Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 04 March 06 >

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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia State Route 545[edit]

Georgia State Route 545 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed PROD. Cannot find information from reliable sources that this route exists. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—article apparently confuses and conflates a construction project number (EDS-545) with an actual state route number based upon a mistake listing this at List of state routes in Georgia (U.S. state). The purported source to back the existence of this state route in the highway is the map of the state of Georgia on Google Maps, which does not show it, and wouldn't show a supposedly unsigned designation. Unless the creator of this article can show something more, this article needs to be deleted, and frankly, removed from the state route list. Imzadi 1979 → 23:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to not be a valid designation based on the evidence above. SounderBruce 01:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per Imzadi1979. Dough4872 02:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Imzadi1979. Suonii180 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...wait for it.... as per Imzadi1979 :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Honestly are we sure this isn't the accidental equivalent of a hoax? I can't find anything that suggests that the highway exists, so it fails WP:V. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2022 (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 12:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian XXX[edit]

Christian XXX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage outside of industry publications. Does not appear to be notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for more time for policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No, industry fluff does not count towards notability at all, this has been well-established in dozens and dozens of pornography deletion discussions. Second, the Village Voice article no longer seems to exist. There's an XBiz article about the supposed VV profile, and this forum post is allegedly by the author saying it was coming out in VV soon, but it is curious that it cannot be found in any archive or reprint. It's only from 2006, not like we're trying to track down something from the 70s here. Even if located, it would only be a single, possible source. Still short of notability requirements. Zaathras (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zaathras, I posted the two archived links above. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: hopefully this relist actually helps
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Zaathras. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources. Industry blotter does not count towards notability, while an article in Village Voice, albeit in two parts, is insufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2022 (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. Already PROD'd so Soft Delete is not available here. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Parvanov Petrov[edit]

Ivan Parvanov Petrov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 15:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert de Ravinel[edit]

Hubert de Ravinel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a recently deceased writer, not properly referenced as passing WP:AUTHOR. While there are claims here (mostly late-in-life honours) that would probably make him eligible for an article that was reliably sourced, as written the referencing here is entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his listing on the website of the funeral home that handled his burial, and content self-published by organizations directly affiliated with the distinction claims -- and the French article is even worse, citing only the funeral home with no other footnotes whatsoever. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on real coverage about his work in real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any coverage in real media, precisely because the extent to which any award is notable enough to make its winners "inherently" notable because they won it is determined by the extent to which the award does or doesn't get media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I agree with Phil Bridger that the fact of receiving the Légion d'honneur is not enough on its own. The National Order of Quebec may be stronger, I'm not sure, but I still don't think it's something that would automatically convey notability without WP:GNG-level sourcing. And I can't find any evidence of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability, so WP:GNG seems like the only possibility. But there is some nontrivial coverage of him that may be reliable and independent enough to pass WP:GNG: from the government of Quebec in the citation for his Order of Quebec [6], from Les petits frères, an organization he seems to have been associated with, in a story giving his biography and noting his award of the Légion d'honneur [7], and in a published tribute letter to him after his death (two sites and two languages but really only one letter) [8] [9]. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing for an award claim has to be media reportage about the presentation of the award, not the self-published website of the award's giver, to turn any award into an article-clinching notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're using the award for WP:PROF#C2 notability or the like, then the fact of the award is enough. And if we're going by GNG-based notability, then it is the sourcing, not the award, that makes him notable, and the fact that the sourcing has detailed coverage of the subject and is published by an impeccably reliable source, the government of Quebec, makes it irrelevant that at the same time they published the source they also gave him an award. Do you somehow think that the same publication from the same source would be made much stronger if only they had not also given him an award when they published it? That's absurd. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Content published by the government of Quebec would never be notability-building coverage in any context, because the government of Quebec is not media. The extent to which any award is ever notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it is always strictly coterminous with the extent to which that award generates third-party media coverage in sources independent of the awarding organization's own self-published content about its own activities. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your position was already absurd, but you have outdone yourself by insisting that governments are incapable of generating independent reliable publications. Ridiculous and made up out of thin air, rather than anything actually written into our guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While neither award on its own is sufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO, I think the two together probably make it over the threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As per his work and publications, i think he passes WP:BASIC. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep I believe the award plus the sum of other achievements just gets the subject across the line to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing does not exist at the level to support a standalone article. If anyone wants this in draft space to see if the national welterweight championship can be sourced, happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 01:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Andreassen[edit]

Rudolf Andreassen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is currently unsourced, which is not at all acceptable. My search for sources came up with some database sources, but no examples of significant coverage. I was not able to find any mention of any other boxing besides in the Olympics, and his Olympics role is clearly not notable. My search did turn up a few mentions of someone name Rudolf Andreassen with an added surname who was a totally different person. The newspaper.com search turned up sources for this name in the last decade and in the 1880s, so nothing even close to the fright time frame. There is no indication of notability at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this editor that have problems with me?? --- Løken (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a source from the BNA - if British newspapers had results for him, Norwegian newspapers certainly will. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Michig: Can you quote the relevant section of the BNA source? The title suggests that it might be a list article, rather than significant coverage of him. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: It would help to have a clearer sense of the BNA piece, including whether or not it constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article profiles the members of a touring Norwegian team to the UK, saying of Andreassen - "Rudolf Andreassen (light-weight) of Narvik is 25 years and is Light, Welter and Middleweight Champion of North Norway, though his weight is only light-weight". Jevansen (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The BNA source is obviously not SIGCOV, and with nothing else having been found there really isn't anything to support including the subject as a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Without additional sourcing, which may well exist in Norwegian sources, I have to lean towards deletion. Losing in the round of 16 at the Olympics is no longer enough for WP notability. Winning a kongepokal in a sport that Norway is not strong in is not sufficient to convince me of WP notability. If he won it in cross country skiing or ski jumping, I would likely view it differently. Papaursa (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mobaraki[edit]

Ali Mobaraki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any reliable sources to confirm a WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL pass. I tried searching both the English and Persian names and couldn't find even basic database coverage let alone the detailed WP:RS coverage required to have a stand-alone article. Potentially fails WP:V. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:08, 5 March 2022 (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. Nominator withdrew and no delete votes. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inland Sea, Gozo[edit]

Inland Sea, Gozo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No Citations Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 20:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Even tough I put it up for deletion initially I think all issues have been fixed. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 19:24, 8 March 2022 (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! 22:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Daddy[edit]

Super Daddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Super Daddy

Article about television show that does not satisfy television notability or general notability. The article says very little, and does not speak for itself. It appears, from the presence of a contestant table, to be a contest show, but the article doesn't even say that, let alone mentioning any third-party discussion. The references are also useless, and are mostly about the channel rather than the show.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 tamil.news18.com A puff piece about the TV channel No No No
2 tamil.indianexpress.com Mostly about channel - Passing mention of show Yes No No

The article is in both article space and draft space, and so cannot simply be moved to draft space. The show might be notable because there might really be independent significant coverage, so the draft should be kept, but left in draft space until improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2022 (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. If someone wants them to actively incubate in draft, I'm happy to provide, but consensus is they don't currently merit articles, and there isn't the sourcing required to verify tie for merger. Star Mississippi 02:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Asih[edit]

Sri Asih (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Numerous unreleased film articles are created on the same day which are supposedly part of Bumilangit Cinematic Universe. None of them seem to have enough reliable and independent coverage on production to meet WP:NFF guidelines for future films. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gundala the Son of Lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mandala: The Devil's Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Blind of the Phantom Cave: Angel's Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Godam & Tira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Patriot Taruna: Virgo and the Sparklings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Ab207 (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the sources seems to be reliable sources, mentioning few of them being CNN Indonesia, Kompas and others...."majority" of them are independent while some seems a bit related to the subject but not a surprise from a well known company and director - however it is really important to define whether now it is the appropriate time to include them in an article or not. Amoeba69th (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They may be reliable but the coverage is largely announcements and interviews with the crew. Infact, the articles do not even confirm the commencement of principle photography which is the bare minimum for inclusion under WP:NFF. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify all to allow article development and preserve history. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine whether or not these articles created prematurely should be deleted or draftified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Give us abreak, now we have 3 choices but no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 5 March 2022 (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! 22:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alkaram Studio[edit]

Alkaram Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 16:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete. much of the results from google are just websites selling their products. 晚安 (トークページ) 03:05, 9 March 2022 (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 Belize Premier Football League. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilagulei FC[edit]

Ilagulei FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been unreferenced since 2009. I did a before search, but almost all I could find is barebones statistical data. On the Polish Wikipedia article I did find this. I'm not sure how reliable it is, but apparently it can't even be agreed whether it's Ilagulei or Llagulei. I also found this in a Google search. I can't find where they are supposed to be competing now, or really anything. According to this dataset, they disappeared after 2008. Maybe they merged into some club and I can't find this anywhere? Dege31 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The river runner[edit]

The river runner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In its current state it reads like promotional text and is not even formatted properly. I fixed the formatting just after making this XFD. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Istiak Ahmed Sourav[edit]

Istiak Ahmed Sourav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible WP:UPE vanity spam and only narrowly escapes WP:G11 and WP:A7. The four references used are all press releases and not acceptable as sources at all. My WP:BEFORE search could not find any WP:RS that would allow for a passing of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Not seeing a route to notability through WP:ANYBIO either. Just another 'entrepreneur' paying for coverage of themselves. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:34, 5 March 2022 (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 12:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teerapat Chaichoedchu[edit]

Teerapat Chaichoedchu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A skin of teeth pass of WP:NFOOTBALL with 7 minutes of professional football in 2018 before disappearing. Siam Sport has one of the most brief transfer announcements that I've ever seen. This is then duplicated on a gambling website! A search of Google News and DDG in Thai yields no effective sources. The only other 'coverage' that I can find is his name appearing in an exhaustive list of all transfers here. Can't find any WP:GNG coverage which is absolutely essential in marginal cases like this one. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:58, 5 March 2022 (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. Sandstein 14:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hombale Films[edit]

