Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 17	November 19 >

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 redirect‎ to Survivor: One World. There is consensus that there is insufficient sourcing for Spradlin to have a standalone page, however there is no clear consensus on target nor any indication further input is forthcoming. Since she won this season, I went with that as the target but this element of the close is an editorial decision and a new target can be chosen through the same process, if needed. Star Mississippi 14:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Spradlin

AfDs for this article:

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

Notable for only winning Survivor: One World. Everything else she has done since seems resume-building, not indication of notability, and probably fan-titillating. The Jeopardy reference is just mere reference to her One World win.

Should be redirected to either (preferably) Survivor: One World or (alternatively) List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, how about WP:BIO1E or WP:PAGEDECIDE instead? George Ho (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Television. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge – WP:BIO1E does present a strong case for removal. However, there is one source, Southern Living, that is about her work as an interior decorator. This feature article a top-ten (non-celebrity) magazine suggests that she is moving toward notability for other things. Other coverage of her marriage, false arrest, and pregnancy are not related to the television show and indicate that her celebrity has continued beyond the show, especially given that these articles are from major media. It is challenging to deal with people who are famous for being famous, but there is a demand for reliable content on these individuals in Wikipedia. My biggest push back on WP:BIO1E is that she is known for not just one television show but for two shows. Although both are part of the Survivor franchise, Survivor: One World and Survivor: Winners at War are treated as two different shows within Wikipedia. And the Survivor: Winners at War is where an issue emerges—almost all of the cast members of this show have a stand-alone Wikipedia article; all are similarly notable for being a winner of a prior season of a Survivor franchise show. I looked at a few of these articles; they had fewer sources and less post-show coverage than Spradlin, again indicating that her celebrity goes beyond the show. That being said, I do think the best solution for all of these Survivor-related bio articles is to merge a trimmed bio into the television shows' article. Because merging would be part of a bigger project and might take longer than the duration of this deletion discussion, more time is needed and is reasonable. I do not write about contemporary celebrities and do not watch Survivior, but have edited reality television show articles for the GOCE. Normally, there is a short bio for each contestant within the article for each season. However, short bios are not part of the Survivor: One World or Survivor: Winners at War articles. So, the redirect that I would normally support, would only take someone to the barest of details; content the searcher most likely already knows because they are searching for Spradlin. I support a merge vs. a redirect because there is content and related sources here that will add value to another article and would be lost with a redirect. If the decision is made to keep rather than merge this article, it needs a major copy edit. I have gone ahead and flagged it for this. Rublamb (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two "shows" you refer to are Survivor seasons. Some returnees who appeared in Winners at War have been redirected to their own winning seasons due to their lack of notabilities outside their own winning seasons.

Why must we preserve info about "her marriage, false arrest, and pregnancy", especially at the cost of enforcing WP:BLP? Even returnees' family info didn't save such articles from being redirected. Furthermore, I don't see her notability as an interior decorator verified by multiple sources other than Southern Living. Must we include and preserve every info about her to justify keeping this article?

I don't see any info that is relevant and valuable to Survivor: One World. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding "would be lost with a redirect", the info about this person won't be lost (unless servers would mess up deleted pages?). Just historical revisions shall suffice, shan't they? George Ho (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stand corrected on seasons vs. two shows and will strike that above. I am not saying there is a need for overly detailed information about her marriage and pregnancy in the article and have indicated a need for a comprehensive edit. Rather, the coverage of such life events by mainstream media helps define her as a celebrity vs. a one-off reality television show participant. There is a tipping point between the two; the Southern Living article stands out in this regard. When I referred to information being lost, I specifically meant inaccessible to the people who come to Wikipedia for information—because deleted articles are removed from Wikipedia and Internet search results. In terms of what might be valuable in a merge, a general bio might include where a contestant is from, their occupation, and any personal details that were significant in how they played the game. Photos are also included. Because this is one of many Survivor participant articles that would need to be deleted based on the criteria outlined in your nomination, it is simpler to treat this as a comprehensive merger project that would not necessarily require discussion for every article. I have previously merged articles that fell under BIO1E without complaints; the key is that valuable content is retained while the questionable article goes away. Rublamb (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what might be valuable in a merge, a general bio might include where a contestant is from, their occupation, and any personal details that were significant in how they played the game. That's something that Fandom can do, can't it?

inaccessible to the people who come to Wikipedia for information—because deleted articles are removed from Wikipedia and Internet search results. I apppreciate your concerns about effects on accessibility, but being removed from search results doesn't mean info is valuable. Sometimes, being part of search engine results, like Google, is more like... clickbait?

Regarding merger, I don't see any Survivor season article containing a mini-bio of its winner, do I? When a winner was redirected, no info about such winner was merged into the season article, and relevant info about contestants, including winners, have already been included only as long as the info is relevant to the specific season. George Ho (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response: My recommendations are based on articles for other reality television shows where the contestants do not have their own articles. Clearly, the contestant's background info is not included in the Survivor articles because someone expanded that content into a secondary article. When deciding between partially merging or deleting in this instance, we should consider what is wanted by and/or helpful to users of Wikipedia; what is included in Fandom is irrevelant. As discussed in WP:WPINWA, Wikipedia has a different role from Fandom and includes sources for its content. While some content in this article should be trimmed and is better suited for Fandom, it also includes basic details could be helpful to understanding the televison show and the dynamics between cast members. Let's see what other's think. Rublamb (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Rublamb (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject (barely) notable for one event, an exemplary case of that kind. And the fact that the main curators of the text are kamikaze accounts truly does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There seems to be consensus that a redirect would not work due to other films by the same name, and nor would a DAB as those are also non notable therefore, no ATD available. Should that change down the road, happy to restore the history under a redirect. Star Mississippi 14:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chodhyam

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

Fails WP:NFF and WP:NFSOURCES as non-notable, incomplete, unreleased film, lacking significant coverage to establish notability. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tarka (film): Create a section titled "Remakes". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into Tarka (film), as Kailash29792 suggests above, seems a correct solution.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reliable source to claim that this is a remake of Tarka, or that this project has even started filming. Non-notable production, redirect is redundant.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Check page 301. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  "Production itself" is non-notable per WP:NFF. Unlikely to search for a non-notable production, hence redundant. There's also other released Malayalam films with the same title: [1][2].--The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair enough then (possible compromise) Keep as a disambiguation page with at least the 2 films mentioned above, to help the reader. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC) (Edited Nov 21: make it a disambiguation page if that 2017 film can be linked to something blue, if not merge as !voted above)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) (edited Nov, 24, see below for further clarification)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to show notability. Flurrious (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Per WP:NFF the production itself would have to be notable because the film was never released – this doesn't appear to be the case. I agree that there's really nothing to merge because there's nothing sourced to demonstrate that this film was a remake of Tarka. Not sure how this could be replaced with a disambiguation page; we would need articles to disambiguate first. Tollens (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the 2 films to be disambiguated are the ones mentioned above, one being a redirect to Tanka (with the source mentioned above, that is perfectly all right), the other a so far a red link. I’ve only changed to Disambiguate to find a compromise, merge being challenged. This would help the reader as at least 2 films have this title. Best -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I somehow didn't see that source in the discussion above, thanks for pointing it out. I'd support a merge then – the production doesn't have to be notable for it to be included in another article about a notable topic. @Mushy Yank: Is there an existing article you're aware of that mentions the other film? To convert the page to a disambiguation we need more than one bluelink – see WP:DABMENTION – otherwise the current page should be redirected. Tollens (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I can see but The Doom Patrol might know. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: The Doom Patrol Tollens (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Cannot be redirected. I have mentioned the reason above.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you .....But that was not the question! Quite the opposite. A disambiguate page would include the 2 films, do you have an idea where to redirect the second? I still think the redirect/merge you oppose is quite appropriate (it can include a note and source about that other film) and do not find your argument against it compelling; but if others do, then, again, as a compromise, a disambiguate page can be considered, in my view, but in that case it would certainly need something to redirect to, for the second film. (the first has a target, most evidently) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#09), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. - this is an abadi (similar to a census tract), and therefore does not get a GEOLAND pass indeed it is explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep - The location given in the article points to what appears to be a village called simply Ebrahim Abad (or Ibrahimabad I suppose in another romanisation). FOARP (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Villa Holidays

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

No independent notability; brief one sentence mentions of managed properties in top listings and changes in management/hiring/layoffs does not qualify; see WP:SERIESA and WP:CORPDEPTH lizthegrey (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. lizthegrey (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. Flurrious (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Shaheed Benazirabad, Nawabshah

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

Does not appear to meet notability standards, sources are all just press releases and one is a job listing. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 20:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 20:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ref 2 is borderline on providing SIGCOV, because it's really a story about other existing Boards being concerned about the creation of this one, but I couldn't find anything else after doing a search. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Educational boards being a government functionary are very much notable. There must be sources about it as they get regular press coverage whenever they announce results. Muneebll (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muneebll "There must be sources", well where are they? Seawolf35 (talk - email) 20:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that came off as brash, but the sources are really not WP:SIGCOV, and also the subject's sources do not show that they meet WP:GNG. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable or not, what exactly are we learning about the organization from this article? That it exists and was formed in 2015? I'm all for using stubs to get work on an article started, but the dearth of sources about this means that this will likely never grow beyond this empty stub, even if notability can be established. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Ghotmeh

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

Withdrawn due to significant work and additions of sources I could not find in my WP:BEFORE search. Kudos to @Hygroscopique: for their stellar efforts. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hygroscopique: Thanks so much ;)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Relies on primary and self-published sources rather than independent, third party publications. Reads like a resume and/or listing of projects and prizes. Primarily promotional in tone. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and France. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Thanks so much ;)[reply]
Keep this page, I think there is a lot of material to add and the Architect is of good notability Whiteacrobat (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welfare and Institutions

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

Should be moved to draft space yvanyblog^(talk) 22:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough information to draftify, would've gone for Db-g2. Ping me if the article is improved with RS. dxneo (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly meaningless and pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in the article suggests notability and no sources are provided. Suonii180 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G2. Owen× ☎ 17:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references provided and fails GNG. I oppose a G2 speedy. Frank Anchor 19:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlueNC

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

Article on a non-notable, seemingly long-defunct website, originally created by the editor of the site. Only one of the external links is actually still active, and it would not be considered significant coverage in a reliable source. Searches turned up no additional coverage on the website, making it a failure of the WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. The article was WP:PRODed shortly after its creation in 2006, but that was contested by the article creator, so I am bringing it to AFD now. Rorshacma (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and North Carolina. Rorshacma (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I find [3], unless we have more, that's not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NWEB. Owen× ☎ 14:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Fleishman

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite all the subjects achievement there seems to be little written about him by reliable sources. His books get him close to WP:AUTHOR but there is still a significant gap. So many of the sources are by him or are interviews of him and these do not count for notability. Before searches here in Europe have failed to find anything which really stacks up. As it stands it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was undeleted for some obscure reason and, not noticing it was an undeleted older article, I sent it to draft because it was sitting on the review queue as new - and so clearly not ready for mainspace and offered such scanty notability. Although that draft was subsequently denied on submission by another editor (confirming my view that it wasn't good enough for mainspace), the move to draft was, correctly, undone by Liz noticing it was too old to draftify. It has since led a charmed life as a BLP of someone clearly non-notable. Not a great deal has changed, the subject still doesn't qualify as notable per WP:GNG as a journalist, author, historian or podcaster. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Created by "Glenn F", possibly Glenn Fleishman. Reads like a resume. Deleted and restored twice. — Maile (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Partisan Voting Index

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

There seems to be a number of sources that use information from the Index, but virtually no sources about the Index, indicating that the Cook Partisan Voting Index is not independently notable. Cortador (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

retain: there are enough varied sources discussing this index in different ways, another example: ^[1]

References

^ Paul, M., Zhang, R., Liu, B. et al. State-level political partisanship strongly correlates with health outcomes for US children. Eur J Pediatr 181, 273–280 (2022).

HudecEmil (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with these sources is that they utilise the CPVI without being about it. Cortador (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

retain: There are several seemingly independent sites about the index, but also---if an article describes the index in detail, even if it's not about the index, doens't that satisfy notability? AriTheHorse 23:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you don't need a source to explicitly be about something to be SIGCOV. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's plenty of coverage about the index, for example [4]. This is a widely-used metric for covering elections (cited by almost everyone who analyzes US elections, even though most of its mentions don't go into much coverage) and deletion would not benefit our readers at all. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. AryKun (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to be careful not to conflate notability with sources that cite Index reports (as both sources presented here so far do) as against those that analyse the Index. So, for example a source such as this [5] indicating that the PVI influenced their own Index would count towards notability (albeit this is a passing mention). I suspect that there's enough out there describing the Index with SIGCOV, but we need to see those sources, rarther than just flooding this with examples of reports about PVI reports. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cited references are more than enough to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azriel Brown

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

This article was previously deleted and still does not pass WP:BIO. FULBERT (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret, of which he is founder.Djflem (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret as he is not independently notable and whatever relevant content here can be merged into the article for the yeshiva. Alansohn (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

France–Portugal football rivalry

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

Welcome to the next episode of "not every two teams that have ever played each other are rivals". The page is based mostly on primary sources of match data sheets. Only one source, from 2006, mentions a rivalry but it is now lost to time after Eurosport was amalgamated into TNT. We need to remember that journalists and media throw the "rivalry" word around, look here at a recent news headline calling Everton and Luton rivals, two teams and cities with zero connection to each other. [6] Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATS for a comparison between these two teams or what players have played the most times in this random pairing of teams. There are rivalries that exist because the teams every so often meet at tournaments, but the Argentina–England football rivalry is so because of the jingoistic nature of both countries' media, rather than simply playing each other at high stakes a lot. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "not every two teams that have ever played each other are rivals" - These types of comments aren't necessary, helpful or wiki-like. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What else am I supposed to say about a page that purports to show a rivalry between two teams, but has no reference beyond saying that they've just played each other a few times? Is it more polite and formal to blindly believe that every possible pairing of teams is a rivalry, like the absurd Luton-Everton source says? On these discussions [7] [8] [9] pages have been deleted because the community has consensus that sources don't support the existence of a rivalry. Should all of those users be chastised because they didn't see any evidence that a rivalry even existed? Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown Temptation - I think you should focus on your critiques of the article and it's sources. KatoKungLee (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I definitely don't think anything in the article shows the tune of a rivalry, but that doesn't mean that articles about it do not exist. Part of the issue for me is that my Portugal France online media is limited. I'll try to find some stuff, but people who can find this stuff on newspapers.com might be able to find something. Conyo14 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, France, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards delete Not very expansive! You read the first few opening paragraphs then get to the Background section which has nothing! It's just another head-to-head NOSTATS article after that!! But 28 games between the two countries with not much to write about? Frankly, unless there was decent prose about the topic, I am in agreement to delete this. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no significant number of meetings, nor political factors or recent events within football that specifically instigate a rivalry between France-Portugal. Svartner (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead towards delete - It doesn't seem to be particularly notable. However it worth seeing if there are similar articles. Argentina-Brazil football rivalry is well known and notable. I think if the article is better able to showcase the notability of the topic then it may be worth keeping. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The authors did an impressive job of collecting references. Alas, the references simply amass various game statistics, without establishing any notable "rivalry", which as others here pointed out, is a term coined by the sports media to drum up interest and excitement for routine tournaments. I can think of no useful merge target. All the information is already included in the various team and match pages. Owen× ☎ 17:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject plainly does not meet WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Stats and passing mentions don't cut it. Willing to reconsider my vote if better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Bernole

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

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. The subject made three appearances for his respective national team as a teenager. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG Angelo (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, unless substantial information and notability is included. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per all. Owen× ☎ 17:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Acute accent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A with acute (Cyrillic)

AfDs for this article:

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

Cyrillic letters marked with the acute accent for syllabic stress (as used in dictionaries and readers) are not distinct letters or “stressed variants” of letters, and don’t belong to any national alphabet. The articles about them are not notable subjects meeting WP:GNG, but merely the cross-section of the subject of the respective base letter with Acute accent or Stress (linguistics).

