable and this article has major BLP issues. I could not find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article are mostly his own videos, as well as sites like this. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, and Florida. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with over 9 million subscribers I thought this would be a slam dunk, but sure enough the only coverage is low quality churnalism/AI video summaries. BrigadierG (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too thought there would a lot about KreekCraft on the internet seeing the fact that he is nearing 10 million subscribers, but all I found were these [122][123]. The article also only uses primary sources and self published sources, and the Esports articles seem very unreliable. Still can't believe no good sources on KreekCraft. I would've said draftify but theres nothing else to put in this article. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I could only find three/four reliable sources that would possibly count towards notability. The following are all reliable per WP:VGRS: Esports Insider, Venture Beat, and PCGamesN. Also, Esports Advocate is probably reliable, but Dexerto is rarely suitable for BLPs per WP:DEXERTO. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Esports Insider and Venture Beat are run-of-the-mill announcements based on the same press release which don't provide any significant coverage of KreekCraft other than to mention that he's part of the thing being announced. PCGamesN just describes what he found in one of his videos, which isn't really significant coverage in my view. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is somewhat written "promotionally", with external links and BLP issues. Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Paasch[edit]

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

WP:PROMO article creator wordlessly moved back from draftspace with no substantial coverage BrigadierG (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Behavioural science, Psychology, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]