Hombale Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth sources passing WP:NCORP. Apart from this which itself reads like an interview, others are all film announcements. My attempts to listify were reverted twice. Bringing here to decide what the article should be. This version from before my listification had more sources than the current one, but none significant. Hemantha (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After did a quick research on Google found many reliable references that justify subject's notability. And this article is surviving on Wikipedia for more than two years. It passes WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do add those to the article or at least link them here so that interested parties can do it. Also isn't NCORP the applicable notability guideline here? My understanding is GNG is not sufficient. Hemantha (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria, we require references that discuss the topic company and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep indepth coverage here and here which include independent analysis (the second combines analysis and an interview which is permissable for corpdepth) so deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even after discounting the blatant promotion in the newskarnataka article - about an upcoming movie, it said The film is expected to shatter all records at the box office. It is also expected to do roaring business in other parts of India, it covers only the films made by the company. On the company itself, it has nothing to say apart from 1) founded by realtor 2) makes big budget films.
Now this distinction - on the company vs on the films made by the company - might seem like frivolous argumentation, but if you start thinking about writing an article on the company, there are many basic WP:V issues.
  • The news articles say a single founder, but a primary source (company registration) says it is a partnership between two persons.
  • There isn't even an year for when the company started, let alone date, in secondary sources brought forward.
If even the company type, incorporation date and it's founders are unclear, I can hardly see how there can be a WP:V compliant article or how the sources put forth are in-depth (in NCORP sense). Hemantha (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just did a quick search on Google and found these: 1. Hindustan Times - Hindustan Times, a trusted and notable newspaper published in India passes WP:RS and GNG. 2. Deccanherald - Deccan Herald, a reliable and notable newspaper published in India, passes WP:RS and GNG. 3. Timesnownes - Times Now News, a reliable and trusted news paper published in India, passes WP:RS, GNG and independent of the subject. 4. News Karnataka, a notable news paper published from Karnataka, India, Passes WP:RS. 5. Deccan Herald - Deccan Herald, a reliable and notable newspaper published in India, passes WP:RS and GNG and independent of the subject. Thus passes WP:THREE. And there are many news about the topic you can find on Google. DMySon (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and search reveals many reliable sources which passes WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DMySon's soures, particularly News Karnataka and Deccan Herald, which give significant coverage/author's original opinion on the production company as a whole. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - DMySon has continued to evaluate based on GNG instead of NCORP, without saying why. The new sources brought are film announcements, with the brief mentions of Hombale not being enough for NCORP. None of my objections about the promotional NewsKarnataka source and the films-by-the-company focus (instead of the company focus) of the DecaanHerald article have been addressed. Hemantha (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • NCORP criteria is applied over-and-above GNG which is intended to exclude routine coverage which companies generally receive. The above sources are unique to this company, and not something which other studios routinely receive. Since this is a film production company, the company's failure or success would be judged vis-a-vis its films, so complete separation is unreasonable to expect. Also positive coverage does not necessarily mean promotional coverage, and it can be addressed per WP:BIASED and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2022 (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. Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIT University Jaipur. Sandstein 14:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Career Point University, Kota[edit]

Career Point University, Kota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No solid news about Career Point University. Started by coaching business people. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A university is at least somewhat notable. I will add some tags to suggest some page improvements. Gusfriend (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please make comments With sources. Also, where is it written that all accredited universities are notable by default? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - Hatchens (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you see the results of the RFC there? And especially the part WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.. The Banner talk 09:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's some trivial name drops about it in articles related to other things. outside of that there's kind of in-depth article that covers it from Seasonal Magazine, but it's a blog and the article comes of like a badly written PR piece. So it's not usable for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2022 (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. Sandstein 14:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret MacLean (civil servant)[edit]

Margaret MacLean (civil servant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source in the article is not independent. It's an obituary written by the brother and a friend of the subject. I could not find any coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject to meet our general notability guidelines. I first tried moving the article to draft so it could be incubated but that move was reverted. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question Is my understanding of previously established consensus correct: that family submitted death notices in local papers are not considered reliable sources, but major write ups in national newspapers do have editorial oversight and therefore are considered reliable sources? (based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Obituaries)? CT55555 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any kind of article published in a reliable source subject to editorial control may be valid as a source, but if it's authors are related to the subject (Brother and friend) it is not independent and therefore does not help establish notability and does not contribute towards meeting WP:GNG. The second source you added includes only a mere mention of the name in a list. It does not qualify as significant coverage. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd advise the creator of this article to move it into draft, try to find some reliable, secondary sources that back up the museum founding or other work, and if you can find, move to main space. This is one of those scenarios where it seems like she should be notable, but we need at least more source or sources. I agree with Crystallizedcarbon above that my second citation isn't useful for notability, just fact verification. I respect the point that the obituary is not independent, but I do think that an obituary published in a national newspaper has some editorial oversight and should not be discounted as if it were a simple death notice. CT55555 (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reluctantly. While I'm all for the Women In Red Project, I'm surprised by this article getting through. It was clearly at the draft stage and even with the one obituary source from the Scotsman (regardless of the author) it doesn't meet WP:N. A lack of sufficient coverage, a lack of sources, etc. Which is a shame because while this woman contributed to the cultural history of Scotland, it's not enough to keep the article on Wikipedia. I tried looking for additional sources but didn't come up with any. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It is not uncommon for British newspapers to ask friends/family to write the obituary of a notable deceased person. The Scotsman obit seems to fall into that category. Atchom (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aayiram Porkasugal[edit]

Aayiram Porkasugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film whose last update was in 2018. Lacks significant coverage on production to meet WP:NFF guidelines for future films. Cited sources are interviews and announcements which do not establish notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2022 (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 The World Spectator and redirect Kevin Weedmark. There is a consensus that the article on The World-Spectator should be kept. While the formatting is atypical for a multi-AfD, editors in the recognized that this was a two-part question and evaluated both the article for The World Spectator and that for Kevin Weedmark. Editors found no evidence that Weedmark had significant coverage; WP:BLARing his page to that of the newspaper is a suitable WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The World-Spectator[edit]

The World-Spectator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I will also be nominating Kevin Weedmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion, as both articles share the same problems, and also have a heavy content overlap.

Both these articles were created by a clear SPA, Kevkevkev, and neither of them have any claim of notability. The World Spectator is cited to one source, and this citation is an example of WP:SYNTH, as the paper isn't even mentioned by name in the given source, and the BLP has no sources at all. I'm unable to verify any of the awards that either Kevin or his paper claimed to have received, nor any in-depth secondary coverage. This is a long-standing piece of self-promotion that needs to go. Loafiewa (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete bothKeep The World-Spectator, and delete Kevin Weedmark. The only reliable sources I can find on Kevin Weedmark are a couple news articles ([10][11]) which on their own do not establish notability. As for the newspaper, I can't find any sources and the only source currently in the article is an archived Canadian government article which doesn't even mention it. Edit -- since User:Sdkb has found some sources on the newspaper, I've changed my !vote to keep. However, there still aren't any sources for the bio so it should be deleted.>>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like Wgullyn, I initially struggled to find any sources for this paper, but I would normally expect a regional newspaper serving multiple communities with a 138-year history and various awards to be notable, so I dug deeper. Thankfully, Newspapers.com turned up a number of SIGCOV articles:
  1. Longman, Harold (24 July 1957). "Moosomin weekly oldest paper". The Leader-Post. p. 2. Retrieved 18 February 2022.
  2. "Moosomin paper up for national award". The Leader-Post. 19 July 1989. p. 5. Retrieved 18 February 2022.
  3. McKay, Burt (22 October 1984). "Moosomin World-Spectator celebrates 100 years". The Leader-Post. p. 10. Retrieved 18 February 2022.
  4. "Oldest paper best in class". The Leader-Post. 12 September 1966. p. 2. Retrieved 18 February 2022.
There are several other slightly more SIGCOV-marginal articles, such as this one. The only remaining concern is that these are all from one other newspaper, the The Leader-Post, but, well, how many newspapers can we really expect there to be in Saskatchewan, especially when we have to exclude the one most likely to cover Moosomin-related topics, i.e. the World-Spectator itself? On an IAR level, this is clearly an important topic, and one we are likely to use as a source if we cover the region, so it serves readers best to keep it around. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the newspaper as having received reasonable coverage for being a publication itself and a relatively important topic, encyclopedically speaking. Redirect Weedmark to the paper's article as not having received sufficient coverage to justify a stand-alone article. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:15, 12 March 2022 (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. Sandstein 14:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefania Blancuzzi[edit]

Stefania Blancuzzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article referenced only to a stats site on a footballer that has never played in a WP:FPL while it was fully professional and with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Prior to this nomination I found no hits in Google News, no hits in ProQuest and an Italian source search only yielded Wikipedia, its mirrors and a couple of stats sites. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:13, 5 March 2022 (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 12:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kwadwo Boamah[edit]

Kwadwo Boamah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly sourced BLP on a subject that doesn't even appear to pass WP:NFOOTBALL let alone WP:GNG. Boamah has only apparently played in WP:NOTFPL leagues and Google News gave 2 passing mentions while DDG only had Wikipedia mirrors. I've also assessed the 10 ProQuest hits and not one of them is about this footballer. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:29, 5 March 2022 (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 12:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jayathunga[edit]

Ryan Jayathunga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage that Wikipedia considers to be reliable, per WP:RS. Social media such as Facebook and YouTube are therefore unacceptable. Also fails WP:NACTOR as he does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions per my WP:BEFORE search. I would oppose a redirect to Mervyn Jayathunga due to the lack of reliable sources connecting the two together. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And salt, please. As the title has been repeatedly re-created.--Chanaka L (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I came across this article in my archive run. The only sources in this article appear to be from his self published Facebook and Youtube accounts, not even somoone's else account. Also see WP:NACTOR, no notable productions can be found. At the very least, the article needs to be moved back to draft space due to the grammar and spelling mistakes. Rlink2 (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:NACTOR, lacks any reliable independent sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly sourced article, YouTube is not a reliable source. Fails WP:NACTOR. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2022 (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. Sandstein 12:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of busiest airports in the former Yugoslav republics[edit]