These articles were all previously AFD’d and soft deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic). New edits didn’t discuss nor address the reasons for deletion. —Michael Z. 18:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 18:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other nominees are:

Ye with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I with acute (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yery with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
U with acute (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yu with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ukrainian Ye with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dotted I with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Michael Z. 18:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptional article is U with acute (Cyrillic), which may possibly serve as a variant glyph for the letter Ў in the Karachay-Balkar language, but this remains un-cited in any article that I can find, and so also fails to satisfy GNG. (If it were cited, it should probably be only a redirect to the article about that letter.) —Michael Z. 18:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to Accute accent). As the nom correctly notes, these are not distinct symbols, but just the combination of auxilliary stress markers with Cyrillic letters. This contrasts with e.g. á as a distinct letter in several Latin-based alphabets. –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as failing GNG Mach61 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Acute accent. We don’t need a page for every single accent used in the Latin alphabet, only important ones. Also can’t find any sources relating to this page. Also note G4 since this page was deleted because of similar reasons. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 00:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, a soft delete is basically like an expired PROD, which anyone can request the undeletion of without question, so this recreation is fine in that respect and isn't eligible for G4. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (without a redirect, as an unlikely search term, and misleading as well). Barring some kind of demonstration that these are in fact distinct letters and not ad hoc dictionary stress markings, this title shouldn't exist, even as a redirect. I can't access the source, but it seems to be a guidebook, which at best is primary and doesn't demonstrate anything other than this one book uses this as a stress marking (or whatever it actually does...I'm making an educated guess here). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, for the reasons given above. I am also adding (1) Ukrainian Ye with acute. The article says "For example, the word прес-пап'є́ (Paperweight) uses this letter". Well, no, it doesn't. I made a Google search for "прес-пап'є́", with the accent, and checked the first 30 hits. Every one used "прес-пап'є", without the accent; none of them even mentioned the form with the accent as an alternative. ...and (2) Dotted I with acute. The article states that the letter is "usually only seen in dictionaries to display when a stressed accent is used in a word with I". There is only one reference in the article, and that one is a general page on the acute accent, which doesn't even mention this letter. A Google search for "Dotted I with acute" produced this Wikipedia article, an image showing this letter on Wikimedia commons, a YouTube video lasting 4 seconds which shows an animated jokey cartoon version of the letter, and a spam site which doesn't even mention the letter, but uses hidden text saying "Dotted I with acute" evidently for search engine optimisation, no doubt having found the expression by trawling Wikipedia. That was all; not even so much as a bare mention in any reliable source. It is perfectly clear that none of these accented letters are actually used in the languages in question, despite claims that they are by the editor who created the articles.JBW (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per discussion. These are not real letters, but just the way to indicate a stressed syllable. As another indication, there are even no corresponding articles about these "letters" in the East Slavic language wikipedias. Regarding U with acute (Cyrillic), there is not enough info about it in the Karachay-Balkar language article to support keeping even a redirection. --Kammerer55 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete All~~ Redirect All to Acute accent (I did not know about the linking OwenX points out)-- For reasons very thoroughly beaten above, there is no encyclopaedic subject here. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above ~~without redirects (very unlikely search terms).~~ Cheers, Dan the Animator 06:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirects per Owen×'s point below (was not aware of that infobox before). Dan the Animator 19:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Acute accent. Note that deleting would leave redlinks in the popular Template:Infobox Cyrillic letter, tempting others to recreate these pages. Owen× ☎ 18:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hip Hop Pantsula. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O Mang Reloaded

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

This is an extended version of O Mang?. If I'm not mistaken, a deluxe or extended version is not eligible for a standalone article therefore this should be merged into O Mang?. dxneo (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why a deluxe album wouldn't be allowed its own article. It's less likely to happen because deluxe albums don't usually get the same level of coverage, but articles such as Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection are completely valid. However, notability is required for any album, deluxe or otherwise to receive an article, and I don't see evidence of that for either version of O Mang, so I say ~~delete~~ redirect both articles to Hip Hop Pantsula. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QuietHere, my point exactly. I don't know a way of nominating two or more articles at once so I thought it would be great to merge or redirect then ~~delete them altogether~~ as I don't think we can discuss notability of another article here. I stand to be corrected. dxneo (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo follow the instructions at WP:MULTIAFD and you'll have it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QuietHere, the related article (O Mang?) is marked as redirect, i guess this should also follow in that direction since the nomination looks stupid already. dxneo (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to write "redirect" rather than delete above and forgot. Adjusted my vote. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is only one article included in this AFD deletion discussion. To do a bundled nomination, please see guidelines at WP:AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting seems a bit inadequate as there are no sources and redirect is probably the way to go. dxneo (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you would disagree with a relisting but I don't understand how it is "inadequate". I think you probably meant another word. As for me, I just wanted to hear assessments from more than two editors. That's my preference and it's only the first relisting. I don't think that is asking for too much. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hip Hop Pantsula per above discussion. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Palazzo

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

Subject is a footballer with just two seasons of experience in the lower ranks professional football. He fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV ([10]), all sources in the article are non-independent (transfer reports from his clubs at the time, and name mentions from Football League reports). I could not find anything relevant or even close to noteworthy by searching for the subject around the Web. Angelo (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep From my view, the general criteria is fine for GNG, there is just enough for me. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. The only independent source currently in the article (notiziariocalcio.com) isn't enough to pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, Does indeed fail GNG per nom, but I tend to try and not side with deletionist thinking and aim to keep when possible. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - sources not showing in-depth coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. In addition to being a clear minority, arguments in favor of keeping the argument did not provide evidence to refute the core claims of the deletion argument, which is that lasting notability for the session in itself, independent of the notable matters that were discussed in it, has not been demonstrated. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Special Session of the Parliament of India

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

In India, Parliament sits at least three times a year - in the Budget, Monsoon, and Winter sessions. These sessions last for months, and discuss and promulgate many pieces of legislation, similar to the sessions of other countries. When even the Budget sessions, arguably the most important parliamentary sessions, do not get their own individual articles, I fail to see how this five-day session, that passed one single piece of legislation, is notable.

Most of the article is either a list of individual statements and minor speeches made by politicians or a load of media speculation that turned out to be nothingburgers. We shouldn't include these since WP is NOTNEWS (nor is it the Hansard).

There are two, and only two, notable things in this article, and none are inherent to this special session - Parliament started functioning in a new building, and the Women's Reservation Bill was passed as the 106th Amendment. The Amendment already has its own article, and the information about the inauguration of the building more properly belongs to the New Parliament House, New Delhi article. Other articles that can absorb info from here include 17th Lok Sabha and second Modi ministry.

The article subject - the special session itself - shows no enduring relevance; searches for "special session" dropped sharply after the close of the session, and even the sources themselves talk less about the importance of the special session and more about the Amendment. Thus, in my view, the article should be deleted. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Event of no lasting significance, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Event has not demonstrated enduring relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro-Koji (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/selective merge to 17th Lok Sabha. I don't see any other articles on Indian parliament sessions, so I don't see why we'd need such a detailed news-style agenda of a two-day session. Reywas92^Talk 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit cautiously. I do agree that there are weird implications of this special session being played up as especially important when other sessions don't have such detailed articles. I also think it may be worth adjusting the tone to make more clear that this did indeed turn out to be a "nothingburger". But, well, nothingburgers in politics that have hype at the start but is unfulfilled happen, and can be relevant to document, too. If we have more detailed articles in the future on what each session of the Lok Sabha does, that's probably okay? As a fallback, redirect/merge but do not think the content is worthy of outright deletion. SnowFire (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Information in this Wikipedia article is verifiable and there are numerous reliable independent sources which can be found on this topic. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a topic. Content in this article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, data in this article is put in context with references to independent sources having "significant coverage". Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Policy clearly states - If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).

This article page was created as an offshoot of Special session of the Parliament of India. Requesting fellow editors to help the community to preserve the editorial effort and this useful information on 2023 parliament session with historic significance.

P.S. - Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. --Anand2202 (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find the response on my talk page here

Above comment posted by Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI. -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Anand2202. You wrote: "[E]ditors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." I truly cannot understand what that task could possibly entail. We search for sources but find none, yet we should continue to believe sources exist?! They might, since that probablity is never zero, but how does that help our search, or, more importantly, our assessment of an article's notability? It smacks of "well, sources might exist". -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails the notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, NOTNEWS, LASTING. // Timothy :: talk 14:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I leave the suggested page move to regular editing. RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Country Cousin

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

Apparently non-notable short film, unsourced since October 2007. Newspapers.com only turned up advertisements or theater schedules with no significant coverage and I could not find mentions elsewhere. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to withdraw my nomination with the sources that have been found - Thank y'all so much! I always learn new research tricks from these nominations. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fatty Arbuckle's films have been covered in a variety of books over the years including Rediscovering Roscoe: The Films of 'Fatty' Arbuckle. [11] DonaldD23 talk to me 21:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the GBooks search is broken, this book does not seem to mention the film at question. Any chance you have a direct quote or a page number? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mention of a play from the 1890s by the same name, nothing found for this film Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~At the very least redirect to Roscoe_Arbuckle_filmography#1914~~ (with that source, indicating its survival status is unknown). ~~But not opposed to~~ keep, ~~especially if other sources can be checked.-~~My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Changed to full Keep, after checking sources provided by Cunard here and on page. Thanks!)

Keep For a film that was released in 1914, I think there is enough coverage and independent analysis to support a standalone article.
1. Walker, Brent E. (2010). Mack Sennett's Fun Factory: A History and Filmography of His Studio and His Keystone and Mack Sennett Comedies, with Biographies of Players and Personnel. Vol. 2. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 295. ISBN 978-0-7864-7711-1. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Our Country Cousins [KC-240] (June 6, 1914) Ir (943/1000 ft.). D: Mack Sennett. C: Unknown. WT: Rube Elopement. A country boy elopes with a farmer's niece pursued by cops, who must rescue the girl when she falls down a cliff. Keystone releases list, NYMPC negative and release records and Motion Picture News all give title as above. Contrary to previous secondary source speculation, Dell Henderson did not direct this film. Previous speculation on the presence of Rube Miller and Charley Chase in the cast is unverified but unlikely, and comes from a secondary source that has proven inaccurate with regard to verifiable Keystone credits. [Filmed 5/8/14-5/18/14; Finished/ Shipped 5/24/14; Rec'd in NY 6/1/14.]"
2. "Mutual Program: Our Country Cousins". Motion Picture News. Vol. 9, no. 25. 1914-06-27. p. 68. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: ""Our Country Cousins." (Keystone. Sat., June C.) — The arrival of the cousin at the farm causes a lot of trouble between two of the farm hands. She decides to elope with one and the two go over a precipice. The remainder of the reel is employed in their efforts to get up again. The comedy is sure to produce a laugh, but is not equal to the usual Keystone."
3. "Comments on the Films". The Moving Picture World. 21 (1): 65. 1914-07-04. Retrieved 2023-11-19.
  The article notes: "Our Country Cousins (Keystone), June 6.— Farm characters and an elopement that has the Keystone flavor and is sure to make laughter. It has unexpected and very funny incidents and will surely make an excellent offering,"
4. "The Story of the Films". Kinematograph and Lantern Weekly. Vol. 16, no. 393. 1914-11-05. p. xxv. ProQuest 2594735242.
  The article notes: "Our Country Cousins (C). The farmer's niece arrives on a visit and everyone falls in love with her, more so the farmer's two sons. One of the sons decides to kidnap the maiden. He does so, but the priest refuses to marry them, and the Keystone police are forced to give assistance. This they succeed in doing only too well, and the whole thing ends in a glorious scrimmage. Released Dec. 14th, length 1000 ft."
5. "Our Country Cousins". The Bioscope. 1914-11-05. p. xli. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "Our Country Cousins.—The farmer's niece is carried off by one of his sons and the Keystone police are called in to the pursuit. The niece falls down a cliff, and most of the rest fall down a great number of times in the attempt to rescue her, their antics being certain to cause tumultuous laughter. (December 14th. 1,000 ft.)"
6. "Pictoria". Maitland Mercury. 1914-11-19. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "The big Keystone comedy "Our Country Cousins" was clever and amusing, the audience being impelled to laughter by the extraordinary antics of "Fatty and Mabel." The comics were good, and the orchestral music with special effects proved an enjoyable feature of the evening."
7. "The Lyceum Picture Co". The Riverine Grazier. 1914-10-20. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: ""Our country cousins," a Keystone comedy, was like many comic films, somewhat overdone, but it was most successful as a mirth producer."
8. "Features At Bijou Tonight". Lewistown Daily News. 1914-07-04. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""Our Country Cousins" is another of those screaming Keystone comedies only this is said to be even better than a good many of them."
9. "Central Picture Theatre". Folkestone Herald. 1914-12-19. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""Our Country Cousins" was a very funny Keystone release featuring the famous Keystone Police."
Cunard (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent expansion, which together with sources above demonstrates the topic is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough reviews per WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - indeed reviews are sufficient per WP:NFILM.BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved and expanded using multiple reliable sources also identified in this discussion that show significant coverage such as reviews so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expanded sourcing and move to Our Country Cousins which all the sources agree is the actual title. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hide and Seek (2023 film)

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

Unreleased film. All sources talk about Dhanya Ramkumar, not anything else. Draft till release. DareshMohan (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify then. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. The article says that it was released earlier this year but I couldn't find any sources to confirm. It needs a verifiable release and some better sources such as full reviews to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec Soccer Club

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Consensus is that NPSL teams do not have the presumption of notability, and that page is at Boston Aztec already. A cursory search returned no significant coverage of the organization, just lots of routine local coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To me this feels like a case of WP:PROMOTIONAL content. Govvy (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gheorghe Bantîș

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

The article is little more than a database entry and my searches didn't yield anything that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources were FMF and NOI, both trivial mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Moldova. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Mbdfar (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xela Arias

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

Article does not pass GNG Iljhgtn (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Poetry, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lots of coverage in Spanish, the look like RS [12], [13]. Could really use a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arias easily meets GNG as a basic internet search might show to anyone who might never have heard of her....To make things short simple and in English, just open Galician_Literature_Day#List of authors honoured on Galician Literature Day to have an idea of her notability. I am inviting nominator to kindly withdraw. (Very strong Keep)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree B, sources seem to demonstrate SIGCOV. Also more coverage here [14], so looks like there's enough for WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Reliable sources abound.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Passes NPOL as Minister in national cabinet. (non-admin closure) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uju Kennedy-Ohanenye

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

The person is not notable (per politics or general notability), and the page is too promotional and flattering. Lulakayd (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, Law, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person is a Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the only female presidential aspirant of the ruling party in the 2023 election.

On the view that the article is flattery and promotional, can you outline words or statements that I need to remove? Deborahudo (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: A minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is inherently notable. Princess of Ara 10:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — a member of the Cabinet of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. May be promotional but AfD is not for cleanups. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPOL as a cabinet minister and has likely has enough coverage for an outright GNG pass; deletion is not cleanup. Curbon7 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:NPOL (WP:NSUBPOL). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Stransky

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

Working journalist and author, but doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tempography

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

It exists but I couldn't establish that it meets notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tempographs and Tempography is a thing that exists (I found references for the use of the term that go back to 1911), however, this article is about a "conceptual video art project" by Anthony Bannwart from 2003 that was titled Tempography. According to the article history, the article was originally about the technique/technology of Tempography, but was hijacked in 2008 by an editor named Anthonybannwart who turned it into an article about his video art project. The art project is a non-notable art work failing GNG. With the exception of one news article all I can find on it are primary sources and social media. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, Sweden, and Switzerland. Netherzone (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per criterion G5. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qaiser Baryar

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

The subject fails as Politician, fails WP:NPOL and also fails notability as a Businessman. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Pakistan. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5, sockpuppet of Sazmancrpo. Wikishovel (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jin-e

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:NBLP, and WP:SINGER with WP:BEFORE on Google/Bing (English) and Daum/Naver (Korean) showing lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. While, she has released couple of songs, none of it charted on the Circle Digital Chart, the national chart of South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: source 4 is listed as a RS, but it's trivial coverage. I can't see any other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Chink#United Kingdom. The history remains for a merge, which can be done editorially. Star Mississippi 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinky

AfDs for this article:

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

But you wrote this‽: I rescued this in 2007 when it was nominated for deletion. At the time it looked like this and was about some slang. I rewrote it to be about a type of restaurant, on the basis that this appeared to be the common name for that type of restaurant in the U.K. and it then looked like this. There was no mention of slang.
But it's about slang now‽: People keep trying to bring back the rubbish. I tried to keep this focussed on the type of restaurant and put the stuff about the name, which I was even the one who provided actually sourced content on, as a parenthetical aside, so that it then looked like this. A year later when it was re-nominated for deletion it was because random editors had put it back to being about slang rather than about a type of restaurant. The small amount of stuff that I had written about the restaurants's cuisine, which I had little doubt could be expanded upon, had been blanked by vandals, so I put it back in. Discussion of the cuisine got removed again for — bizarrely — being irrelevant to the class of resurant whose cuisine it was (sic!), a year later. And we were back to nothing but my originally parenthetical side discussion of the slang name again, rather than the type of restaurant.
Surely you can rescue this again?: It would be foolish to do so. It's a slang title, and experience shows (very notably from the edit history of this article) that slang names are not proper article titles. Back in 2007 we didn't have a Chinese restaurant article. We only had the disambiguation that is now at Chinese restaurant (disambiguation), which was all that we had on Chinese restaurants until 2011. We didn't have a Chinese takeaway article and it redirected to the U.S. generic take-out at the time. And it wasn't until 13 years later that we gained British Chinese cuisine. If I were writing any of the content (such as about the cuisine of Chinese restaurants in the U.K., not that we need my start-off edits any more on that subject) that I wrote then, today, I'd put it in those articles with non-slang titles, and put the discussion of whether "chink" and "chinky" are pejoratives in the U.K. in the chink article. We have properly systematized this in the intervening 16 years, and have non-slang-titled articles now.
So what about a redirect?: This article is a massive attractive nuisance, and people cannot stop writing about slang, even when they clearly know where the article on the slang is. It could redirect to chink, but that is going to fall afoul of Project:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects. And I predict that it would be back to a rubbish unsourced article about slang within a couple of years. But the biggest argument against it is that, contrary to my research in 2007, it seems that Chinese restaurants in the U.K. aren't even commonly known as "chinky"s. They are known as Chinese restaurants and Chinese takeaways. The picture at right is one of many.
But, but, but … it's sourced!: Some of it is. I know. I wrote pretty much all of the sourced parts apart from just one extra sentence about slang from one of the foolish editors who tried to make it all about slang yet again in its history and a second small addition about slang. Everything else is the same sort of unsourced rubbish that got this article nominated for deletion twice already.
Shouldn't you tell the article writer that you nominated it for deletion?: I consider myself notified.

Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Language, Discrimination, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a disambiguation page. Link to the slur and the Chinese restaurant articles and most likely some people who have as a nickname or different spelling (Chinki Yadav). Love the intrapersonal communication style nomination. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that idea is that all of the supposedly conflicting redirect targets are invalid, and the disambiguation cleanup people would object to them. "Chinki" is not "Chinky", the slur is not neutral and uncommon, and the restaurants are not neutral and uncommon and not really an established alternative name outwith slang usage (as challenged in the edit history of chink as far back as 2007). Amusingly, the fact that you copied my and another's writing in 2022 into chink alongside the ever-churning unsourced rubbish in chinky as it stood at the time, some of which was about "chink" in the sources (including the OfCom document and the contemporaneous reporting of the OfCom document), outright tells us that even the redirect chinky → chink is unsupported as a common name. There have been numerous objections to this as an alternative name actually edited into the article over the years (many reverted as vandalism). It has been nominated for deletion twice, and merger twice. This isn't a "main article". This is a best-of-a-bad-situation article from 2007 when we had no alternatives and nothing about Chinese takeaways nor British Chinese cuisine, which we've long since superseded with other proper articles, and it's time for it to go. Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is part of culture it should have some mention on Wikipedia. It is in the Oxford Dictionary of Slang as both a slur and a restaurant. That is a stronger evidence of significance then most slang that gets pushed for inclusion. However, I would like to see other opinions and perhaps I will change my mind. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chink and Chinese restaurant as appropriate. Redirect to Chink#United Kingdom. People certainly still do use the term for Chinese takeaways in the UK, but in my experience it's now generally older people who always have done and have a hard time seeing something they've always used as offensive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Necrothesp. It would be non-neutral to have Chinky be a redirect to Chinese people, but in this case it's a synonym for a term that itself is offensive. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Necrothesp. Let's be done with such sorry bagatelles. -The Gnome (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nir Yitzhak massacre

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

Low number of casualties. Not notable. We have a dozen of articles of massacres about the 7 October attack. We shouldn't give an article to every village where civilians were killed. That's a very low and unprecedented threshold of notability. This article is also pretty similar to most of the articles of that dozen. It can easily be merged and covered in another one as it is short. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why its a problem. Common that events are broken down into components. Especially with 2023 Israel-Hamas war article being so big. Massacre mentioned by several sources. [15],[16],[17],[18] (A TV documentary filmed on the event). Article is also extensive enough for it to be adequate.[19],[20],[21],[22],[23] more sources that mention it. Actually the event has a rather unique interesting story. Also received lots of media attention, especially in Hebrew. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the 2023 Israel Hamas War talk is trying to make more articles to take down the load from the heavy main article. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, where all of the less notable attacks on locales near Gaza should be clumped. Worth noting that the source quoted for the three deaths at this locale refers to the '7 Oct massacre' as a collective - it's not really asserting that the events at this locale individually constitute a standalone massacre, but rather that the events at this locale form part of the wider '7 Oct massacre' across the Gaza-adjacent locales. The NYT and BBC sources do not even appear to mention "Nir Yitzhak", making whatever information is linked to those particular sources WP:SYNTH, and leaving us with only the Times of Israel, Ynet and a few other Hebrew sources, and no WP:RSP. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, not really significant enough to be merged. AryKun (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article about Nir Yitzhak where it is already mentioned in a single sentence in the History section but not wiki-linked from that article. This article should be a sub-topic of that kibbutz's history. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hamas attack on Nir Yitzhak; It's important to clarify that notability in Wikipedia is not based on the number of casualties. As per WP:NOTABILITY, the key criterion is whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In this case, the Nir Yitzhak incident has been reported on extensively by reputable sources, as evidenced by the links provided by Homerethegreat. This coverage demonstrates the global and persistent interest in the event, fulfilling the general notability guideline.
- Furthermore, the argument for a "move" rather than a "delete" or "merge" is supported by WP:EVENTCRIT, which emphasizes the lasting effects and historical significance of events. The fact that a massacre was prevented (to a significant extent) by the Kibbutz's rapid response team who were able to repel the invaders, adds a dimension to the story, highlighting its significance in a broader context. The term "attack" provides a more accurate description of the event . Marokwitz (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Hi, I read the rules for this so hopefully my contribution is allowed here (did not see an EC tag). :The Nir Yitzchak Attack is significant due to the resistance at the Kibbutz against Hamas - similar to stories from World War Two where there were select uprisings that fought the Nazis. :We know that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was the largest and most consistent, but Wikipedia still has articles about the other uprisings much much smaller such as Czortków uprising and even the Lwów uprising. These are not judged by casualties but significance of resistance. :Also, for consistency with the following list: List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war the page serves as a valid link. Chavmen (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC) The page is indeed covered by WP:ARBPIA and so related internal project discussions are EC restricted. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources in article meet GNG, eg: BBC, New York Times, Times of Israel. // Timothy :: talk 02:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: - As in similar events that have articles, also meet WP:NOTABILITY. Ovedc (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : yet another article about a massacre that some'd like to conceal, I mean, suppress ? are there massacres that deserve their articles and others that don't? I'm in favor of keeping the article and I hope it will be preserved! thank you! Sg7438 (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that summary of all of our motives; unfortunately, some of us just think that this would be better served by a short section at the main article, for the same reason we haven't created an article for every Israeli bomb strike that kills 5 Palestinians. AryKun (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hello, I understand, but I'm sad to see that some massacres deserve their own article, while others deserve a simple summary... trivializing the facts, smoothing out the thinking... Sg7438 (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sg7438, stop attributing hidden intentions to people. There is no intention here to trivialize crimes nor of "smooth out the thinking". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just giving my opinion and my perception of this proposal to delete the article on this massacre... I hope you're keeping the other articles on the other massacres.. Sg7438 (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep even though the casualty count was indeed low, there were a few hostages taken from the village as well and this might evolve and become a longer and more significant article as time goes by and more information about the aftermath of the massacre will be brought to light, in my opinion, this is too early to decide whether or not this article is worth an article of it's own, or should it be merged to the main article about the war.

~~Elie goodman (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)~~ Sock strike Daniel (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear split here, relisting for more discussion as opposed to a simple NC close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Timothy. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Timothy. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability comments of Homerthegreat, and my previous comments on similar articles: notable, verifiable and neutral articles of this nature from both sides of the combat broaden Wikipedia knowledge of the combat. If any civilians can be shown to verifiably have died then this article would be as notable as the others reporting Israeli or Palestinian casualties. I do think the article can do with some additional referencing and copy editing, so I’ll add it to my to-do. Ayenaee (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. As proven above, in the article, and elsewhere, all these massacres are inherently notable. This particular article is long and unique enough not to merge. gidonb (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Maryah Community Bank

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references I can find meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm satisfied with having coverage from thenationalnews.com and gulfnews.com, and am sure additional independent coverage will become available. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OwenX, both of those sources are based entirely on company announcements/PR withut any "Independent Content" which means they fail ORGIND. The articles themselves acknowledge they are based on either an announcement and/or statement. You can find others, also based on this announcement and largely the asme such as this one from the Emirates News Agency or this from Arabian Business or this from Emirati news. Maybe take another look? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP:

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Routine business news, promotional, seems to be sourced from a press release or company provided info	1. "Al Maryah Community Bank appoints steering committee members". The National. Retrieved Apr 18, 2021.
Routine business news, promotional, seems to be sourced from a press release or company provided info	2. ^ "Al Maryah Community Bank appoints board of directors". TrendsMENA.
Fails SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth, promotional	3. ^ "Seventh Global Conference of Young Parliamentarians - Post-COVID-19 recovery: A youth-responsive approach - Provisional Programme". Inter-Parliamentary Union (https://www.ipu.org).
Dead link	4. ^ "Al Maryah Community Bank completes Technology Architectural Design of its Digital Banking Platform". WAM.
Database	5. ^ "CBUAE Licensing Register". CBUAE.
Routine business news, promotional, seems to be sourced from a press release or company provided info	6. ^ "'Al Maryah Community Bank' becomes UAE's first licensed digital-only bank". Gulf News. April 13, 2021.
Routine business news, promotional, seems to be sourced from a press release or company provided info	7. ^ "Central Bank of the UAE grants licence to new digital bank". The National. Apr 12, 2021.
Routine business news, promotional, seems to be sourced from a press release or company provided info	8. ^ "Al Maryah Community Bank opens its Smart Banking Hub in ADNOC Abu Dhabi". Zawya.
Primary	9. ^ "Branches & ATMs". www.mbank.ae. Al Maryah Community Bank.
Google Play	10. ^ "MBank UAE". Google Play.
App store	11. ^ "MBank UAE". Apple App Store.
Primary	12. ^ "IPO". Al Marayah Community Bank.
Primary	13. ^ "About". www.mbank.ae. Al Maryah Community Bank.