List of busiest airports in the former Yugoslav republics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article in search of a topic apparently, a WP:SYNTH violation, because I don't see any sources for this group analysis in e.g. a Google Books search for the topic. We already have a vaguely geographical list in List of the busiest airports in the Balkans that I previously recommended to be deleted but there was no consensus, and from that article's talk page, it seems like the issue has since also escalated... Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Not significant enough for a redirect or a merge. NavjotSR (talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 12 March 2022 (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) Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Left Democratic Front (Maharashtra)[edit]

Left Democratic Front (Maharashtra) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now has a reference proving that it was there. JASpencer (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 12:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1991 Enugu State gubernatorial election[edit]

1991 Enugu State gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to verify the winner of this election. Maybe a nickname? Or a hoax? The Banner talk 12:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a hoax – the election did happen, but the winner listed here is Okwesilieze Nwodo. This is one of a series of articles on state-level elections in Nigeria that were created as part of a competition, but without any kind of quality control/oversight, resulting in many terrible and error-filled articles being created. Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to deletion on a WP:TNT basis. Number 57 17:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep  – The election is definitely not a hoax as multiple sources refer to Dr. Okwesilieze Nwodo as the winner of the December 1991 election. Princess of Ara 09:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See 2023 Enugu State gubernatorial election and 2019 Enugu State gubernatorial election. Knight Skywalker (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2022 (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! 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jochen Mundinger[edit]

Jochen Mundinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman. He received an entry in one of those "35 under 35" type lists back in 2010, but nothing since. He's been mentioned and quoted in a few articles about his company, but nothing about him. WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC is failed. schetm (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2022 (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. per consensus among policy-based !Votes. Going to salt given shenanigans around creation. If it passes AfC at some point in the future with an established reviewer, unsalting is fine Star Mississippi 02:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arham Abbasi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arham Abbasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created first by Iansumanbhagat; who then used a separate account Krishnarthiindia to resubmit it as an AfC draft. Meanwhile it was declined three times by Dan arndt, Theroadislong and me as well. Thereafter, a new editor Trakinwiki takes this forward and asks several editors to review it. I declined it again but a new AfC volunteer Batamore approved it thinking that it meets WP:NACTOR. Ravensfire had earlier AfDed it and it was deleted. That said, I concur with what Ravensfire thought earlier and what they think now. I'm inviting a fresh discussion on this as I do not feel this meets WP:NACTOR at any case because there is just one significant lead role and NACTOR needs several! ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep References are somewhat niche, but there are a good amount. The actor seems to have at least one significant role. WP:NACTOR asks for multiple significant roles so this may not meet that exactly but I believe that the actor is significant enough to meet WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing changed from the last AfD, except dumping of poor references. No evidence of meeting NACTOR which needs multiple significant roles in notable productions backed up reliable sources. Cannot see any GNG-worthy coverage either as passing mentions, interviews, and WP:NOTRS sources do not establish notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . I feel the subject is notable because the subject has done a lead role in Prayag and an important character in the tv show Imlie as i thoroughly read those coverages. Batamore (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    being a lead role in just one movie/film doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. I do not see any indication of his work in the Imlie that could help pass WP:NACTOR. GNG isn't met anyway. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Neither the subject is passing WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG independently. ManaliJain (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Explicit source analysis and additional input from the community may be required to achieve a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2022 (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. Opinions are split, but the "delete" side makes better arguments: they explain why they think the available sources are insufficient, whereas the "keep" side does not explain why they think the sources are sufficient. Sandstein 12:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights[edit]

The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the current sourcing is either primary or brief mentions. Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage, just more mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added two sources, one article from the guardian, talking about the launch of the campaign and referring directly to the campaign's website. The second is UNHCR article, talking about the campaign and the activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abs11a (talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if we can get some input, or possibly a merger target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The Guardian (which refers to the organization by its previous name of the "International Campaign to End Gender Discrimination in Nationality Laws") is a good source that probably provides the organization with significant coverage. But one source isn't enough, and the other sources cited aren't adequate: the WaPo is just a passing mention, and the UN agencies are too closely connected to the organization to be independent. There are quite a few mentions in Google Books and Google Scholar, but none of them seem to be substantial either. I thus don't think notability has been established, particularly since WP:NORG, which is deliberately stricter than the GNG, applies. A merger (as suggested in the relisting comment) would be a good idea, but I'm just not seeing a logical target. If we had an article along the lines of Gender discrimination in nationality law (likely a notable topic), a brief mention might be warranted, but unfortunately no such article exists. This is a fairly close call, and I'd be glad to reconsider if additional sourcing or a possible merger target can be identified. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added a source that I think everyone had missed, I wonder if that might change your view? Ping User:Extraordinary Writ CT55555 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be a stretch to call the Feminist Foresight in Statelessness article significant coverage of this organization in particular: it only mentions the GCENR a few times in passing while discussing broader historical issues. I've reviewed the scholarly literature again, and I'm still not quite seeing how the organization is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article under WP:NORG (especially WP:ORGDEPTH). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point. And I think I should revise my answer to "weak keep" because google scholar does bring up many hits, I think they are all passing mentions, but I spent enough time online there to establish that they are the only org that does what they do, and while I think it is indeed borderline, I'd still vote 51% yes here. But it's a tough one. CT55555 (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly a fair conclusion as well. I agree that this is definitely a case where reasonable minds may differ. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think everyone has missed academic writing about their work, which I had now added. They are mentioned a few times, I could have added more, but not very in depth. However, FEMINIST FORESIGHT IN STATELESSNESS: CENTURY-OLD CITIZENSHIP EQUALITY CAMPAIGNS does talk about the in depth. CT55555 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Downgraded from keep after considering Extraordinary Writ's comments. CT55555 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please consider the comments on the talk page of this page by page created (and I assume new editor) User:Abs11a who clearly argues for keep " I respectfully don't understand how articles from the UN, Washington Post and others talking about the Campaign, the issue, and the activities of the Campaign are not primary sources. This is the only global gender-equal campaign on nationality rights, consisting of Global, regional and local organizations and even UN agencies, such as UNHCR, and the issue is being clearly discussed in all the sources. Again, very respectfully, I do not agree with you. Many thanks for your work anyway." CT55555 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - of the additional sourcing provided, one (The Guardian) does not even mention the organization, and another (the UNHCR piece) is a press release. Onel5969 TT me 01:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of those frustratingly borderline cases where editors' personal interpretations of significance can easily differ. On balance, however, I am satisfied that WP:NGO applies and that the coverage is significant enough for an international NGO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional arguments that explicitly evaluate sources in light of a relevant notability guideline would be helpful in ascertaining a more clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Clarification/Keep I said "Keep" above, but in light of the relist comment, I will clarify it is informed by the General Notability Requirements plus WP:NGO CT55555 (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2022 (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 Bhopal. Sandstein 12:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Bhopal[edit]

List of tourist attractions in Bhopal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Policies violated by this page:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."

WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.

The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.

WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.

WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just rename it to List of places in Bhopal. Anywhere that has its own Wikipedia article, you can put there. Category:Lists of tourist attractions by city shows there are a lot of articles like this. All should be included in this discussion since they are all the same. Dream Focus 01:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG. A notable topic, about a popular tourist city. Enough coverage. Rename can be discussed on the talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bhopal#Culture. I listing major attractions and cultural sites is appropriate, but can be done in the main article. Reywas92Talk 17:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks independent sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A notable list as like any other similar lists in Category:Lists of tourist attractions by city . Bhopal is a historic city of 20 million people and is capital of Madhya Pradesh a state of India. The reference is from the government website given in the references section of the list. The list may need some work to expand but not deletion surely.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge... to Bhopal in either the Culture or Places of interest sections. This topic does not need a separate article. Ideally there needs to be more accompanying content supporting each entries inclusion as both a place of interest in the city and also a tourist attraction. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge.. in Bhopal#Attractions or places of interest. — B203GTB (talk) • 14:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and I mean this for the ones that follow as well) - Think of the person who is seeking information on things to see or visit in Bhopal/Agra/etc. Will they search under "List of ..." or "Bhopal"? Lists like this actually hide information, even though they may seem to be concise entries for a topic. (This is why in a library catalog this would have a heading like "Bhopal, tourism" - and, no, that isn't ideal either.) Lamona (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There'll be more batches in a month. I try to PROD first. These are the ones that got dePRODed. Most of the PRODed ones got merged or deleted. There's a total of about 120 more articles to go. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please consider merging yourself. While I agree that some of these are low quality or duplicative and should not be articles, I do not see much agreement that listing of tourist attractions as a concept is inapproprate. It's not unreasonable or original research at all to categorize something as an "attraction", and lack of hard inclusion/exclusion criteria is irrelevant to verifiability. Even if these are named in the title as for tourists, most of these lists have valid items about culture and history of a place that should be listed somewhere, with a renamed page or in the main article. Like, these are better than having separate subarticles for List of museums, List of historic sites, List of parks List of venues, etc. when a split is warranted. Deletion will rarely be better than a merge or redirect in these cases since the content has often been split from a main page. Reywas92Talk 15:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Can I do a merge and delete the old page without going through something like AFD? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can merge and redirect without AFD, not delete, but you don't need to do that anyway in most of these cases. Reywas92Talk 06:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bhopal#Culture: Information is better presented in context on the Bhopal page. Would also be happy with a redirect. Gusfriend (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bhopal, without linking to any specific section as multiple targets exist. Violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion of sources that reference this list of items, particularly within the scope of WP:NLIST, would be helpful in ascertaining a more clear consensus on the notability of this particular list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2022 (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. Sandstein 10:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mbaye Dieye Faye[edit]

Mbaye Dieye Faye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All three citations are currently unverifiable. The two with links appear to be broken in some way. The singer is real, and the information looks to be somewhat valid, but I can not find any reputable sources discussing this singer (although I admit, I do not speak French, which the majority of the news articles are written in). Additionally, they do not seem to meet the notability criteria for musicians. Tymewalk (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 5 March 2022 (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 Ahmedabad. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 08:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Ahmedabad[edit]

List of tourist attractions in Ahmedabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Policies violated by this page:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."

WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.

The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.

WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.

WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG. A notable topic, about a popular tourist city. Enough coverage. Venkat TL (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ahmedabad#Cityscape, main article should have these links but a separate page as is isn't necessary. Reywas92Talk 17:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92 I oppose the merge as it exceeds the WP:SIZERULE Venkat TL (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is not much content in this list, which largely duplicates the main article. There is actually very little to actually merge, so a redirect is also fine. Alternatively it could be merged to Demographics and culture of Ahmedabad. But no, there is no prohibition of merging to longer articles. The main page is 41kb of prose. While this is slightly larger than the "< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division", it's smaller than the "> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" and the page has already been subdivided with history, geography, culture, education, and economy subarticles. This list is just some bare links, most of which are already in the Ahmedabad, so there's no basis to oppose on size concerns with the length difference being negligible. Reywas92Talk 17:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ahmedabad: Add any missing links to that page. Then the attractions will appear in the context of the city. Gusfriend (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ahmedabad. Violates WP:NOTGUIDE. If size is an issue, topical sections (culture, architecture, etc) can be forked off. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with keeping the list as long as the attractions are notable and can be backed with reliable sources. I wonder why the nominator hasn't nominated List of tourist attractions in Paris for deletion. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment on the Agra List AfD for explanation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional source analysis (particularly in the context of WP:NLIST) might be helpful in determining whether or not the content of the list is justified or if it is better to merge/redirect into Ahmedabad.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2022 (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 Agra. While there was some claims that the article met WP:GNG, those were completely unsubstantiated. One !keep voter actually gave way to delete by saying it can be kept as long as the attractions are notable and can be backed with reliable sources, which is not the case here. There was no counter made to the fact that this list is a probably violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. Consensus is to merge the article. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 08:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tourist attractions in Agra[edit]

List of tourist attractions in Agra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Policies violated by this page:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."

WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.

The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.

WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.

WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Don't see a valid reason to delete. ArvindPalaskar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Agra, violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Without linking to any specific section that is, since different items in the listing are relevant for different topical sections such as architecture, tourism, etc. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with keeping the list as long as the attractions are notable and can be backed with reliable sources. I wonder why the nominator hasn't nominated List of tourist attractions in Paris for deletion. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve been working alphabetically. I PRODed a set, then another user dePRODed all the India locations, so I sent these to AfD for further discussion. See the bottom of User:Rsjaffe/PROD log for list of others nominated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take that with a pinch of salt .How come List of tourist attractions in Amsterdam is not yet nominated by you so far when you have gone up to D letter in case of India .There are obviously lot of extraneous considerations behind these nominations.
    You are being outrageous with unfounded accusations of bias. For example, I’ve nominated 5 lists of tourist places in the US for deletion. I demand an apology for your baseless accusations. Look at the “list of tourist locations” pages and you’ll see that certain regions have proportionately more of those lists, explaining the proportions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional source analysis (particularly in the context of WP:NLIST) might be helpful in determining whether or not the content of the list is justified or if it is better to merge/redirect into Agra.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Agra. Separate page as is not necessary. can add to main page.Akevsharma (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Agra. Knight Skywalker (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list does not breach any WP policy. Agra is one of top tourism destinations of Inia with a number of attractions including Taj Mahal.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2022 (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. Sandstein 09:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Fiji relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bangladesh–Fiji relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was 7 years ago and ended in no consensus. No embassies, no agreements (just a MOU on rugby union which is hardly a sport in Bangladesh), no visits by leaders or ministers, no real trade. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trade is tiny at less than $4 million. Considering that total imports/exports for Bangladesh is about $100 billion. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The relations may not be the strongest but that's not a criterion for WP:GNG. I can see several reliable sources in this article with non-trivial discussions on Bangladesh-Fiji relations. --Zayeem (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Of the cited sources: the book is one line, "Fiji 31-1-72", in a table, not signficant coverage that addresses the topic in detail. Five of the remaining eight sources are government press releases (MINFO News is the Fijian Ministry of Information). BBC Monitoring says Fijilive credits Fiji Daily Post. The text appears to originate from a press release. Whatever the case, it's a primary source, and at a mere 76 words, not significant coverage. The Dhaka Tribune also reads suspiciously like a press release. It's a primary source, and just 110 words. The Observatory of Economic Complexity is indiscriminate, covering all nations whether there is a notable bilateral relationship between them or not.
Relations are the same as Bangladesh has with most countries: no resident ambassadors, no state visits, no bilateral agreements, and negligible economic ties. The Atlas of Economic Complexity shows 2019 bilateral exports from Bangladesh at $2.1M (0.005% of total), and from Fiji at $1.0M (0.1% of total).[12][13] We do our readers a disservice when we club together passing mentions, non-independent press releases, and other primary sources, and dress up the result as "bilateral relations" worthy of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
Insufficient coverage in third party, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to the general notability guidelines. Three new sources have been added from Prothom Alo, The Financial Express and Fiji Sun. There is also a significant Bangladeshi community in Fiji. Nomian (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand why you, the author, still want to keep it. But the new sources don't demonstrate notability. Global Prayer Digest has none of the characteristics of a reliable source, and in any case is about Bengalis who came to Fiji between 1879 and 1916, generations before Bangladesh came into existence. Prothom Alo and the Fiji Sun are primary source reports about labor disputes in which 4 or 5 Bangladeshis are involved. The piece in The Financial Express is almost entirely man-on-the-street opinions. There are only four sentences of secondary content in it: two from the World Bank about Fiji's economy, and two of unspecified origin about the number of Bangladeshis in Fiji and where they work. 3000 is not significant in this context. That's 0.002% of Bangladesh's population, 0.024% of the Bangladeshi diaspora, or 0.34% of the population of Fiji. There isn't a single mention of Fiji in any academic secondary source about Bangladesh's foreign relations, such as Harun ur Rashid's Foreign Relations of Bangladesh, Muhammad Tajuddin's Foreign Policy of Bangladesh, or Craig Baxter's chapter "Bangladesh's Foreign Relations" in Devin T. Hagerty's South Asia in World Politics. Manufacturing bilateral relations by combining primary sources is synthesis, a type of original research. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Worldbruce: No, it does not matter if I created the article or not. The point you are missing is that bilateral relations include all kinds of activities between two countries, not just diplomatic relations, so labor disputes involving Bangladeshis in Fiji is part of the bilateral relations between these two countries. I am not sure how you are claiming Prothom Alo and Fiji Sun to be primary sources, they are private media agencies with no relation to the government or with the people involved in the dispute which suggest these are purely secondary sources. I am also not sure what you meant by "man-on-the-street opinions", The Financial Express sent a reporter to Fiji and he prepared a report covering the status of Bangladeshi expatriates in Fiji, which also constitutes another significant coverage on the bilateral relations between Bangladesh and Fiji. These three sources with significant coverage are enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. The books you have mentioned were written decades before Bangladesh and Fiji started their relations, I am not surprised they don't discuss Fiji. And the Bengali-speaking people who went to Fiji are people of Bangladeshi descent (which the source mentions), practicing Bangladeshi culture in Fiji. This is a major aspect of bilateral relations. Nomian (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bangladeshis going to work in Fiji and getting into a dispute with their employer does not create bilateral relations between Bangladesh and Fiji because you say so. That's your interpretation of primary source news reports, it is original research. Two countries have bilateral relations suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article when reliable, independent, secondary sources write about their bilateral relations in depth. Searches of De Gruyter, EBSCO, JSTOR, the various Oxford databases, Taylor & Francis, and Google Books found zero mentions of bilateral relations between Bangladesh and Fiji.
        • In determining whether a source is primary or secondary, it is immaterial who the publisher is. You appear to be confusing the concept of primary/secondary with the unrelated, although also important, concept of independent, or third-party.
        • The books I mentioned, published 2001-2005, are recent scholarship. Feel free to cite even more recent books, if any cover Bangladesh-Fiji bilateral relations in depth.
        • I can't make sense of your last point. To what source are you referring? My reference to Bengali-speaking people was to those who settled in Fiji over a hundred years ago. Bangladesh is barely 50 years old, so they are not of Bangladeshi descent. The literature uniformly refers to them as Indo-Fijians.
        • --Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please refer to Bilateral relations to understand what I mean. Bangladeshis working in Fiji creates economic ties between these two countries, a labor dispute involving them is a disruption to these ties, which has prompted Fijian government to intervene. This is a very good example of a coverage on bilateral relations which, again, is not only limited to diplomacy or politics. WP:PRIMARY is something which "are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.", while Prothom Alo's report quoted FBC News as a source, which itself seems to be another third party source, how could you claim Prothom Alo to be primary? Books may be published in 2001 but they were written decades back and Bangladesh's relations with Fiji only started in 2003. Bangladesh itself could be a young country but the culture practiced there is centuries old, those Bengali-speaking people practicing the same Bangladeshi culture in Fiji creates cultural ties between the two countries, which, again, is a part of bilateral relations. The source cited there mentions that Bengali-speaking people are native to West Bengal and Bangladesh. Nomian (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per analysis of Worldbruce. Significant coverage is lacking. Yilloslime (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion regarding sources presented in this discussion would be helpful in achieving a more clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2022 (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! 07:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idhu Vedhalam Sollum Kathai[edit]

Idhu Vedhalam Sollum Kathai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This unfinished film is stuck in production hell. Began in 2016 and the last update was in 2018. Its failure is not notable to warrant a separate article per WP:NFF guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2022 (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! 04:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Deen[edit]