BEFORE showed more regular routine business news, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 11:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Analysis by Timothy clearly demonstrates that WP:CORP is not met. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worldle

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

Only source is a single Washington Post article, fails WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Geography. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Forbes staff piece, literally the FIRST hit in Gnews [24]. then this in the WP [25], this in USA Today via Yahoo News [26] Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think I've ever met any topic where a WaPo article is the only RS for that topic. This clearly doesn't break that streak, either. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Got Rock Paper Shotgun coverage and PC Gamer coverage, which shows notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG through the sources provided by multiple users here. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although this article is short and low on information, it can easily be expanded with the sources above. I'd be happy to do so. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 15:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree and zxcvbnm.

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 13:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possibly merge with Wordle, but this is not an AFD case.

IgelRM (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Burn Notice characters. Viable ATD. History remains should sourcing eventuate for a re-spin out. Star Mississippi 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Porter

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

The vast majority of this article is overly specific WP:FANCRUFT that is not cited. The provided sources do not focus on the character much, and the article fails WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the discussion below @Piotrus and TheBeachBro::[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue looking for reliable sources. TheBeachBro (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if anything else needs to be added/taken away. TheBeachBro (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Burn Notice characters unless sources are found to show reception/analysis/etc. Right now this fails WP:GNG. PS. Right now even articles on main characters from this series are in similar plot summary only format, and merit redirecting (after discussion here, or perhaps just a PROD, I guess). Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, do what you have to. I am just happy to help. TheBeachBro (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help is welcome. If you can improve any of the related articles, great. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. TheBeachBro (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject lacks independent notability. A Redirect would be a not unwelcome act of mercy. -The Gnome (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tucheng (disambiguation). A majority of editors favor merging; arguments for keep were an argument from inertia, and an argument that there is an entry that could not be merged to the suggsted title. This was rebutted with reference to WP:ONEOTHER _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

土城

AfDs for this article:

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

The entries in 土城 have a major transliteration "Tucheng" and additionally most of the entries in Tucheng (disambiguation) correspond to the Chinese characters "土城". Therefore, these dab pages could be merged, like that in Nanchan Temple (disambiguation) (from a RfD outcome) and Ni Hao. Because it's unnecessary to keep separate dab pages in the similar case, I also propose to disambiguate entries in CJKV dab pages together with their major translation if the Chinese characters also hold the major place in dab page of this translation. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I choose to remove all of the bundled nominated articles per WP:BUNDLE that An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled—nominate it separately. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative option, Tucheng (disambiguation) has to be expanded to entries which was actually transliterated from "土城" and Tucheng District, the primary topic of "Tucheng" will also be that of "土城". Thus, 土城 will be moved to 土城 (disambiguation) and the base name will be turned into a primary redirect. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations, China, and South Korea. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Maybe we also need to review if the various Chinese-language titled dab pages are duplicating existing English-language titled dab pages like this AfD for instance, frequently saw multiple of such recently in Page Curation, all created by the same user. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paper9oll: User:NmWTfs85lXusaybq has added several other pages to this AfD. You may want to update your comment. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I can tell nothing has changed since the previous discussion. Redirects from foreign languages are well-established (WP:RLOTE). Ideally this page would redirect to a transliteration, but in this case it appears there's no single transliteration that's valid for all targets. If Toseong Station is not a valid entry for some reason, then we can merge to Tucheng (disambiguation). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's clarify that the previous discussion did not end with any kind of decision. The nomination was withdrawn by the initiator in order "to create a broader discussion for deleting all pages in this category." -The Gnome (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The rationale, scope, and suggested outcome of the proposal have all been changed. As long as the title of these dab pages hold a major place in each other, they could be merged together, such as Nanchan Temple (disambiguation), in which Nanzen-ji is a different transliteration of "南禪寺" from "Nanchan Temple". NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've now added a whole list of pages to this AfD, but you seem to be proposing merging instead of deletion. If that's the proposal, AfD is not the right place for it. In any case, I think the case for keeping is even stronger for some of the others. Take 台東, for instance – "Taitung" is only a valid transliteration for the topics related to the Chinese language, not the ones related to Japanese. If the merge took place, would we need to add the relevant entries from Taito (disambiguation) to the Taitung page? That seems unhelpful for readers. Keep all per WP:TRAINWRECK. Feel free to make individual merge proposals in cases where you think it's appropriate. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 台東 has no major transliteration and both Taito (disambiguation) and Taitung exists, it could be kept as it is. While the other nominated CJKV dab pages do have benefit to get merged with the only dab page of its transliteration. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the entries of disambiguation page in 台東, not all entries in these pages are transliterated from "台東". Thus, you have to add every matched entries directly into 台東 unless you can reorganized a section in Taito (disambiguation) and Taitung that only consisted with entries of "台東". NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Toseong station says the Hanja is "土城驛". The other entries in 土城 are for Chinese-related topics and have the Tucheng prefix:
Since "土城" has two transliterations ("Tucheng" and "Toseong"), 土城 is a necessary disambiguation page.
Cunard (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A CJKV dab page with more than two transliterations doesn't have to be one with no primary topic, such as 九龍 (disambiguation) ("Jiulong", "Kowloon", "Cửu Long", "Guryong", "Kūron" and "Kuro"), 昭和 (disambiguation) ("Shōwa" and "Zhaohe") and 安康 (disambiguation) ("Angang", "Ankang" and "Ankō"). Tucheng District or Tucheng (disambiguation) is clearly the primary topic with respect to usage in this case.

There were originally only two topics Tucheng (disambiguation) and Toseong station here while I expanded the former because not all of its entries are transliterated from 土城. However, as the precedence Nanchan Temple (disambiguation) I provided, it's easy for 土城 to be merged and redirected into Tucheng (disambiguation) per WP:ONEOTHER, otherwise it could be moved to 土城 (disambiguation) and leave the base name as a primary redirect to Tucheng District. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I acknowledge the twin transliterations involved, but that can easily be handled on the target DAB page, with something like, "土城 may also refer to: Toseong station", or similar language. As it is, the page is a redundant fork. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just added Toseong station to the "See also" section in Tucheng (disambiguation). Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, this link belongs on that page, if only for the shared "土城" name. Hopefully, this would also make the merge decision easier. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: THere doesn't appear to be a pressing need to close this, so relisting for more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I do not understand the rationale for CJK entries on the EN Wikipedia.

Serious question: How is this encyclopedic content for an English-language audience? Is this not more appropriate to host at EN Wiktionary?

If someone runs across a CJK string and doesn't understand it, I would expect them to look that up in a dictionary first, and from there (from that dictionary entry) decide 1) which language they are interested in, and 2) whether they want to know about the word (lexical information appropriate for a dictionary), or the concept or thing referred to by that word, as described in English (subject-matter information possibly appropriate for an encyclopedia).

Are we really intent on including pages for potentially any and every title in the ZH, JA, and KO Wikipedias?

If so, we are basically reproducing a lot of information that is often already hosted at Wiktionary. This strikes me as a lot of work -- both the initial build-out, and then the ongoing maintenance work -- for no appreciable benefit.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some information is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. CJKV titles are sometimes appropriate as redirects, per longstanding practice described at WP:RLOTE, but in cases where they are ambiguous between pages related to two or more languages, the usual solution is to make them disambiguation pages. If you disagree with the broader practice of catering to foreign-language search terms for topics related to that language, that might be something to discuss at WT:RLOTE, or maybe at some related policy page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no sense in keeping an article bearing a title in Chinese, since, right away, the article would be impossible for the overwhelming majority of English Wikipedia users to search & find. Therefore, we either locate an "acceptable transliteration" or the article gets defenestrated. Keep in mind that a decent transliteration would suffice, since we can create Redirects to it from the other versions. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Editors are divided on whether the level of coverage rises above the WP:BLP1E level. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Parish

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The primary basis for notability seems to be the section of the article titled "Legal issues." If that section was removed, the article would be more or less simply a promotional piece, written like a resume. See also the recent discussion at the BLP Noticeboard. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the crime appears more notable than the individual is, I'd perhaps redirect to an article about the oil trading scandal and merge relevant info there. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, would the potential redirect target article be the one about the Sheik, where Parish is mentioned in passing in a section about one of the trials: Ahmad_Al-Fahad_Al-Ahmed_Al-Sabah#Swiss_fraud_conviction. Or were you thinking of another article? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Crime, Law, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Notability looks marginal at best, and the article is not essential. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting "weak", and expanding my rationale: The book about the controversy suggests that the subject is seeking attention, and just doesn't like the kind of attention that Wikipedia is giving him, and I think this does make a reasonable case for keeping. Combined with reviews and other coverage, I'd probably !vote weak keep in absence of the request. On the other hand, I also think that we should give some weight to a request from the subject, and I'm seeing someone with very marginal notability, and an article that the encyclopedia could have, but does not need. I do not think that we should consider the subject's poor behavior with respect to the article (on- or off-wiki) in deciding whether to keep the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note that the article subject (I presume) has written some very strange things about me here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. At this point, Matthew Parish and/or people who may be associated with him have threatened to sue three wikipedians for writing well-sourced content on his page (see this and the reply above). I think we get these "remove the bad things about me or else" requests almost every week at the BLP noticeboard and elsewhere, I don't think it's right to essentially reward people for making WP:LEGALTHREATS against contributors of this website and the Wikimedia Foundation (yes, they just threatened the WMF recently, see the noticeboard discussion). That being said, it is pretty clear that this article is not very important to this website and its absence here would be felt by almost no one. SparklyNights 18:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above under by prior comment seems appropriate. As an aside, don't let the anonymous IP make threats against you; otherwise, give them the address of the nearest sports stadium and call it a day. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are at least some academic reviews for his books: [27] and [28] one of which in a reputable journal, there is multiple news stories about his arrest(s) which seems not to be a single instance but multiple trials each generating their own news stories: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] these are from outlets like Tages-Anzeiger, Le Temps, Bloomberg, Reuters and are not just WP:BLP1E as they cover multiple independent events. I think taking together his (i) notability as an author and his (ii) notability as a lawyer and as a (iii) criminal it seems that he would just pass the bar. It is also hard to argue how a person who specifically writes several books including one about his experiences in prison and writes a public Wikipedia article about themselves has a reasonable expectation of privacy and falls under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this seems rather a case of writing a Wikipedia article about themselves and then not liking that others edit it as well. I dont think a merge would really work since there are multiple independent stories here. --hroest 21:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As an editor above noted, the crime appears more notable than the subject of the article. The subject appears to be an unremarkable British attorney who committed a crime and served a short sentence and it made news at the time. It fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my comments at WP:BLPN#Matthew Parish. To briefly reiterate here, despite the fact that the article was no doubt created by the subject, only to find out WP:ABOUTME applies to him and he threated to sue the WMF multiple times, I don't think keeping it on that basis of basically thumbing our noses at him is a valid reason. The article was obviously created as a vanity article, and should have been deleted as one long before all the legal stuff was inserted. His legal woes are really his only claim to fame, and, as is, the article is this weird combination of puff piece and hit piece. But all that is really small potatoes compared to the much, much larger question, which is: does it really contribute anything of value to the encyclopedia? A quick check of the page views shows it only gets an average of 15 views a day, which you can bet good money are mostly coming from the subject or people who interact with the subject. I see no real value of it as an article, as a BLP request-delete, I see no harm in deleting it. It's unfortunate this article was ever created at all, but I think the worse precedent to set is not that legal threats may get you what you want if you keep it up long enough, but that the mere act of committing a crime makes one worthy of an article should it be written about in a newspaper. That sets a very dangerous precedence. Now if any one of his crimes had gotten even a quarter the level of attention as, say... Charles Manson, then I would be singing a different tune, but I don't see several different crimes that were reported briefly and quickly forgotten as showing he's somehow noteworthy or has any historical significance. Newspapers print what people are interested in, and if no one's interested, they drop it and move onto the next shiny object. Nothing I've seen shows any real level of public interest in this guy. I don't care so much about him in particular, but articles like this are a waste of my time, and the entire community's. Zaereth (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would make my life easier if this was deleted, given the (laughable) claims made about me here when I previously intervened in debates about the article's content. However, I'm convinced by Hannes Röst's evidence that there's enough coverage to meet the notability criteria here, so against my own interests I'm a keep. A Free City in the Balkans has been reviewed in a number of reputable journals (e.g. here and here) and one of his other books has been reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal too. The coverage of his legal troubles comes on top of that prior coverage of his work. Incidentally, I find it odd that someone who doesn't want their legal problems to feature on Wikipedia previously self-published a book about them. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some further coverage here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The case for a WP:AUTHOR pass by itself would be rather weak: only two of the three listed books have been reviewed that I can find, and while the reviews for A Free City in the Balkans seem to have been published in reliable sources, I'm not fully convinced about those for Mirages of International Justice. The one cited in the article already looks to be in a solid journal, but the other that I found is on a website with unclear editorial standards. The secondary sources we have about his writing might not be enough to warrant an article by themselves, but they do mean that we can say enough that merging into another article would be extremely awkward. As noted above, the news stories cover multiple incidents over a span of years. Taken all together, the sources indicate that there's an encyclopedia topic here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, largely per Zaerath. I'm not going to lose any sleep if the article is kept (and as I said at the BLPN discussion, I wouldn't be surprised if it is!) but he's at best a minorly notable person who has been in the news because of a crime he committed, and I don't see that the article is all that important to the encyclopedia, so whatever, apply WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. (As an aside, that article about CordlessLarry is hilarious: if they think he is too prolific an editor to be a single person, what of the 1,861 accounts who per WP:EDITS have more edits than him?!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How I manage to sustain my average of 8.557 edits per day, I'll never know, Caeciliusinhorto-public! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Can't blame the guy for not wanting a WP article. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 05:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a rap sheet, and that is exactly how this BLP is written. Atsme 💬 📧 14:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I worked with Matthew personally in Ukraine, and I can attest that his interest in removing this article is to conceal his past with NGO's there. This wiki brought attention towards him, but the decision to fire him was based off of separate reliable sources. Merging this wiki may not be in the best interest because this individual is continuing to make a larger spectacle out of themselves. Although I agree that the crime is more notable than the individual is. This article has played a valuable role in providing exposure to his past. Parish likes attention, but seeks to remove any criticism in his quest for notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:E081:6070:7A:53E4:4DC0:3BBF (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced article from reliable sources. Passes WP:N. -- Mike 🗩 19:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per hroest. Thriley (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see strong and persuasive views on both sides, but I don’t feel comfortable closing as No Consensus just yet, so I’d like more input. Do the BLP concerns trump the demonstrated notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Cordless Larry hit the nail on the head. We keep or delete articles on their merits, not because we want to spite the article's subject or creator, or because we want to assert our independence or thumb our noses at legal threats. The books he wrote seem to be of fairly limited notability, and would not have justified an article on their own. Only one of his legal difficulties, the one that led to his sentence in absentia, is of itself notable, but he's only a minor figure in this story, described at Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah. This story hit the press because it involved the Kuwaiti royal family and an Olympic official. The sources for this are good, but they barely include two sentences about Parish, who wasn't even present at the trial, and whose role in the case is not described. On that basis we can't even justify a redirect. As a lawyer, he doesn't otherwise seem to have done anything out of the ordinary before getting himself struck off. From a UK perspective I'd bet most people coming across his article were actually looking for Matthew Parris. Elemimele (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you tagged the wrong editor, Elemimele, but I was advocating for keeping the article, based on coverage that goes beyond the subject's recent legal difficulties. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Oh, ever so sorry, yes, I meant Zaereth, I apologise profusely! Elemimele (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC) SineBot-->[reply]

Keep Passes WP:N based on reliable sources, which is all that really counts. - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Among other things, Wikipedia is not a rogues' gallery. BLP comes into play on this. He was tried, convicted and serving time. Yet, the Wikipedia article has his personal website, criminal record and conviction. We should not have this info out there for the rest of his life. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying, Maile66, is not supported by Wikipedia policy. If a person, whether assessed by us as a "rogue" or not, is worthy of having an article about them in Wikipedia, the issue is decided on very specific criteria, primary one being the subject's verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. This is a person of evidently lasting importance and notability. I could potentially add to the above litany of invective but I will not.

Note, please: A article may have been created (a) by the subject of the article, (b) contain an excessive, overwhelming amount of promotional text, or (c) lack the necessary sources that support its notability and still merit inclusion in Wikipedia, provided the text is cleaned up, improved, and provided with the necessary sourcing. That, in a nut shell, is all! In so many words, none of the above allegations about the text's nature and provenance will be disputed by me because they do not matter. The subject is evidently notable; and certainly not in any "minor" way. -The Gnome (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Blackburn (businessperson)

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. I think this is a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If sources meeting WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, no objection to Drafting until it is ready for mainspace. // Timothy :: talk 10:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Keep, this is an article clearly re-written from an obituary, but the man himself is probably notable as the CEO of two of the UK's largest financial institutions. The obituary is from the Times, so it's quite a heavy indicator of notability on its own. But more sources about his career could be added, for example [41], rather less favourable [42], or a pay-wall source that seems to include discussion of him [43] as well as copious passing mentions of which this Guardian piece is typical[44]. Elemimele (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elemimele. Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, CEO of two major building societies of the UK, coverage in all major newspapers of the UK. I've added additional references. This is not an attempt to memorize anyone – hasty nomination IMHO. Burthert (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CVO passes WP:ANYBIO #1. And an obituary in The Times is also always seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:Speedy keep#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no new delete rationale has been put forward in the deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cantref Arfon

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

This is pure unreferenced WP:OR (the only source - single footnote - is to an 11th century poem). The topic may or may not be notable (my BEFORE gives some passing mentions, but maybe something more could be found), but I fear what we have needs WP:TNT, given the lack of sources. WP:V is a major concern, as is the possibility of WP:HOAXex or at least pure WP:OR in this. Possible ATD redirect targets, if this cannot be salvaged now, include District of Arfon and Kingdom of Gwynedd. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Wales. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to District of Arfon per WP:TNT and a lack of a better destination. Though I do wonder, if there should just be an Arfon article which may be easier to justify and source hopefully. Dank Jae 18:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is notable as a historical district. Its existence and approximate borders are confirmed by the RCAHMW.[45] Even though the sourcing is minimal at present, it is very probable that reliable sources do exist, possibly some of the sources cited in Cantref. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion includes Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed - have such attempts been made? For the most part, the article does not appear to present original research, and presents material that is supported the the geography and history of the area, and are often (possibly always) supported by other articles. While citations should be given in the article where the statements are made, this requirement is widely unmet and this is not an adequate reason for an article to be deleted. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, the Find sources links at the top of this discussion for 'books', 'news' and 'scholar' all give potential sources. These should have been investigated before the article was nominated for deletion, see WP:BEFORE. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES is not a very strong argument for keeping unreferenced piece of OR... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some sources; I think the topic is notable and the article could be expanded further. There are a couple of bits of information that I wasn't able to verify but we're far from needing TNT. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above.---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following newer responses above and an article in a better state, although still open to the original re-direct if this AfD leads elsewhere. Dank Jae 17:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Article has been improved, addressing my concerns. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a live draft already exists at Draft:Swarna Pandey which can still be worked on‎. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swarna Pandey

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

Should be moved to draft space yvanyblog^(talk) 08:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. yvanyblog^(talk) 08:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yvanyblog I believe this article should not be deleted but contributed to... So instead of deleting it let's add information about it Bukashamba (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify at once, this is a totally unsourced biographical article about a child, so it can't stay in main-space. Bukashamba, there is nothing wrong with developing an article in draft space, but sourcing is absolutely mandatory. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This also exists as Draft:Swarna Pandey, so there is no reason to keep the article. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Moved to Draftspace‎. (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 17:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musfik Hasan

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

Should be moved to draft space. yvanyblog^(talk) 08:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. yvanyblog^(talk) 08:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would almost certainly be possible to write a decent biography of this chap - called up to the national squad this year for example and has played a reasonable number of matches - leading wicket taker in one league recently and so on. I don't have the time to do so and this clearly isn't a suitable "article" for Wikipedia to host as it currently stands. There are lots of things we could do with it. I don't overly mind which one of those is chosen, although it would be nice if someone with the time were to write a short, referenced article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nash Entertainment#Television programs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most Daring

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2019 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nash Entertainment#Television programs Very definition of a non-notable filler clip show, which this company has so many of, and redirecting to the TruTV list would be too vague here. Nate • (chatter) 17:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then if that's the case, Most Shocking needs to be redirected to that too. OWaunTon (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nash Entertainment#Television programs. WP:GNG not established. Flurrious (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Joachim

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

Auction results for paintings and not much else don't add up to enough to satisfy WP:ARTIST. (From what I can see from other, non-paywalled sources, his works sell in the range of hundreds of dollars only.) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Haiti. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding any reliable sourcing on this artist. All the listed sources are auction results which does not count towards notability. Joachim does not have significant coverage, nor has his work been part of major exhibition, and I cannot find evidence that his work is part a notable collection. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Poddar

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

The creator seems to have a possible COI with the subject. Article about a lesser-known entrepreneur, with routine/promotional sources cited as sources. Does not meet WP:GNG Thilsebatti (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, but this likely does not help notability [46], coverage is typical fluffy PR posts from Indian media. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mansfield

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable law firm. Very limited sources. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. PepperBeast (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Junk article that is fueled by primary sources, is promotional in tone, and contains no links to any other articles. Has a whopping eight edits in the past two years. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Previous instances were deleted after AfD decision in 2013, before the present instance was created by a WP:SPA. I have had a look for any sources to revise my "delete" opinion in the first AfD, but I am seeing no better than occasional items about research by the company and short articles by company employees, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing the evidence needed to overturn the previous consensus that the firm has not attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Rahizadeh

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

Fails notability, the guy actually exists but those info showing him winning an Asian Games silver or an Asian Cup gold is completely false. he is just a bench player in some non-notable team. never played for the national team. absolutely non-notable. Sports2021 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.He is a member of a famous team, even if he is on the bench, which doesn't seem like it, because in the game of basketball, even if you are in the game for one minute, you are considered famous. Also, he is in the Iranian national basketball team. If he is not a famous player, he should not have been invited to the Iranian national team.whose news link is also from a reliable Iranian news agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.7.122.182 (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but you can't lie here to keep this article. by throwing Persian links hoping other people will not understand it. that article you posted says the guy was invited to the Youth (u16) national team. you failed to say that's a youth team. (and even if that was the senior team, just being invited is not enough) this guy is a total nobody. Sports2021 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry for your thought, I did not create this article.I speak according to reliable sources.Is deleting this article personal for you? As far as I know, there is no copyright on Wikipedia and no one can blame someone for expressing their opinion.You don't consider Iranian sources as valid, how about foreign sources This source even mentions the number of points they have earned. 31.7.122.187 (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I apologize for my bad pronunciation, my English is very bad 31.7.122.187 (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the content of Wikipedia is licensed for reuse under very liberal terms, but it is a mistake to say "there is no copyright on Wikipedia"; there certainly is. You may see further information on this at Wikipedia:Copyrights, if you wish to. However, I'm not at all sure why you have mentioned that, as nothing written on this page had anything to do with copyright. Also, you said "You don't consider Iranian sources as valid", but Sports2021 has not said that at all. What he said (rightly or wrongly, I have not checked) is that the source does not say what you said it does. That is completely different from saying that the source is not reliable. JBW (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have misunderstood my meaning. The user stated that I insist on keeping the article because I wrote it, that this statement was wrong.Because I am not the author of this article, this person is an Iranian who, according to Persian language sources, is in several Iranian basketball teams.And in the source I posted above, he has even played for Iran's under-16 national team.Even in this source borna news, it is mentioned that this person has won the third place with the basketball team and is also known as the most technical player. 31.7.122.187 (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, I only expressed my personal opinion according to the review. The decision to keep or delete the article is with the respected administrators 31.7.122.187 (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you really think people don't try google translators, don't you? you are saying:

he has even played for Iran's under-16 national team this source borna news, it is mentioned that this person has won the third place with the basketball team and is also known as the most technical player.

anybody who reads this may think he won a bronze medal with Iran U16 team (which is still not notable enough) but his achievement is not even that! again you failed to say he won 3rd place in Iran schoolboys championship, the whole article is a complete lie, none of those achievements are correct. he never won the Iranian league, he never played a single minute for the national team, let alone winning medals in William Jones Cup, Asian Games and Asian Cup! Sports2021 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was not intending to comment on this article or its nomination: I just posted my message above in the hope of helping the IP editor by clearing up some misunderstandings. However, having seen the disagreements about what the Persian sources say, I decided to check them, again with the intention of helping to clarify things, not to join the deletion debate. What I found surprised me, because it was far further than I expected in the direction of misrepresentation rather than misunderstanding. "...he has even played for Iran's under-16 national team. Even in this source borna news, it is mentioned that this person has won the third place with the basketball team" would I believe, convey to any reasonable person the impression that he has personally "won the third place" with Iran's under-16 national team. In fact the cited source is a report of the performance of a provincial high school basketball team, which came third in a national competition. In an earlier post by the same editor, we were told that "he is in the Iranian national basketball team". Sports2021 has already pointed out that this refers to the national youth team, not the Iranian national basketball team; furthermore, the cited report (originating from a member of the Young Journalists Club) says that Nima Rahizadeh is one of two players from Hormozgan province who were invited to the preparation camp for the youth national team. I cannot determine exactly what the status of that "preparation camp" is, but I am not sure that being invited to the preparation camp is the same as being selected for the team. So, on investigation the apparent evidence of notability has evaporated: from apparently being a member of the national basketball team, he moved to apparently being a member of the national under-16 team, and now he has moved from there to actually being a member of a regional high school student team who has been invited to a training camp for the national under-16 team. Absolutely nowhere remotely near to notable by Wikipedia's standards. JBW (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't want to close this as a Merge to Ruslan Shostak as this article is also being considered for deletion at an AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation

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

It seems like the organization doesn't have enough notability and reliable sources to support its credibility, as well as insufficient media coverage from third-party sources on the given topic. 19 pick ups bought for the army is circulating in the news, but it's not about notability. possible promotion of the Ruslan Shostak persona as the author is the same for both pages DreamlarT (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ruslan Shostak is a notable businessman, the founder of huge national retail chains. The charitable foundation he founded, in particular, after the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, organized the evacuation of almost 2,000 orphans from Ukraine for a temporary stay in Turkey. There are more than enough neutral and reliable sources about both Ruslan Shostak and Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation, especially in Cyrillic. --Perohanych (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does not meet the site's notability criteria. The foundation lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. WP:Mill or WPREFBOMB won't halpe much, as the majority of the citations come from news releases wich fails WP:RS. Furthermore, the article reads more like a promotional piece rather than an objective encyclopedia entry. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria. The foundation has significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. There are dozens of such sources. Every statement in the article is based on reliable sources in authoritative publications. The article reads as an objective encyclopedia entry. Please let me know the exact wording of the article that you believe appears to be promotional material, and I will be happy to remove it. --Perohanych (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I translated 3 of the listed articles and they are substantial articles about the work of the organization. I cannot comment on the reliability of the publications themselves. I admit that I find it awkward to have an English Wikipedia article without a single English language reference. I would not object to a future Afd (maybe some years) if this organization is never covered in non-Ukrainian sources. I am assuming that there is an entry in the UA Wikipedia, but am not able to check that. Lamona (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help if any of these translated sources (or a summary of their content) was brought into this discussion or added to the article. Right now, there have been no changes to the article since it was nominated so that's what editors are judging it on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect and merge into Ruslan Shostak. Both articles are on the shorter side and given the amount of content that'll probably be removed when both articles undergo rewriting (especially Shostak's article), it'll be best for the two to be merged so they don't each become stubs. Imo, I think this article would work great as its own section in Shostak's article, granted its rewritten and trimmed (it would also help give context for why he got a top state civil award, which the current BLP fails to answer). Cheers, Dan the Animator 06:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Shiva temples in India. No participation here after two relistings so rather than a Soft Deletion, I'm redirecting this article to where the subject is mentioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siva Sthalam

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

Generic name for Shiva temples. Covered in List of Shiva temples in India Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, and India. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Law & Order characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Green

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 14:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 14:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing in the article suggests it meets WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Very weak keep *krakknuckle* Time for fun with source lookup! First off, this article has no secondary sources, but that's easily fixed. NBC Insider covers some of the basics, but we can do better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another in Entertainment Weekly... Hitting Google Scholar, but I'm getting bombarded by false positives. Here we go: The Politics of Law and Order, “Whatever she wants”: An ethnography of American women, sex and the internet More in a bit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Entertainment Weekly article names Green/Briscoe as the single best detective pairing of the series. These sources have been enough for me to give the article some secondary support and a small critical reception section. I'm feeling okay, though the false positives and the commonness of the name "Ed Green" leave me with less support for this article than I've had for others. As always, Spinixster has nominated an article on an interesting subject in need of improvement. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's see the sources.