Ashley Deen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion and subject also fails GNG for the fight info is merely routine report. Cassiopeia talk 22:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. CFCC fights have been deemed notable in the past per Wikipedia policy. Subject has headlined a notable card opposite a notable UFC fighter. Subject is scheduled for third notable fight two weeks in Bellator. This satisfies the presumption. --Sorry sir, that's classified information (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CFCC is second tier promotion, let alone top tier and subject has not had 3 fights under Bellator as per Wikipedia MMA guidelines. WP:CRYSTAL. Cassiopeia talk 22:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response: "Presumed notable if criteria is met" does not mean "is not notable if criteria is not met." I believe user above requested deletion primarily because I asked for help on the Teahouse in formatting references as more than straight URLs, as there are more references I wish to add that establish notability.. --Sorry sir, that's classified information (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didnt know you ask help from Teahouse and notability is being met and not about maybe it is met as current stage which is not. You can find all the sources you can prior the article is deleted but do understand about GNG and NMMA well because the subject does not passed them. When subject have 3 fights under Bellator, we will write up the article even you dont for I and another MMA editor keep track of all the up coming notable MMA fighter in Wikipedia. Be well and be safe. Cassiopeia talk 22:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable per sources. --174.63.101.95 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be per Wikipedia notability guidelines and not sources only. Pls familiar yourself in the notability guidlines. Cassiopeia talk 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is WP:TOOSOON; then draftify while waiting to see if her career progresses to Bellator. David notMD (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As of present, the subject has 0 fights in the top promotion and there is no guarantee the subject would have 3 fights in top promotion in the future. Even the subject have/would singed with top promotion there will be at least 2 years, if no injury, no cancellation of fights, no other reasons and everything goes smoothly, it would take about 2 years from now and there is no guarantee the subject would won the fights in top promotion and stay in the promotion for 3 fights. When the subject is notable, we can always create the article. Drafting would stay only in Wikipedia for 6 months and no point to drafity for a subject is WP:CYRSTAL. Cassiopeia talk 23:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Just because those criteria aren't met doesn't mean a subject isn't notable. This comes off as very battlegroundy to me. WP:BATTLEGROUND --174.63.101.95 (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is Article for deletion discussion and not a battleground. Article stays in the main space is based Wikipedia notability guidelines. If an article/subject does not meet the requirements then it will be deleted. Cassiopeia talk 02:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then you are saying to delete a well written and sourced article so that it can't be recovered. Are you sure you aren't being territorial and angry that guy encroached on you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:D47F:8330:AC66:62ED:9C0D:F5AC (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deleted article can always be REFUND and work on and resubmit when the subject is notable. Even if the creator does not want the refund, I will create the article when the subject is notable for I and another editor keep track of all up coming notable MMA fighters in Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 08:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could be wrong here, but it appears as though the two IP addresses are either the same person using different devices, or two people coordinating off-wiki... I could be wrong, but it's a little more than coincidental in this particular manner.. SPF121188 (tell me!) (contribs) 12:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Newspaper.com brings up lots of results for the name, but in the first few pages, none of the results related to the subject, so really this one fails NMMA and GNG. Have to agree with nomination here. SPF121188 (tell me!) (contribs) 19:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2022 (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! 05:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fig (band)[edit]

Fig (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero sources; did some searching of "Fig" along with band member names; not much came up. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. But editors note that NPOV/OR issues should be addressed through editing. Sandstein 09:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine[edit]

Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research by providing a synthesis of regional histories and demographics which the reader is assumed to independently connect as the cause of the 2014 unrest, despite no sources suggesting so. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what to say in response to this. I guess this is proof that Wikipedia really is a waste of time. Please note, the proposer of this deletion request is trying to make a WP:POINT because I dared to ask for a bit of discussion before his copy-pasting masses of random content from other articles into this one. Synthesis? I don't think so, but then, at the time I wrote this article with a few other editors in good standing (you can see our collaboration on the talk page), my knowledge of Wikipedia policies wasn't as broad as it is now. At the time, there wasn't much good information about the historical factors at play in the conflict on Wikipedia, and because the main article was getting long, we decided to start a sub-article. All for nought, I guess.... RGloucester — ☎ 05:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about making a point, I immediately saw this article as not being within the content standards of Wikipedia. i wanted to be constructive about it and shape the article into a form where it would be. I started by copying attributed content from other articles in order to quickly bring the article into a larger scope (which I believed was necessary for this article to make sense and which it has previously been), after which I could begin the slower process of writing original material on the basis of book research. Since that avenue was closed, I saw the only option as deletion as it would not live up Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Sorry about your wasted work, I really did want to include as much of it as possible. Maybe it can be moved elsewhere. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All avenues were open, if only you would have followed the expected WP:BRD process. Instead, we have a deletion nomination. If the content is really is a bad as you say, it must certainly be deleted. Moving it elsewhere? I see that moving content around is your specialty, but no, if it is OR, if it is SYNTH, certainly, it must be deleted. Given your tone, I presume you must hold some high office of the encyclopaedia. I prostrate myself before your grasp of Wikipedia policies. My apologies for having deigned to defy you! RGloucester — ☎ 05:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm just gonna leave the rest of the discussion to issues relevant for the deletion and not take the bait. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:POINTy nomination. AfD is not a substitute (or venue) for article improvement. OR/SYNTH concerns should be addressed on the talk, even if they're substantial and require an article re-scope/restructure. Contains plenty of well sourced historical background, so clearly not a WP:TNT case. Jr8825 • Talk 10:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Keepcalmandchill: if your concerns about the article scope/content aren't getting enough attention on the article talk page (it only has 37 watchers) try flagging it at WikiProject Ukraine/Military history, a noticeboard (e.g. WP:ORN), or the talk page of a more heavily trafficked, relevant article (e.g. Russo-Ukrainian War). A requested move/merge process also an option. See WP:ATD. Jr8825 • Talk 10:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article is plentifully-sourced and is not making points by synthesis. Issues can be fixed by discussion on the talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to nominator Talk:Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine/GA2 Good article is nominated for deletion. Why and how this decision was made? Knight Skywalker (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:SYNTH in of itself is not a deletion criteria. Are you suggesting it doesn't meet WP:N due to lack of sourcing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cannot fathom this nomination, and trust me, I know all about AfD nominations. This article should be worked upon, not dumped. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think its fair to have some concerns about SYNTH/OR in the article. For one, nothing outside the lede seems to actually tie any of this historical context directly to the events of 2014. But like the others I do not think this subject is so hopeless it ought to be deleted. More like reviewed at GAR and on the talk page. I think the course of action the nominator chose is not inherently wrong, but just perhaps not the best tool in this instance. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: Er, I think the lead is pretty clear. Citing reliable sources (for example, this and this), admittedly, limited to the journalistic ones that were available at the time the article was written, it tells you that, at the time of the unrest, a unified Ukrainian identity had not yet formed, that at least two separate political/ethnic traditions existed within the country, and that these contributed to the unrest (as distinct from Russia's later intervention, please note). The goal of the article was to provide the historical information, in one place, that explained the emergence of these traditions. Nothing is OR or SYNTH, as far as I can tell, because article itself doesn't actually draw any independent conclusions. It's just meant to provide additional information, additional context, to understand the breakout of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. In any case, I agree the article should be updated with academic sources, now that eight years have past. I just hadn't thought of doing so, nor has anyone else stepped up. My objection to the OP's actions was to his indiscriminate copying of content from other articles and placing it into this one, without context. I don't see how this would solve any problems with the article, and in any case, it is bad practice to copy content around from one place to the other, especially when that content changes the scope of the article. In return for my objection, and plea to discuss, however, I was granted a deletion nomination. I don't see how this behaviour can ever be seen as appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the content, I think your risk OR territory by throwing in whole paragraphs raw census data cited directly to the imperial census documents, which is use of a PRIMARY source. It would be better to have an accompanying secondary source somewhere which directly demonstrates the importance of historical population composition to the modern territorial questions. As for this deletion nomination, I was reacting to the notion expounded by some editors that it is unconscionable to nominate certain articles for deletion, particularly when they've been judged to be of a certain quality....I do not believe in untouchable articles, and I have encountered some in my time that are so hopelessly POV and SYNTHed that AfD seems an appropriate solution. That wasn't meant to be taken personally. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it with the current scope which should not be changed to make the page into something that it is not. Gusfriend (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" was actually an organized attack by Russian GRU on Ukraine. That was a military aggression, not an "unrest", plain and simple. This article makes a point there were some objective reasons for this unrest to happen in 2014. There were actually none except the order from Putin. He gave this order because he did like that his stooge Yanukovich was ousted, nothing else. And of course the entire operation of taking over the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine was planned in advance by Russian military. This page as written (and starting from the title) is hopelessly misleading and qualify as "POV fork" in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, it tells in the lead: The tensions between these two competing historical and cultural traditions erupted into political and social conflict during the Euromaidan and so on. No, this is highly misleading. The occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014 was not a result of any internal "tensions" (Kremlin's propagandists used to say "a civil war in Ukraine"), but a decision by one man (or by a group) in Kremlin. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, I think this page is one big WP:SYN. It describes a lot things/events in the past that did happen, but all these events have almost nothing to do with the actual "unrest" aka Russian occupation/annexation. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the invasions of Crimea and Donbas were as you say, decisions made by Russia, but that doesn't change the fact that there was political and social conflict in Ukraine during the Euromaidan. That sentence is sourced to The New York Times, is the NYT not reliable? I don't see where in the article it is claimed that the invasions of Crimea or Donbas were caused by internal tensions in Ukraine...I see no such content in the article. This article is about the pro-Russian protests that emerged during and after the Euromaidan, it is not about the invasions. Russia of course fomented unrest within Ukraine and then took advantage of that unrest to launch an attack on the country, but that doesn't mean that the protests were not legitimate.
Reliable sources say that they were (cited in the article and elsewhere), for instance this report by the RAND Corporation, which I think you will agree has no reason to take Russia's side. So yes, there was unrest, and yes, it did involve domestic factors, but of course, that doesn't mean that Russia's subsequent invasion of Ukraine was at all justified or that people supported it (see the surveys of public opinion at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#Background, conducted by the renowned Kyiv International Institute of Sociology), nor does the article say anything of that sort. Perhaps the problem is the name of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which is certainly not ideal.
And finally, again, nothing here is SYNTH as far as I can tell. SYNTH means using two or more sources to reach and independent conclusion not found in those sources. This article, on the contrary, is more or less a classic example of not WP:NOTSYNTH, because as you can see, it is reliable sources, cited in the article, that are saying that these historical and demographic factors do have something to do with the unrest. No one pulled them out of thin air, examined a bunch of random demographic and historical data and came up with an independent thesis of 'x y and z explain why there was unrest'. Instead, RS are cited as identifying certain particular events and demographic data as relevant factors, and then, historical books with more specific details about those factors are cited to describe them. Clearly, this is WP:NOTSYNTH. RGloucester — ☎ 18:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do have page 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (I would probably rename it), and what it say about this "unrest"? What did it actually was? First, beginning on 26 February, pro-Russian forces, subsequently confirmed to be Russian troops by Vladimir Putin, began to gradually take control of the Crimean Peninsula (the "pro-Russian forces" in this case were actually Russian GRU forces, as was admitted even by Putin). OK. Then it say: Pro-Russian protesters occupied the Donetsk regional state administration (RSA) building from 1 to 6 March and so on. However, these "pro-Russian' protesters" were also either GRU people or "separatists" led by the GRU or other Russian agents. Sure, these agents exploited some prejustices by people, as they always do. But saying on WP pages that it was essentially a genuine uprising by Ukrainian people (and trying to explain why this uprising had happen, as this page does) is the narrative of Russian state propaganda in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where does this page say that there was a genuine uprising by Ukrainian people in support of a Russian invasion? I see no such statement in the article. And you're wrong about the events in Donetsk. Again, take a look at the RAND report. According to it, the occupation of the RSA in Donetsk in early March was actually conducted by locals ('Some Russian citizens were allegedly paid to cross the border and participate in these events (professional agitators), and some Russians likely came to help the cause of their own accord, but most protestors were local Ukrainians'), which is why it was so easy for the SBU to then remove them. The report goes on to say that, following the expulsion of the initial group of protesters from the RSA, 'Ukrainian authorities removed the local political figureheads of the protest movement but, as a consequence, they were replaced by individuals with ties to Russian security services, military experience, and associations with business interests in Russia', and it was these people who are the 'GRU people' you are talking about, but they didn't take over the RSA again until April. Let's get our facts straight, please! RGloucester — ☎ 19:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to it, Some Russian citizens were allegedly paid to cross the border and participate in these events (professional agitators) [ones from Russian special forces or other Russian state-directed organizations] That is what I am talking about. Yes, they worked with local Ukrainian citizens, but it still was a special operation by Russian State. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the source says, MYVB. It clearly distinguishes between a first phase of protests and the second phase of Girkin and company rolling in at Russia's behest. But that's fine, clearly what RS say is irrelevant in this discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A possible future route, if others agree the current scope is inherently inappropriate, is merging chunks of this article's best-sourced content into the background section of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, possibly moving other content somewhere such as History of Ukraine, and deleting the rest by redirecting. However, AfD isn't the place for a merge discussion, deletion would get in the way of such merges/breaking up the content, and I don't see any grounds for outright deletion of the entirety of the content. Ultimately a collective editorial decision needs to be made on the best way to present the content here (and resolving any synth issues), but again that's not something for AfD to address. Jr8825 • Talk 23:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does 'the current scope is inherently inappropriate' mean? No one has said any such thing thus far. Reliable sources clearly establish the article's scope and notability, and background articles are relatively common as content forks from articles that are getting too long. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not passing judgement on this myself (I'd need to research/consider further), but my interpretation of the nom and MVBW's concerns is that an article tying broader regional/demographic history directly into a specific event could inherently result in selection bias against the possibility that the event was largely caused by other factors (for example, modern politics, or economics, or media). That doesn't mean all of your contextual research isn't valuable, just that it may fit better into an article specifically about regional history (or moved to a different title) so that it isn't shoehorning the history towards an implied narrative, even if it does so unintentionally. To make a crude example, an article called Historical background of Brexit which looked at several centuries of British history and demographic shifts would be inappropriate, as it would inevitably fail to account for the argument/viewpoint that Brexit was predominantly contingent on a set of 20th-21st century factors. Jr8825 • Talk 00:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This I can agree with, but I don't think it applies here. Unlike in the case of Brexit, we have reliable sources, cited in the article, that clearly state those demographic shifts and historical changes as important factors in the protests. In fact, such sources documenting a conflict go back to the 1990s, with books like Workers of the Donbass Speak: Survival and Identity in the New Ukraine, 1989-1992. There is a long tradition of research of these issues, and until this article, it had never been incorporated into Wikipedia. It was widely noted in 2014 that a long-running conflict had come to a head, not that it had suddenly appeared about of thin air.
I agree entirely, as do RS, that Russia launched a concerted military and information operation to destabilise Ukraine in 2014, as MWBW says. What I don't necessarily agree with is the idea that the Russian invasions, operations, &c., necessarily negate existing cleavages and unrest in Ukraine as documented by RS. Of course, the presence of those cleavages in no way legitimises Russia's actions. You can see this by looking at the opinion polling done by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine#Background, or the more recent polling done by Ukrainian sociological group Rating that I added to the Donbas article a few days ago.
The big issue seems to be separating domestic issues/protest in Ukraine from the subsequent Russian invasions and interference in those issues. At the time this article was written, such a separation the standard in RS, and as far as I can tell, RS still made such a separation as recently as last year. But, perhaps, with current events as they are, they have become inseparable, and therefore the whole premise behind 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (which was written live as the events were occurring) and this article have collapsed. Perhaps Russia's interference is too great to discuss these matters independently in the present, and in that case, the solution may well be WP:TNT and starting from scratch, or expanding the article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't yet know what the best thing to do with the content is, there are a lot of possible options – perhaps an elegant page move ("demographic history of..."?), a rewrite of the lead and scope tweaks will be enough, or maybe something more radical will be needed. However, this is a discussion for the talk page. A large majority of the prose is a very well written, well sourced and valuable historical summary. The invasion will make it more valuable, not less – however/wherever it ends up being presented, future readers/scholars will seek to understand the situational context of a major geopolitical event, even if this is only one small aspect of it. It's nowhere near a TNT case. Jr8825 • Talk 01:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regardless to everything above, I think we should not have any separate pages on "Background" of anything. The "background" should appear only as a section on the corresponding page about actual events. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree but a cursory search returned Background of the Russo-Georgian War, Background of the Winter War and Background of the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps these articles could be better as "prelude" instead of background in their titles, and I think the NPOV problem with this article and its title can be solved by rephrasing "unrest" to something more neutral. What phrase would you suggest? Pious Brother (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is exactly what Wikipedia is for. Describing background knowledge and the big picture. Instead of deleting this article, you should consider to delete all this unnecessary detailed description of recent events (news ticker) P.S There is enough scientific literature about the background of the Ukraine crisis that one could cite. SYNTH/OR needs to be fixed for sure, but this is a quality issue not an issue with notability. Use tags or the discussion page to address quality issues. --TheRandomIP (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I take this to be an article written from a Russian POV, which it is probably useful to have. However, I do not recall much discussion of unrest apart from in Crimea and in Donbas region, so that there may be a case for purging some of the rest as too much POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single Russian source is used in the article. The two other major contributors to this article, other than me, are actually Ukrainian. What on earth is going on here?? Is the RAND Corporation known to write from a 'Russian POV'? I guess you are not familiar, but please look at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. There was unrest in both Kharkiv and Odesa. You might remember, for instance, the 2014 Odesa clashes, which Putin often references in his propaganda... RGloucester — ☎ 19:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, articles are not supposed to be written from a certain national POV. It's not "useful"; it's a policy violation. If you see an article with a national POV you should try to fix it—this is different than an article simply stating what a given national POV is about something. -Indy beetle (talk)
The article is not written from a Russian POV, nor does it state a national POV about something. Please, this is getting ridiculous. The only thing that this whole discussion makes me think is that this topic has become so politicised because of currents events, backed by a shortsighted view rooted in WP:RECENTISM, that it has become a proverbial hot potato. Comments like this, without any basis in reality, are flying around, and no one is doing anything about them.
I am not willing to be constantly submitted to these strange accusations about 'writing from a Russian POV', &c. I am honestly tired of it. Review my contributions over the years, please. Look at everything I've written and done. Please try and find where I have ever written from a Russian point of view. Some diffs, some comments. Look at some of the accolades I recieved. Where is the Russian point of view? Where? RGloucester — ☎ 00:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason for proposed deletion is invalid. This article does not constitute original research, it clearly cites sources which identify the historical background of Russians in the region of Ukraine as something of relevance to pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. The history sections on the regions central to this unrest are written as a background and do not editorialise by trying to draw a direct connection to specific events today or advocate irredentist positions. Furthermore, it is neutral to describe current events as pro-Russian unrest: it is a description that all involved parties and academics agree on. There is clearly unrest. The root of it is clearly linked to Russian people, culture, language and history and the way this has interacted with the nation of Ukraine. This article does a good job of being an unbiased primer on the context of this event. SFB 19:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Background is important. That is why I was reading the article.