NBC Insider is a promotional source. Per its page, "NBC Insider is your all-access pass to the exciting world of NBC shows and celebrity news."
Entertainment Weekly is a basic list article, and I wouldn't use it to prove notability since the paragraphs are quite short.

As per the Google Scholar sources:

Politics of Law and Order mentions the character only once.
"Whatever she wants" source doesn't seem to mention the character at all. Also, note that it's a WP:DISSERTATION.

Spinixster (chat!) 04:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I didn't put the dissertation in the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep In addition to the sources provided above, there is this [47], and this [48]Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, NBC Insider is a promotional source, so I would not use it. The second source is just the actor hinting at a return, which does not prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 01:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Law & Order characters. The character is not independently notable, notability is not inherited. Some effort above has been put into finding sources, but per nom.'s comments, NBC is not independent, deadline is trivial, as is Entertainment weekly (arguably primary too), Politics and law is trivial, whatever she wants has no mention. There is no SIGCOV and GNG is not met. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of Law and Order characters The sources are good enough for a small bio in the greater list.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Law & Order characters. Sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 14:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Curtis

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

Sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Law & Order characters. Spinixster (chat!) 04:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 04:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per nom – names of major characters on TV shows are reasonable search targets. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Weak keep Another interesting subject brought up by Spinixster. Looking up sources for this one should be a pleasure. Let's see... The article itself has less bloat than many other recent noms, but no non-primary sources. Let's see if that's fixable. Looper came up quickly. Here's one on EWeekly. More in a bit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've established that Daily Express doesn't impress anyone, but here are some Google Scholar hits (I believe we've seen some of these before): Death Penalty, Postmodern And we have Entertainment Weekly again, and Vulture I generally feel satisfied that we have enough sourcing to support this short article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And two magazines... Motion Picture Magazine and Latin Heat It was enough for a small critical reception section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see the sources.

Looper article is just "who played x in y", not really useful here.
EW source is more about the actor, there's seemingly only one paragraph about the character.
Second EW source is a listicle. The description is very very brief.
Vulture source is more about the actor. The character is briefly mentioned with no description whatsoever.

For the magazine sources, I'm doubting the reliability of Motion Picture Magazine (not the same as the one on Wikipedia), there is seemingly no information on who writes these articles or whether or not there's an editorial team. The same can be said for Latin Heat, but at least we know who writes these articles. I'll check the scholar sources soon. Spinixster (chat!) 01:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Motion Picture Magazine is 100% unreliable because it's owned by Loaded Media which means the articles may be AI generated. Spinixster (chat!) 02:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens. I will remove MPM from the ariticle immediately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews below.

Death Penalty source only names the character once.
Postmodern source may be usable, but most of it consists of plot summaries, so I think there's very little that can be used.

Spinixster (chat!) 02:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHe was one of the major characters on the show and others like Lennie Briscoe also have articles. I have no interest in hunting for them but I have little doubt that sources exist in which this character is discussed. There's no good reason to delete it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a character is the main character or a major character does not mean that the character is notable enough for a separate page. Reliable secondary sources will be needed to prove notability. Spinixster (chat!) 01:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP. He is notable because he meets the WP:BIO and has credible sources cover.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Micheal Kaluba This is not a real person, so WP:BIO does not cover this. Sources need to describe the subject from a real-life perspective and must not be passing (see also: WP:FICTION). The sources above do not meet the criteria. Spinixster (chat!) 13:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a redirect to List of Law & Order characters. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Micheal Kaluba Sorry for another comment, but please consider striking your previous vote and put "redirect" in bold so that there is no confusion on what your vote is. Thanks! Spinixster (chat!) 14:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Carcassonne (board game)#World Team Carcassonne Online Championshi. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Team Carcassonne Online Championship 2021

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

It does not appear that any sources outside of carcassonne.cat, the championship organizers, have written about this topic, making each of its editions fall short of WP:GNG. I attempted to search for sources online in English, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese, and French. In my searches, I did not come across anything suggesting that they or their organizers would meet GNG if considered in aggregate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly failing WP:GNG. That said, a brief summary of the fact that these competitions exist, using the available primary sources, arguably could be added in a section at Carcasonne, without all the excessive detail of tables full of non-notable competitors, which is not encyclopedic information (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#DATABASE). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carcassonne (board game)#World Team Carcassonne Online Championship. There's no obvious need to delete the page history, even though I don't think these events need separate pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per WhatamIdoing. Please ping me if more sources that would count toward WP:N are found. Hobit (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as there are not enough sources at the moment but I think that together notability would be met.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems like, aside from Deletion, there are opinions to Redirect or Merge but I'd like to see a more conclusive consensus before taking action on a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz's last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would agree with a merge but there seems like a whole lot of non-notable detail which would make the target somewhat lopsided WP:UNDUE if this was done with every competition year. Redirect also seems a bit pointless if there is little/no content at the target. Maybe if there were a few/poor sources but when there’s nothing I think the onus is on interested editors to justify why there should be even be a redirect JMWt (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WhatamIdoing is fine as ATD, but we shouldn't delete history here, some of it could be useful to expanding (post-facto merge) or a future split of the broader (not annual) topic from the Carcasonne article (eg. I could imagine a future Competitive Carcasonne article covering § Tournaments and World Championships and more. —siro χ o 05:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly Ballroom (band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND. No significant coverage in reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm curious why reference #8 says "failed verification." Is this because Spotify is not a reliable source? If it is a reliable source, this Spotify profile for Strictly Ballroom explains all the line-up changes and also provides the quote from Tony Kiewel, President of Sub Pop Record, the record label that Strictly Ballroom founder, Jimmy Tamborello's Postal Service album would sell platinum (over 1 million copies). Only one other album sold more copies for Sub Pop: Nirvana's "Bleach." Chalaco79 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for considering the Strictly Ballroom page. I was thinking that the ghettoblastermagazine.com Strictly Ballroom interview was significant coverage in a reliable source (reference #3). I also read that Discogs.com is a reliable source (reference #1). Chalaco79 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Also, Strictly Ballroom has write ups on last.fm, music.apple.com, rateyourmusic.com, open.spotify.com, allmusic.com, sputnikmusic.com, genius.com., among others. I really hope this is sufficient for the page to remain. Thank you! Chalaco79 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalaco79: I'm not !voting (see below) but it would be helpful for the closer if you list the 3-4 top sources showing notability. They should be independent and have wp:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly (see wp:NOTINHERITED) and indepth. No need for more than the best 4 here, this is just to pass notability. Just be very direct and literally bullet point list the sources with minor comments, make it as easy for others to !vote Keep based on the sources you list. I hope you don't mind the advice, If I'm not mistaken, you hadn't been in an AfD discussion before. Greetings from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk 01:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I found more significant coverage in reliable sources related to other projects that members of Strictly Ballroom (band) contributed to, including the Postal Service, Dntel, Beachwood Sparks, etc. Strictly Ballroom (band) is mentioned in these articles/interviews in reliable sources. I will add the references as soon as I get the chance, hopefully later today. Chalaco79 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added three more references providing significant coverage in reliable sources. I have not had the time to edit the details yet, however. These new references are still missing dates, titles, etc., which I still plan to add. I need to take a closer look at the html since I'm not an expert on how this is done. I will do this promptly. Chalaco79 (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the main argument why Strictly Ballroom was a significant band is because one of the two founding members, Jimmy Tamborello, went on to be one of the two founding members of the Postal Service (band), which sold over 1 million (certified platinum) copies of their album. Strictly Ballroom was Jimmy Tamborello's debut musical project, as one of two founders. The reliable sources regarding this history are provided in the references. Chalaco79 (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, am I on the correct page to discuss whether the Strictly Ballroom (band) page will be deleted or be allowed to stay as a page? I am not sure if I am. If there is any feedback available regarding my replies, that would be most appreciated. Thank you! Chalaco79 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above are sufficient to show your contention on why the page should not be deleted. The discussion will run for a week to elicit more feedback from other editors. In the meantime, I will say that notability is not inherent. We need sources showing why the band is notable, not information about other projects the lead singer may have been involved with. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I believe that reference #3, from a ghettoblastermagazine.com interview, stating that, "Strictly Ballroom...yielded some of the most significant players the indie rock landscape has known," is indicating the notability of the group. Please read to intro to this interview and let me know what you think. Thanks! Chalaco79 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, reference #2 (AllMusic) states, "Signed to the Waxploitation label, the quintet issued the album Hide Here Forever in 1998, and became a college radio favorite, appearing on the CMJ charts," which also indicates the notability of the group. Chalaco79 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic is considered reliable for staff reviews; however, the link on the page is to the band's bio so wouldn't count for notability. The ghettoblastermagazine is an interview (not sure about reliability since interviews should not be considered for notability since the information provided is not independent). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wouldn't the introduction to the ghettoblastermagazine interview be considered independent to what was discussed during the actual interview? Thanks. Chalaco79 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it is a reliable source, they it could. Still isn't enough to come close to showing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-10 ✍️ create ← 2015-10 ✗ A7

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a comment, I hope this article is not deleted, and I don't want to !vote delete, because I believe sources exist, but probably not online. But that is not a proper argument for keeping, just ILIKEIT mixed with SOURCESEXIST, which is why this is a comment and not a !vote.

If the article is kept, it needs cleaned up, right now it is more promotional than encyclopedic, sourcing is very poor in general and any unsourced member names need to be sourced or removed after this concludes, BLP information needs to be properly sourced even if the article itself is not a BLP.

Again this is just a comment, but I ask that this not be soft deleted, and drafting considered. // Timothy :: talk 00:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is really difficult with this one is that I assumed there would be plenty of sources, or at least mentions since the founder has a pretty lasting career. Unfortunately, even a search in Newspapers.com didn't turn up anything other than Strictly Ballroom (musical) and a racehorse from Australia. I am not sure that draftify would work since it is defunct so unlikely going to get more press. I do think a good WP:ATD would be to redirect as we could incorporate the information into the page for Dntel, specifically into the career section. There is shorter wording now but it could be worded as his "early career." Could also move the discography to the discography heading on his page with a subheading of "With Strictly Ballroom." The redirect would also preserve the page history in the event I am wrong and more coverage does come out in the future. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your considerations. I have a lot to learn about notability in the context of Wikipedia, apparently ;) Chalaco79 (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A bit underground but digging up a few new sources and evaluating a couple of the previously noted ones, I think we have enough SIGCOV for WP:MUSICBIO#C1/GNG:
1. A review of Hide Here Forever in SputnikMusic (tagged emeritus review, considered reliable by WP:RSMUSIC) [49]
2. 1 short review of their self titled EP in HeartattaCk zine: [50]
3. 1 short review of Fire in AllMusic (staff) [51]
4. a brief paragraph in Drowned In Sound [52].
5. Looking at the other sources we already have, I think AllMusic is reliable enough for such a band biography for our purposes here, if BLP type details are used with caution (WP:RSMUSIC, WP:RSP), so there is some SIGCOV there. [53].
6. The Ghettoblaster article is written by Timothy Anderl so probably reasonably reliable regarding the front matter before the interview.

There's possibly claims at WP:MUSICBIO#6 as well, but I haven't dived too deep into other members notability.

The AllMusic link is NOT considered reliable for establishing notability. Everything else is exactly how you said....."short." I guess I don't see how this amounts to SIGCOV. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siro χ o 06:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources discovered by siroxo. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 21:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per siro's forensics. A general remark: Relatively newer acts would tend to get more publicity in acceptable sources than older ones because of the increasing proliferation of sources, in general, as the years go by. It's just a fact of life, it seems. There are many acts that will never see the Wikipedia light of the day because they appeared, flourished, and went away before any online source existed. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Vlaardingerbroek

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

This unsourced article has been tagged as such since 2020 and features a darts player who, according to the article itself, "never featured in the final stages of a major event". WP:BEFORE yielded a Dutch article in which he is described as an amateur ("There is no room for Bert Vlaardingerbroek is written in every darts book." Google did struggle with this one) and a piece on Forgotten Darters. It's not enough for WP:GNG and having reached the last 32 of the Winmau World Masters as the pinnacle of his career, he is not notable per WP:NSPORT. However, I did learn that there is a condition called 'Dartitis', similar to Dystonia and for that I am grateful. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Dutch version of the article, which is more extensive than this one, cites Pionier met darteritis as a source for its content, unfortunately now a redlink. This interview from rtlnieuws, is a respectable source that shows interest: "Bert Vlaardingerbroek's name is written in every darts book." This book calls Bert Vlaardingerbroek the best darts player in the Netherlands.. Subject seems to be marginally notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book is about Raymond van Barneveld, arguably the best darts player of the Netherlands though someone thought it was "puffery" to call him that (he won five world championships, a similar total as Eric Bristow who is regarded as the best darter of all time!) when I described him as such when writing Darts in the Netherlands (which was an "interesting" experience as folks were placeing those ugly unhideable tags when I wasn't even done with the article). Vlaardingerbroek was the first Dutch darter to reach an international tournament, maybe that makes him somewhat notable. Someone Not Awful (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would but only if sources existed testifying to that effect. -The Gnome (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 (UTC)

Comment How does a page created in 2008 suddenly become non-notable?

MaskedSinger (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was never notable? It's certainly undersourced... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject's notability is evidently unsupported by sources. -The Gnome (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Bhadra

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

One independent source, one passing mention on Google News. Can't see how this is notable in any way. Also fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Engineering, Environment, West Bengal, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one local newspaper mention: https://www.valleycenter.com/articles/water-board-to-seek-re-bids-on-reservoir-liner-project/ OmegaMantis (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject is notable enough, as she is a CEO of a company and has been mentioned by multiple sources. OmegaMantis (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:OmegaMantis, I assume your are arguing to Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for not being clear enough. OmegaMantis (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any independent sources with more than a passing mention of the subject, either in the article or elsewhere. Doesn't seem to me that the article meets WP:GNG. Tollens (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search has also not found support for WP:BASIC notability. She is quoted in Smithsonian Magazine in 2017; a preliminary research proposal she made to the Valley Center Municipal Water District (VCMWD) board is briefly reported in the local Valley Center news in 2014; she was the 2021-2022 San Diego section winner of the CWEA Member Awards (Select Society of Sanitary Sludge Shovelers); CWEA also announced she joined the 2022-23 CWEA Board of Directors on their website. She has a profile at the Women's Media Center WMC SheSource (bio page) but I have not found secondary coverage of her writing. She has an established career, but the independent and reliable secondary coverage needed to support an encyclopedic article according to the notability guideline does not yet appear to be available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Masri

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SNG, WP:BASIC. Existing media citations serve as a form of promotion. Charlie (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Jordan. Charlie (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could be the same person [54], [55], but I'm not sure. The wiki article is about what looks like a tech executive, the sourcing I find is about a young person preserving embroidery; their ages could be about the same. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- She is the same person Oaktree b mentioned in the sources. Masri is the one of the first women from her country to hold such a key position in Google and is known for her contributions to the technology industry. She has been also the subject of a documentary. There are also sources in Arabic language. Jabralgi (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing found seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to me to meet WP:GNG. Tollens (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs on ESPN Radio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GameNight

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. A possible ATD is redirecting this to List of programs on ESPN Radio. Let'srun (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs on ESPN Radio: per nom. One might think a supposed "flagship series of ESPN Radio" would get more coverage than seems to exist, but it would appear that the requisite significant coverage indeed isn't there. (The semi-generic title does not help.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs on ESPN Radio. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Discussion of the available sources clearly favored deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babak Badkoobe

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG. Sources don't show significant coverage (most of them are about how he has a facial resemblance to another famous actor) and some of them are simple trivial mentions. Possible paid editing (since the original editor has created similar articles for non-notable people) Other articles by this user should be checked out as well. Arian (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Iran. Arian (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think the strongest point in the keep favour is the co-production of the movie Dressage. The last name should be changed to Badkoobeh, but the romanization is not consistent (i.e. Badkobe), which might contribute to difficulty in finding decent sources. I think the overtly fan/peacock language needs to be removed but there is potential if someone, ideally a Persian speaker, is willing to put in the work. Kazamzam (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His real name is Hassan Badkobeh. He has Notable works such as Dressage (film), fa.wiki from 2016 Rockman2001 (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	1. "آیا بازیگر قدیمی تلویزیون پسر اکبر عبدی است؟". Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	2. ^ "همه زندگی‌ام با تلویزیون عجین شده". jamejamonline. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	3. ^ "فردی که به خاطر شباهتش به اکبر عبدی بازیگر شد". YJC. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
A quote from subject about a film. Fails WP:IS, WP:SIGCOV	4. ^ "یادی از سریال نوستالژی و محبوب دهه 60". Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	5. ^ "خاطره بازی آقای بازیگر از بازی با شهلا ریاحی". tabnak. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Dup of #3 above	6. ^ "فردی که به خاطر شباهتش به اکبر عبدی بازیگر شد". asriran. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	7. ^ ""پورمحمدی" پرداخت زیاد برای دعوت مهمانان را ممنوع کرد/برنامه تحویل سال شبکه یک موفق‌تر عمل کرد". yjc. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	8. ^ Jump up to:a b "بچه‌های فیلم‌ها و سریال‌های دهه ۶۰ کجا هستند؟ +تصاویر". cinemapress. 29 April 2017. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Database page	9. ^ "ليست كامل عوامل فيلم سفر جادويي (1369)". sourehcinema.
Promo Interview, primary, fails WP:IS	10. ^ "فردانیوز". fardanews.
Database page	11. ^ Dressage - Fajr Film Festival
Brief promo for upcoming appearance	12. ^ "یکی از مجریان نوروزی شبکه یک مشخص شد". jamejamonline. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
Name mention related to another subject, fails WP:SIGCOV	13. ^ "انيميشن "نوازنده" آماده پخش از تلويزيون شد". farsnews.

BEFORE (also searched for for Hassan Badkoobe and Babak Badkobeh and ) showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 23:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. thank you. I added a few more resources. Please check these items if possible Rockman2001 (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, still, and apparently irrevocably. TimothyBlue's work, as above, is flawless. We can accept a wish for a future inclusion -The Gnome (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Shostak

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

It seems like the person's notability is in question, as the page is filled with press releases and other paid news. Additionally, there is a possibility that the author of the page may be a UPEditor (nature of their edits speaks by itself). DreamlarT (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've been in this situation — I've never edited articles for a fee, except for those under contract with the Wikimedia Foundation, as noted on my user page on Meta. Regarding the Article about Ruslan Shostak and his charitable foundation, he himself is a notable businessman, the founder of huge national retail chains. The foundation he founded, in particular, after the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, organized the evacuation of almost 2,000 orphans from Ukraine for a temporary stay in Turkey. There are more than enough neutral and reliable sources about both Ruslan Shostak and Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation, especially in Cyrillic. --Perohanych (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has a promotional tone and seems to employ the tactics of reference bombing—a practice where numerous references are used to give an illusion of notability, commonly referred to as WP:Mill in Wikipedia's terminology. It lacks verifiable and reliable third-party sources from established news organizations. Due to these concerns, the page fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article does meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria WP:ANYBIO - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". He is Chevalier of the Order of Merit — "for significant personal merits in strengthening interstate cooperation, support for state sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, significant contribution to the popularization of the Ukrainian state in the world". The person has significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. There are dozens of such sources. Every statement in the article is based on reliable sources in authoritative publications. The article reads as an objective encyclopedia entry. Please let me know the exact wording of the article that you believe appears to be promotional material, and I will be happy to remove it. --Perohanych (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree article is in need of significant overhaul but subject himself appears notable. In addition to the point raised above by Perohanych, a simple search turned up a number of recent independent news articles about him (Yahoo! News, Interfax-Ukraine, Forbes, and 24 Kanal, among others). Also, if this article is kept, the Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation article, which is currently AfD'd, could be merged into this one (granted, it should be rewritten as well). Best, Dan the Animator 06:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While it was initially asserted that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, this was called into question on the basis that sourcing was promotional in nature, and discussion of sources strongly favored deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naina Sarwar

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Charlie (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Charlie (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is notable according to guidelines ; passing WP:NACTOR for at least 3 significant roles in notable films; and has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, which was not the case at the moment of the 1st Afd..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Might pass ACTOR with proper sourcing. Most of what I find is the thinly veiled promotional articles [56], [57], common in India, that don't help with the RS. If we can find better sourcing about her movie roles, I'd revisit. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems ok [58] as it's a review of the film, confirming the role. But we need more than this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: i think she passes the criteria WP:NACTOR but we need more reliable sources. the new indian express look like notable Worldiswide (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 04:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. fails WP:GNG. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Everything found, and thankfully it's not much, stinks badly of promotional purpose. Oaktree b's olfactory powers are well directed. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO/CREATIVE. Nothing in article or keep votes provides WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed promos and name listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo interview	1. "Naina Sarwar makes a mark in all South Indian languages". New Indian Express. 8 April 2023. Retrieved 11 November 2023.
Promo interview	2. ^ "Naina is Destiny's Favourite Child". New Indian Express. 4 August 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2023.
Name listed, nothing meeting SIGCOV	3. ^ "Kolanji movie review: Father-son bonding, lacks strong story". Deccan Chronicle. 27 July 2019. Retrieved 11 November 2023.
Name listed, nothing meeting SIGCOV	4. ^ "Eeswar's second film 'Suryapet Junction' completes the shoot!". The Times of India. 22 September 2022.
Promo interview	5. ^ "Naina Sarwar is set for her Telugu film debut". The Times of India. 23 August

BLPs require strong sourcing, might be a case of TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 14:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coverdale, Louisiana

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

Yet another unsourced place-stub in Louisiana, this one is shown by the topos to be a siding just north of Lauderdale, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No source, no article. And there are no sources that aren't SEO spam. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A zero-source creation by the sock-puppeteer who ran Hissrap18 (talk · contribs) and Futurewiki (talk · contribs) is not worth our time with all of the effort of fixing everything about a lazy 1-sentence zero-information stub, one of many by the sock-puppeteer, some of which are already deleted. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources, and agree with Uncle G on the value of saving this in any case. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyaz Hap

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks multiple sources with significant coverage. No article in Turkish Wikipedia either. Flurrious (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not even a single source.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While some potentially-usable coverage was identified, rebuttals regarding the quality of the cited sources were not refuted, delete has a slight numerical majority, and late momentum. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

River City Rivalry

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

This article discusses a rivalry between teams that are not traditional rivals and do not have enough coverage for a separate article. As a result, the article doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To the extent any of this is encyclopedic and not indiscriminate local-sports trivia, it can be summarized at each team's article in a short section, and perhaps also summarized at a list a US college football rivalries, if that exists somewhere. This is basically "college cruft". A short-lived series of what amount to exhibition games is not a notable "sports rivalry". Googling around for this turns up various mentions of a rivalry that are not articles about a rivalry but about games and teams and players and such; and some coverage that is ostensibly about the alleged rivalry as such, but it all appears to be local and/or student press, aside from regurgitation of one of them at Yahoo!News. These materials all seem to be "of a piece" and recycle lots of the same language verbatim (like "after an 11-year hiatus" and "The two schools [...] created the trophy when they were members of the Big East Conference", etc., so this is a very strong indication they are just recycling a press release from one of the teams or its school's athletics department and thus lack independence from the subject. One tellingly says "It was only truly a rivalry when both teams played in the Big East", i.e. when they were in formal competition against each other in a league system. But this is not what much if any of the material is about; it's about the exhibition game trophy they set up, so it's a manufactured "rivalry". Wikipedia doesn't exist to memorialize short-lived "school spirit" PR shenanigans. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, by SMcCandlish's standard, this problem exists in very large portion of the the college rivalry articles we have. Just look at Nebraska Cornhuskers football, they have 10 rivalry articles in the infobox! The proliferation of articles on rivalries, which are often only of importance to the schools involved, needs to be addressed. funplussmart (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is generally my view, yes. We have a tremendous amount of trivial fancruft of only local interest, and it makes up the majority of our articles on "sport[s] rivalries". The vast majority of this stuff should be reduced to a few sentences at the relevant team/school articles. But we also have some legitmate articles in this topic area that are of widespread notability, e.g. Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. They probably have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, tedious as that is. There are other but related problems, such as the total trainwreck at List of association football rivalries, which is a morass of badly confused OR, that is mingling together personality disputes between players (e.g. over girlfriends or whatever, and completely unrelated to sport), alleged "rivalries" between team/club managers (what does that even mean?), actual sport rivalries as the term is generally understood, antipathies between fandoms of different countries (often going far beyond football but rooted in historical conflicts), and series of games between two or more places are just series of games and not a "rivalry" in any encyclopedic sense, and probably some other claptrap as well. It's basically the fallacy of equivocation compounded several times over, to glom together everything that could conceivably be termed a "rivalry" by anyone under any of many senses of that word. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@funplussmart - Nebraska has played some of the teams listed 50-100 times over a span of 130 years. Rivalries sometimes don't even require a single game to be played to be created. KatoKungLee (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com has what appears to be plenty of coverage of this – not enough time to sort through it all right now however. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not really buying the argument of mainstream coverage of various games not counting as coverage for the rivalry. Here's 4 more good articles to add to the sources here - 1, 2, 3, 4 KatoKungLee (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong view one way or the other but FWiW here some examples of coverage (some of which cast doubt on how real the rivalry is): here, here, here, here ("UC-Pitt game has a trophy, but it's not a rivalry yet"), here ("the River City Rivalry trophy -- and while it might seem like a contrived 'rivalry game' driven by marketing gurus, the players insist it is real because of familiarity among the players"). Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if the coverage has a predominant tone of "bet you didn't know this was a thing", it's still coverage that is good enough for our encyclopedia standards. Abeg92contribs 16:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, since there is disagreement over notability here, a source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG (as WP:NRIVALRY requires) with sources presented above (even if excluding student newspapers). Meets WP:SUSTAINED as well. Cbl62's sources are quite solid and [59] from KatoKungLee seems quite good as well. —siro χ o 07:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the series was named as a rivalry by the schools should not be controlling. This was (as the sources confirm) an attempt by school officials to create a "contrived rivalry game". It lasted only eight years from 2005 to 2012. A number of publications picked up on the "River City rivalry" moniker, and accordingly one can argue that GNG is satisfied (and I do not agree that local coverage is irrelevant). But most of the proffered coverage is simple game coverage with passing mentions of the supposed rivalry. What I am not seeing is in-depth coverage of the rivalry itself. All said, this is, at worst, not a real rivalry and, at most, a contrived and short-lived rivalry between non-major programs. Processing the totality, reasonable minds can disagree, but my gut leans delete. Cbl62 (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question. This has been cited as an example of SIGCOV, and I agree it has depth. Does anyone know what pittsburghsportsnow.com is and whether it's a reliable source. Cbl62 (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have a full editorial staff with full-time sports journalists - usually that indicates reliability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the author a full-time sports journalist is a stretch. His bio (here) says he "hopes to become" a full-time sports writer. Until a year or two ago, he says he was a grocery stock clerk and now works for a company called J.T. Enterprises where he wrote a brochure for an industrial supply company. Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I guess I read that too quickly - it does say though that his only job in the past three years has been with the website - it also says he previously wrote for The Pitt News, something we'd probably regard as reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Cbl62. This was never really a rivalry except for a brief period between 2005 and 2012 when both schools were competing together in the Big East and were trying to create a rivalry between them. Had they remained together, it very well might have developed into a true rivalry, however, Pitt left the Big East for the ACC and the series ceased until a non-conference matchup earlier this year. And, even the newspaper coverage from the 2005-2012 era leaves a lot to be desired. Sources like this, this, this, and this are all basically saying, "this isn't really a rivalry yet, however both schools are hoping that it might become one in the future." Ultimately, because of conference realignment, that never wound up happening. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scrounging for sources testifying to some kind of worthy notability of the subject brings forth a sorry harvest. Trying to make a mountain our of, at best, a molehill is what's that. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Agree with Cbl62 this seems manufactured for promo purposes. Not seeing any sources showing this meets guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 15:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Kosovo women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Argnesa Rexhepi

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

Redirect to List of Kosovo women's international footballers. I was unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG. The only thing I found that comes close is this 2023 interview. JTtheOG (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Kosovo, and Switzerland. JTtheOG (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evghenia Dumic

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find sufficient independent coverage of the footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical growth

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

Student essay. The sources are to a high school textbook, community college course notes, and StackExchange. The content itself is little more than a compilation of the ledes of the relevant main articles, where they exist, and OR (even if obviously factually correct) where they don't. Fermiboson (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fermiboson (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, just describing mathematical models that "grow" or "decay" (which is literally every mathematical function other than a constant). It's well-written so I guess I could accept a redirect to Function (mathematics) but there is nothing here that isn't better covered in other articles. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very hard to see what the purpose of this article is, but basically it's just describing mathematical functions that, um, grow. Possibly monotonically, or possibly not. If we have to make this a redirect I won't object but the article doesn't say anything that isn't said elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not only is this an OR/SYNTH student essay, it's an incorrect one at that. The Fibonacci sequence is an exponential one, with an exponent base of *Phi*. There's nothing here worth merging. If turning this into a redirect, I'd rather have it redirect to Fast-growing hierarchy or even Ackermann function. Owen× ☎ 22:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article's Talk page, the intent of this article was to address the many incorrect descriptions of growth in the media and elsewhere, and to provide an overview of the types and terminology of growth, with helpful examples. Such an summary is not available on Wikipedia or anywhere else, to my knowledge. I believe many Wikipedia users would benefit from this kind of simple, non-technical description. Pbergerd (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your civil participation. This article is not suitable for inclusion for some of the following reasons:

- WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Wikipedia does not exist to instruct or teach, it records information of notability or importance, and definitely not to address inccorrect descriptions of any kind.