Comfr (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2022 (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. The history can be restored via WP:REFUND if a serious attempt is made to create an article about social media in the current war, but consensus is that this meme on its own isn't notable. Sandstein 09:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Techno House 2022[edit]

Battle of Techno House 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as non-notable. This fails wp:recentism RockstoneSend me a message! 03:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. RockstoneSend me a message! 03:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of the article, the meme has been widely reported, in RS, and has gone on to create other memes. It appears to have become a general point of derision of the Russian army, in particular as an indicator of how inept/poorly trained they are (or ill-disciplined, assuming the soldier, Andrei Paktishev is just gaining entry to the shop so he can loot it). According to the RS, Ukrainians have used it as a meme to mock Russia. I will also note there has been an attempt at G3Speedy delete which failed, and it has remained, with many editors improving it since. I've tried to add as much RS as possible to improve it. Discussion of the meme has also discussed the Wikipedia page for it, so IMHO just a bit of interesting media commentary on Wikipedia and how our articles cover these events.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As creator of the article, I have changed my vote to delete. Its clear that in the end, this meme didn't have any enduring significance - its a short life meme. Fails under Wikipedia is not a newspaper.I have not voted for a redirect, as there isn't an appropriate place for it to be re-driected to - some editors have suggested the battle for Kherson, but IMHO its really not relevent to that page and wouldn't be a good fit. I would however say that the coverage of the wikipedia article was interesting and of note.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kherson offensive or at least 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, where it could be covered in a section on popular culture. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Considering some of the comments here, I have changed my vote back to Keep. While I'm confident, as a meme alone, there is probably no enduring notability, and this fails under WP:NOT because Wikipedia is not a newspaper - the article, and much of the commentary focusses on the Wikipedia article, including the title of the meme itself which is a direct reference to Wikipedia "Battle of XXXX Year" articles. As such, I think there is more to the article than appears at first hand. I don't really think its a great look for editors to removing commentary/media references to Wikipedia itself. In addition, I actually think there is value to keeping the reference, as a comment on Wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Battle of Kherson or Delete. Per WP:N, there are two requirements for us to presume an article to be merited: (1) that it is notable under WP:GNG/WP:SNG; and (2) that the article subject is not excluded under the policy on what Wikipedia is not. This article clearly fails on both counts. With respect to the first criterion, viral phenomena are within the scope of WP:NEVENT. The relevant notability guideline states that Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. There is no reporting at this time that distinguishes this viral phenomenon from other viral phenomena and memes that get reported on all the time. Simply put, this absolutely fails WP:NEVENT. For a similar reason; this also fails the second criterion listed in WP:N—this fails WP:NOT because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As the policy states, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and routine news reporting... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. For a viral meme to merit an article, it would need to be one that is unusually likely to hold enduring significance. The reporting present in the article's sources, however, suggests that it is not unlike other memes-of-the-day; I see no reason that this merits a wholesale article at this time. I am indifferent between redirecting this to the article that describes the battle during which the incident occurred and deleting the article wholesale, but I strongly oppose a keep. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper IMHO does not apply here. Clearly the event generally, in the context of the War, is more important than a simple news event of a man breaking into an audio store - you couldn't justify an article on that. The Meme and event has wider implications, as noted - commentary on Russian Soldiers arguably conducting illegal activity in the Ukraine, and being ill-disciplined. Also, including as part of the reporting, the discussion of the sarcastic reporting of the event by the Wikipedia article. Certainly more importance to this than it being a standard news article on a break in. Broadly, in this case, I think there is value to keeping it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Funny video posted on twitter" is routine clickbait reporting. But, in any case, let's go through how the sources cover this, in the order of sources currently in the article:
  1. The South China Morning Post piece does not mention the incident;
  2. The Jerusalem Post piece does not mention the incident.
  3. The Newsweek piece does not mention the incident.
  4. The iNews piece does not mention the incident.
  5. The piece in The Independent does not mention the incident.
  6. The piece in The Guardian does not mention the incident.
  7. The Perth News piece frames it as a funny video, but does not state that the incident or resulting meme was in any way symbolic or important.
  8. The News Corp. Australia piece frames it as a funny video, but does not state that the incident or resulting meme was in any way symbolic or important.
  9. The piece in The Canberra Times does not mention the incident.
  10. The Herald Sun piece is the same exact piece as the News Corp Australia piece.
  11. The HITC piece frames it as a funny video that inspired reactions, but does not state that the incident or resulting meme was in any way symbolic or important.
  12. The Info (Slovakia) piece frames it as a viral video, but does not state that the incident or resulting meme was in any way symbolic or important.
In other words, the only reason we'd have for keeping it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH—we'd be supposing without references to reliable sources that the video and/or resulting meme is notably symbolic or important in some other way. There's no evidence of wider implications that I can find reliable sources writing about, so I really don't see a reason to keep. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect per what Mhawk10 said. Noting: I previously tried a G3 speedy delete on the article, which was denied and I redirected the article twice to Battle of Kherson with both being reverted. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, I'm pretty sure the reversions for you edits were for other unrelated but valid reasons. First off you thought it was a hoax, which it wasn't. Then you seemed to take issue with it being portrayed as an actual battle... when it was only using the term figuratively, the article is not implying that it was an actual battle. The article is simply using the meme name "Battle of Techno House 2022" coined by others. So there was good reason for the reversions for your redirections. Otherwise, I'll stop commenting on this article now - I'm getting close to WP:bludgeon, and I'll leave it to others to contribute.Thanks all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article might be also the case of WP:TOOSOON sadly. 180.194.127.148 (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mhawk10, no lasting notability. Those voting to redirect should bear in mind the article Battle of Kherson doesn't mention this at all and probably shouldn't as it is of little significance to the battle. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds that I don't expect this will meet WP:SUSTAINED. one component of WP:N. It may, but, by definition, that can be determined only in retrospect. "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability." Largoplazo (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely based on Largoplazo's sound reasoning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to some appropriate page. Knight Skywalker (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think there's a page this would be appropriate to merge to? Largoplazo (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recent, trivial viral moment. No indication of sustaining coverage. If reliable sources are talking about it in 5 years then it deserves an article, otherwise Wikipedia is what's immortalizing the moment, not reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Largo. Insufficient sustained coverage (=actual coverage, not pretend coverage) to warrant a standalone article, or, for that matter, a redirect. SN54129 17:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because this is fucking hilarious and also put in an infobox. Cganuelas (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it is just a viral meme with no obvious notably, it fails WP:GNG. I mean it is nowhere near the notability of Doge or Pepe the Frog. Felicia (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While it is difficult to gauge the lasting impact of this meme, the current state of the article suggests that future coverage of this meme will be few and far in between (if at all), so WP:RECENTISM applies here. JaventheAldericky (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect to Wikipedia_in_culture as WP:NOTPAPER and a standalone page makes the more sense than a merge to the battle. There's two elements of notability here: the coverage of the original meme and the coverage of the parody Wikipedia page with the infobox. Is there Wikipedia article/list about WP articles mentioned in media sources and then were deleted (and the article's deletion was mentioned as well in the news)? I'd support a merge to that page, if one exists, but if Wikipedia itself is being reported on with regards to a given subject (and we're being parodied), deleting the subject article is not a good look. BBQboffin (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As creator of the article, please note I have changed my vote to delete. I can see that coverage of the meme at this point is not being WP:SUSTAINED, and has been noted WP:RECENTISM applies. The coverage of the Wikipedia article was interesting, however. I think Merge is not an option - the Battle for Kherson page (where this event occurred) is not appropriate, and there isn't presently any other page for it to go to. I do agree with BBQboffin, that Wikipedia editors deleting articles that parody/joke about Wikipedia is not the best look and something to be considered here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the article discusses the Wikipedia article, and four articles include screenshots of the wiki article and the meme title itself "Battle of Techno House 2022" is a parody of Wikipedia article titles - the meme seems overall be a bit of a parody of Wikipedia articles. I have added a short note to the Wikipedia_in_culture page with RS from this article in support. I think this clears us from any accusations of removing content that could be seen as critical of Wikipedia, a concern raised by some editors (including myself) here. Thanks all.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move IMHO, this article clearly does not belong as an article on Wikipedia, yet it has some qualities. I propose the whole article is moved without redirects to eg. User:Deathlibrarian/Battle of Techno House 2022. That way the edit history is kept, while not showing up in the main article space. BFG (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be a good idea! It's always possible that we look at this 6 months from now and realize that it is in fact notable. If so, we can retain it. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's draftified, then especially because so many editors have shown interest in editing it, it ought to be moved to Draft space. Largoplazo (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would definitely support such a move to draftspace; WP:PRESERVE is also a thing. JaventheAldericky (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Mhawk10.--Catlemur (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. I personally laughed my ass off reading about this but unfortunately the talk of it will die soon more than likely. Less notability, more WP:GNG failures. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 14:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Personally, keep it. It cites all its sources so there's not much wrong with the article in that regard. User:DimensionalFusion talk(contrubutions) 17:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe, more than as an article on its own, it could be merged with the article regarding the battle of Kherson, and insterted as a new section here as a curiosity. 94.38.150.134 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may yet become an enduringly notable event, because it is very funny... but time will tell... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article based on a meme that some lol'd at fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As noted above, I've changed my vote back to Keep. Initially I agreed, the article clearly fails justifiability as a meme based piece, as it's influence is not sustained, however the majority of the articles make reference to the Wikipedia article, and many of them show screenshots. The Wikipedia angle is of interest I think, and as a few editors have noted, I'm not sure its a great look for Wikipedia to be deleting articles about itself.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think a standalone page is superior to the section you created on the Wikipedia_in_culture page? Is it not possible to display the Infobox there for the proper context? I'm new here; trying to learn the ropes still. BBQboffin (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the references on that page are just single lines, IMHO squashing this article down to a single line or two doesn't do it justice. Its certainly better than nothing, but seems a waste of this article to toss it and have it replaces just by a line or two somewhere. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a new page regarding viral/popular media or the role of media/social media in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The sharing of videos and photos of the war is unprecedented in world history and should be documented. There are many other viral clips such as of the farmer towing Russian tanks, the civilian who told a soldier to put sunflower seeds in their pockets for when they die, and the audio clip from Battle of Snake Island. There is an article on Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and one on Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social media for COVID-19, so why not one on social media in the Russo-Ukrainian crisis? DiophantineEquation (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like an article about the role of social media during this invasion would make sense. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never seen this meme on Reddit. So not so much of a meme then. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve seen it in a few comments of the world news subreddit. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, just do a google search on "Battle of Techno House 2022 and Reddit" its been posted to Reddit more than 10 times....eg here and here here and here
  • Leaning Keep This may be a meme, but it's a notable meme in the current conflict. It's also notable for the fact media used it as a reference. It's got sources, some of them are even considered RS. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SUSTAINED until proven otherwise. I'm also unconvinced that the event received SIGCOV in reliable sources per Mhawk10. JBchrch talk 02:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing that the article received a bunch of views, I have attempted to clean it up pending the outcome of this discussion. This should not be understood as me supporting its notability. JBchrch talk 03:00, 12 March 2022 (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! 05:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sanders Sides episodes[edit]