- If we ignore that for a moment, the article is still of questionable value. As others have pointed out, the article appears to attempt to list significant (by some definition) examples of monotonically(?) growing functions. We don't have articles on every type of thing that could ever exist, and there is no real reason why these functions, which may be individually deserving of an article, belong in this paticular list rather than, say, "List of real-valued functions" or "List of functions which are integrable on an open domain" or "List of functions with a finitely terminating Laurent series", etc. In summry, the scope is not well defined, and can never be well defined.

- The fact that these functions "grow" are not considered particularly important by any significant sources (sure, everyone agrees that they do grow, but at most a sentence or two is devoted to the fact that it does). The concept of growing functions, as a whole, is also not that important on its own (it is important as a precondition for other properties, such as Sandwich theorem, or as part of a narrower class of functions such as Monotonic function); you won't be able to find a scholarly article of any sort describing the "properties of growing functions". Fermiboson (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vugar Aliyev Amir

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

Fails NPROF. Only criterion subject could possibly pass is prestigious national awards, but I haven't been able to find much information on the prizes even in their native languages, and hence doubt it counts as prestigious. The sources in the article currently are both primary. Fermiboson (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Azerbaijan. Fermiboson (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no context to the awards we cannot assume their significance. The first reference, labeled "Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences", is neither an independent source nor the kind of academy membership that would pass WP:PROF#C3: it is an employee profile of someone who works as a researcher for the ANAS. It mentions some of the same awards, but again without context. It also mentions foreign membership in the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, which I thought might be promising until I read the linked article; importantly, this is not to be confused with the actually-prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences. Anyway, none of this is evidence for non-notability but neither is it evidence of notability and without evidence we cannot have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Stefan

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

I am not sure this person is notable. He is only apparently notable for his translation to Bulgarian/Slavic Macedonian of Daniel Moscopolites's dictionary (which can easily be covered in Daniel's article) and for his connection to the Miladinov brothers. There is not much else that I see that is relevant. I've been reading about the Aromanians for years and I had never seen this figure mentioned before. I also struggle to find English-language sources about him. I do not believe the article's writer has a firm grasp of our notability policy. They had previously created a separate article for Daniel's dictionary, which is the only thing that actually makes him notable in the first place. I would like the assessment of some other editors, I am not 100% sure myself what the outcome should be. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and North Macedonia. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ping Jingiby and StephenMacky1, from what I see this person could be discussed the most frequently by Bulgarian and Macedonian authors and I think their word can be greatly helpful. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't found any information about this person anywhere. Jingiby (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not many reliable sources discuss the person in question. If he was notable, it wouldn't be hard to find sources about him. He really is only notable for a translation of a dictionary, with reliable sources referring to him as "Stefan of Ohrid". StephenMacky1 (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points already raised. Appears to be a marginal figure without in-depth coverage to sustain a claim of notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 11:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than his work in the dictionary translation, it appears that there aren't any other notability about the subject. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 20:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article is about a well known person from the Ohrid region. It is also significant because for the Macedonian language he was very valuable. I find it weird to read that you can't find sources about Pop Stefan, because there are numerous sources about him, Macedonian but also in other languages. Newspapers, foreign linguistics books, papers, Macedonian school books etcetera. Maybe you don't search properly? This article has been improved numerous times and was approved. I don't see why it should be deleted. This is about the Sakkellarios Pop Stefan. In most sources he is referred to as Pop Stefan or Pop Stefania. As well as Popa Stefan. In American linguistic research he is sometimes referred to as Stefan of Ohrid. He is important for linguists who are specialized in Balkan languages. For the current modern Macedonian language he is important because his texts are the first written texts of a modern Macedonian language dialect. It's notable and there are numerous sources. Mostly written books. Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek, French, English. From thousands of Wikipedia articles about less known and important individuals this article is seen as a problem? I have been working on it for a year, finally getting approved recently. The OP seems to be having some sort of issue with me when editing on Wikipedia where Aromanians are mentioned. There is a reaction and calls for deletion or merger from the OP on every article which I edited where Aromanians are mentioned. This was the case last year as well. As soon as the articles are approved. Though, the thing is that the Aromanian aspect of these articles are not the main subject. This history and this individual, Pop Stefan, is important for linguistics. Not being Aromanian. I don't understand. I see you are from Romania involved in Aromanian research. That's great, but there are others who research as well. This article was not intended to highlight Aromanians. This individual just happened to be of Aromanian ancestry. It is about the linguistic part which is important. That should be noted. Brooklynlegv (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per StephenMacky1's reasoning. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a rough consensus to Delete this article, given User:Brooklynlegv's comments, it would be helpful to see a source analysis from editors that have the proper language background.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is what I say. Not just because I created it, but because of it's significance for the modern Macedonian language and the history of Macedonia and the Ohrid region.

There many Macedonian and other international books and other sources who mention Pop Stefan and mention his importance today for the history of the Macedonian language. Well known linguïst and professor Victor A. Friedman has several publications about Pop Stefan and his addition/importance to the modern Macedonian language.

We have Gane Todorovski, Macedonian historian, writer and poet who has written about Pop Stefan and his importance, for the Modern Macedonian language, numerous times. In his words: "Chrysostom (golden-mouthed) Sakkellarios Pop Stefan of Ohrid, presented the Macedonian language to educated Europe.", "The hero of the Macedonia culture, Pop Stefan. This is one of the most modest ways to thank him." Furthermore in his books about the Macedonian language he also writes more about Pop Stefan, his life, his family and his contact with Daniil of Moscopole.

Other writers like Snegarov, Nichev, Kepeski, Lunt, Koneski, Theodor Capidan (dialectul Aroman) as well.

Then there is the book "Nikulcite na novata Makedonska Knizhevnost" by Haralampie Polenakovic, Misla 1973, who wrote "It is known that the Greek material was translated into Macedonian by the Ohrid priest Pop Stefan. For the history of the Macedonian language this text is very significant, because it is also the oldest printed Macedonian text."

There are even Greek sources who realise the significance of Pop Stefan for the modern Macedonian language: "Ωστόσο αυτά τα «βουλγάρικα» του παπά Στέφανου, ήταν η σήμερα θεωρούμενη, από τους ειδικούς γλωσσολόγους, μακεδονική διάλεκτος της περιοχής της Οχρίδας. Και το μέρος αυτό του λεξικού, αποτελεί το πρώτο γνωστό γραπτό μνημείο της μακεδονικής γλώσσας." "The part written in "Bulgarian" is of great importance. This piece was not written by Daniel but by a certain Papa Stefanos who was then living in Ohrid. In his letter dated April 13, 1793 Daniel begs the above known pope to translate the manuscript dictionary into "Bulgarian", to send it by Easter of the same year to be printed in Venice. However, this "Bulgarian" of Papa Stefanos is today considered as the Macedonian dialect of the Ohrid region by expert linguists. And this part of the dictionary is the first known written monument of the Macedonian language".

There is also German research, for example in the "Zeitschrift für Balkanologie" by well known linguist/slavist Norbert Reiter who also wrote about on this subject.

There are many more sources and most are also referenced in the article itself. Pop Stefan and his addition is very important for the Modern Macedonian language. A language which is studied extensively by linguists across the globe. Brooklynlegv (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately this is all about the same thing, his translation of Daniil's dictionary. There's not really much else he could be notable of. All of this can be resumed in: Stefan is considered to have written the first Macedonian text by some authors. That's it. This can be covered easily in the article of the dictionary's main author, Daniel Moscopolites. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to realize the point here. The existence of Pop Stefan's addition is far more important for linguistics, for history of a nation than the whole dictionary published by Daniel. They are two different things. On one hand the dictionary by Daniel to motivate the 'barbarians' to learn Greek and on the other hand a source, a person responsible for a document which is of utmost importance for a (modern) nation, it's existence and it's language. It's a document which gives us insight and proves how they spoke this Macedonian dialect 200+ years ago. It proves that it was a Macedonian dialect and not simply 'Bulgarian'. Most countries have archives and sources and documents and what not. For the Macedonian language that is not the case. For a country like Macedonia and for a language like Macedonian these are the modest treasures for its existence.

I mean, there are articles about which ships blasted their canons first to salute the United States thus recognizing the country. It is minor, but important. For a nation like Macedonia and the Macedonian language, this is a important piece of history. Brooklynlegv (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of article worthiness as never assessed on the merits of importance for a particular nation or country, but on merits of citation. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're gonna have to back all your claims with sources. Gane Todorovski in his book Книга нашинска сиреч славјанска (page 23, ISBN 9788636901199), which is also cited in the article, literally confirmed that there is no information about him - Автор на македонскиот превод, поп Стефан од Охрид, за кого буквално немаме никакви податоци ... (Author of the Macedonian translation, Pop Stefan from Ohrid, about whom we literally have no information ...). What you wrote also really only confirms that he's only notable for the translation. Authors mentioning him in passing does not indicate any notability. Your contribution is appreciated, but you should find a notable subject next time. I'd also advise you to not make unfounded accusations against other editors. Focus on the content. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, Gane still managed to write a lot more about Pop Stefan. Not only about the translation, but also about his life, the friendship with Daniel, the connection with Miladinovci and his fondness of Pop Ioan and the importance of Pop Stefan to the Macedonian language. Have you read that as well? Also, I'm not accusing anyone. Brooklynlegv (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was busy with exams. Well, admittedly I don't have full access to Gane's source, however the sources I have full access to and the ones that are cited here do not indicate any notability.

The Contact Hypothesis Revised: DOM in the South Slavic Periphery (p. 67): The Lexicon Tetraglosson is a quadrilingual lexicon of Greek, Albanian, Vlach (Aromanian), and “Bulgarian” (Macedonian dialect of Ohrid) written by Daniel Moscopolites, an Aromanian priest from Moscopole. It is assumed that the Slavic version was translated from Greek by Stefan, an Ohrid priest of Aromanian descent (Nichev, 1997). - Mentions him in passing like most sources and also solely about his translation.

The sources Извори за познавање на старата градска архитектура во Охрид (p. 218) and Зборник на трудови ПРЛИЧЕВАТА „1762 ЛЕТО“ - Симбол на непокорот на Македонецот (p. 11) mention Nikola Pop Stefanija, but not him. So, these sources cannot be used to prove his notability either.

Ив. Снѣгаровъ. Македонски Прегледъ. Година I, книга 4, София, 192. II pp. 55–56: With a letter from 13 April 1793, the Moscopole Sakellarios and priest Daniil informed the Ohrid Sakellarios Pop Stefan (the progenitor of the current Ohrid family, Pop Stefanievi), that he was sending him the Greek dictionary with his student to translate it into Bulgarian within a week, because after Easter he wanted to send it to Venice for printing. At the same time, he asks him to listen to the speech of his parents, so that there is no mistake ... - Simply repeats what other and newer sources know him for - his translation. Koneski, Lunt and Friedman also mention him solely for that reason. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fals WP:GNG in quite a convincing fashion. The keen interest of the article's creator is understandable but the personal attacks are a detriment to their case. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 04:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Suhr

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. Hundreds of firefighters have died in 9/11, not all of them merit a separate article. The conditions of his death don't seem to be all that special. At best I think we could redirect this to Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Deaths by jumping or falling, given that this page is getting 6k views a month and its creator already wrote about Suhr there. SparklyNights (t) 01:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, and United States of America. SparklyNights (t) 01:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps being the first fireman to die in the tragedy could be notable, but I can't find much coverage. [60] is about all I find... I've seen articles for other victims that had their 911 calls used in subsequent trails, which shows some lasting notability; this individual is simply remembered for having died. Again, while tragic, not every victim will be notable almost 25 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's notable and his death was referenced in court cases. It seems to meet WP:GNG. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 11:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He is probably as notable as Gary Geidel and Gerard A. Barbara. Furthermore Suhr was the first FDNY firefighter to perish on 911. Pelle S.H. (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As mentioned above about Gary Geidel and Gerard A. Barbara. Also see Category:Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks. If they were emergency workers on September 11, and died as a result, they are a Keep.— Maile (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Lundstroem Pedersen

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

Fails WP:CRIMINAL. This person is notable for only one event, that being the crime he was convicted for, and the crime in question (sextortion on Facebook) also seems to be relatively WP:ROUTINE in the news. People get convicted for that basically every day, that doesn't make them notable. SparklyNights (t) 00:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Denmark, and United States of America. SparklyNights (t) 00:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Louisiana, Missouri, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Daniil Alexandrovich Rzhevsky

The result was speedy delete Mach61 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. Searches turned up absolutely nothing and provided sources are Spotify and apple music with one other source that does not lend much to notability as well. Seems to be almost borderline A7. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 00:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Russia. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 00:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging it for Speedy Delete under criteria A7 and G4. This is the third iteration of the page (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seydanil (Belarusian singer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniil Rzhevsky). Would probably recommend blocking the single-purpose account as they clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page has already been deleted via CSD, and voting would give us free points I guess, admin should tend to this quickly. dxneo (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Modesti

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

Subject is a minor league footballer with a marginal professional career and no WP:SIGCOV apart from a couple transfer reports and some stats pages, therefore failing WP:GNG. [61] Angelo (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. No GNG-worthy sources found. Tails Wx 02:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Serafini

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

Originally WP:PROD, the subject is a footballer with no professional career [62] and little to no coverage at all, therefore failing WP:GNG. [63] Angelo (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything close to significant coverage, unsurprising given the low level of his career Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Paul, M., Zhang, R., Liu, B. et al. State-level political partisanship strongly correlates with health outcomes for US children. Eur J Pediatr 181, 273–280 (2022).

[1]