List of Sanders Sides episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This series is not notable by Wikipedia standards; there should be no reason for this to have an episode article. All sources used are Sanders' YouTube videos. wizzito | say hello! 02:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. also, i got six results from google. 晚安 (トークページ) 03:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. Knight Skywalker (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable web shows absolutely do not need episode lists. Remember, the actual article comes FIRST. Dronebogus (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2022 (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 02:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Goodell[edit]

Gregory Goodell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Available references seem to be no more than listings of films. Questionable whether the body of work is significant or substantial enough to establish notability. Geoff | Who, me? 01:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is 100% fake. Greg was a family member and had nothing to do with movies outside of watching them. This page looks to have been created by a foreign entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.232.5 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this page is 100% fake and 100% inaccurate. Greg was a family member and had nothing to do with movies outside of watching them now and again. The page should be deleted. 67.182.232.5 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Directed Terror in the Family, films Down Will Come Baby, Human Experiments. Knight Skywalker (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article seems to conflate two unrelated people. Gregory Chris Goodell, who lived from 1958 to 2017, indeed had no connection to the film industry whatsoever: he was a barber and landscape artist. The other Gregory Goodell was in fact a director/screenwriter, but the article's biographical information (date/place of birth/death) isn't about him at all. The first Goodell is obviously not notable, and I don't think the second one is either: GNG-qualifying coverage is lacking, and no relevant SNG appears to be met. I'm glad to reconsider if there's significant coverage (of the correct Goodell) that I'm missing, but I don't think there's anything worth keeping here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. But a Keep decision doesn't disallow a future decision to turn this article into a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger in the House (song)[edit]

Stranger in the House (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources since 2015. Based on the books I have access to info for this song can easily be put into This Year's Model, which I'm in the middle of expanding currently. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wideopencountry.com/elvis-costello-stranger-in-the-house/ Knight Skywalker (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to pass notability guideline with sources such as this. I think that it would have been better to treat whether or not to redirect as an editing decision for talk page discussion rather than have a deletion discussion. Deletion discussions tend to become polarised with hardly anyone actually changing their position as more facts come to light. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep thanks to the sources found by the folks above. (My vote is "Weak" because there is also a valid case for redirecting, but if so I recommend sending it to the George Jones album.) The unusual collaboration got some media notice and has been discussed in books, meaning that there is enough precise material for this song, but the article definitely needs to be spruced up with reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough sources to establish notability, and redirection would be problematic because it could reasonably go to several different Costello albums (My Aim Is True is as appropriate as This Year's Model, and Ten Bloody Marys & Ten How's Your Fathers is appropriate too) as well as the Jones album and while it appeared first on the Jones album there seems to be more discussion about it in the context of Costello's writing. For example, Costello's quote about his performance on the duet probably would be appropriate within the context of My Very Special Guests but the material about the song in the context of Costello's later country songs probably does not fit into the context of the Jones' album. So keeping is the most appropriate solution. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2022 (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 02:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bascombe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chris Bascombe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two AFD discussions ended in no consensus about a decade ago. Still and all, the subject seems primarily notable for a 15-year-old controversy that was essentially a flash in the pan. Clearly time for another look. Seems to lack significant coverage other than for the newspaper incidents. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Geoff | Who, me? 00:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this page and would please ask for it to be deleted. The page condenses my life to a narrow period and focuses disproportionately on one contentious moment 15 years ago. It does not exist as an accurate biography. It lacks far too many details to qualify it as a biography. No-one has ever researched my age, my place of birth, my family members or any other details that would reasonably merit its existence as a fair and balanced biography. Did the person who created this page really do so to create a biography of a ‘notable’ individual? They obviously did not. The creation of this page was for malicious purposes - the page’s early history confirms that - which contravenes wiki policies. It was subsequently edited so it could remain & exist in its current form. There is no reasonable reason why it should not be deleted given how much information it lacks and how outdated it is.
More seriously, it creates the impression I am some kind controversial figure. This is wholly inaccurate, unfair and damaging. Again, please consider if this truly qualifies as a biography of a notable individual, and please ask yourself why no-one has sought to update it for so long. It has not been edited at all for a year, and there has been no material change for much longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbasc (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: given the link to Hillsborough in the article, I'm adding it to the deletion sorting for Football. Nfitz (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not have the broad sourcing to show that this person is truly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I am still going with weak keep, he writes plenty of articles with The Daily Telegraph, his association with Liverpool FC that in turn has his named mentioned by other sources is a clear indication that this should pass GNG. [14], [15]. There is room for improvement. Govvy (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank the slate It seems the subject of the article would like the article deleted. Although I feel the Chris Bascombe is notable, I have nothing against deleting the article to be maybe started again. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the subject of the article can have it both ways. If the article can be fixed in a manner that is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, then it should be kept and fixed. If it's deleted because the subject wants it to be deleted, then recreating into a more suitable version that subject might be more likely to agree to seems like gaming and shouldn't be allowed. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is a courtesy offered to subjects who find having an article written about them on Wikipedia is causing them real world difficulties; it's a way to "edit" articles into something that the subject prefers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources presented by Govvy and at first AFD. GNG is met. GiantSnowman 22:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to understand the motivation behind the arguments to keep and would please ask for reconsideration. It was first suggested in 2012 this page needed ‘improvement not deletion’. You can see plainly there has been no attempt to improve in the ten years since - not a single additional source in ten years or any attempt to create a fuller biography. If the notability criteria is based on being a football journalist and ghostwriter of a book, why is this part of the biography so disproportionately lacking in sources and detail? Is every journalist considered ‘notable’ based on their subject matter? There are 187 words on this page, of which 97 are focused on the moment when a local reporter left a job for a national newspaper. The sources cited referencing the move are from a journalism industry website and a specialist media journalist whose main focus was anecdotes from the media industry. It was not a ‘news’ story yet here it makes up 52 per cent of the ‘biography’. I have to ask again, did the person who created the page claim notability on the basis of a journalism career, or wish to create notability on the grounds of a journalist leaving a job? I think that is question at the heart of this. I do not believe anyone can credibly argue this page exists as a biography of a notable person. It is a page which was first set-up in an attempt to create some kind of notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbasc (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could I just add here, that I would welcome any users who still wish to keep the page to email/contact me & perhaps give me the chance to explain in as much detail possible & necessary (not so publicly) further personal reasons why I think it is right, fair & proper this page is deleted. I am sure you can all empathise with how stressful (and surreal) it can be having the merits of one’s own ‘biography’ discussed online.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbasc (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisbasc: I sent you a message on twitter, if it is really you, you should respond on twitter. If it's not, it's dangerous to impersonate someone and the account will most likely be banned. Govvy (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you it is me. I keep twitter notifications off except for those I follow, so only just seen yours. I 'liked' your tweet.
I am sorry if my request is becoming repetitive, but some of the reasons cited for 'notability' are not actually reflected in the construction of the page. It actually feels the discussion pages for deletion are more thoroughly researched than the page itself!! I can only repeat that in the absence of the improvement which ensured it remained in 2012 and 2013, it should be deleted. And I am more than happy to discuss further privately. Chrisbasc (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and just to confirm, if you allow me to DM you on Twitter I can verify (i just followed you). Not especially keen to broaden public discussion on Twitter. It's unsettling enough do it on here!! Chrisbasc (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you'd say you're not notable, I know who you are! I've read your articles for years. You're at the same level as Henry Winter in my opinion. If you want to get rid of your article you might have to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE as I am not sure how it works. But to me, you should just leave it be, it's not the best article, but it does enhance your notability. Also, there is no harm in you improving the article as long as you declare your WP:COI with it. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why there is any eagerness to keep it! I am certainly not as notable as Henry Winter!!! But if that was the case, there would be a more thorough, biographical tone to it. When you say 'it's not the best article' (putting it mildly) that cuts to the chase of the problem. It is so flawed (and actually inaccurate because I was at the Liverpool Echo for ten years!!) that even the sources cited have issues. Is 'enhancing notability' the purpose of wikipedia, or does notability have to be established to justify the biography (which we can see is not really a biography at all) ?? I keep saying I would like to discuss in private and yet no-one wants to. Very frustrating because there are points to be made which I hope would help users see my perspective which it is unfair to expect me to make on a public forum. Chrisbasc (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-topic Comment - I'm suddenly seeing why we end up with paid editors to fix stuff - when it's clear it won't fix itself, in many cases. Nfitz (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lacks notability as currently presented. Gusfriend (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team is the correct process to verify that the user is the person mentioned in the article. If account is verified as the person, then and only then, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, and so it should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page kind of has meh sourcing, and the page itself is kind of meh, and the subject itself says they want deletion. I can really see this going either way. casualdejekyll 12:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article was created as an attack page. There have been some improvements in the subsequent 14 years; but it still doesn't meet the standards of a BLP. Notability is doubtful. And I respect the civilised way the subject has asked for deletion. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sources currently in the article that are arguably of WP:GNG quality are those related to him joining NotW. That falls squarely under WP:BIO1E, and for an event that is not all that eventful either. (If someone can exhibit a source of GNG quality which does not deal primarily with NotW I will reconsider.) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stands on-wiki, they are marginally notable and so deference to their wishes should be granted. And consideration should be given to removing the so-called controversy regardless of the result of this discussionSlywriter (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no need for an article, and its subject has been extraordinarily patient and courteous about the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. ––FormalDude talk 03:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Joseph2302 above. If the subject wants to email Wikimedia VRT, have their identity verified, and then request that the article be deleted, then it seems that their wish should be granted. However, this doesn't mean the that subject can then try and have the article recreated into something more up-to-date or more to their liking. If the subject only wants to challenge some of the content currently in the article, then there are ways to do so given in WP:BIOSELF and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Avilich (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_5&oldid=1076809796"