Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 31	September 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Bells Corners under WP:AVALANCHE. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drummond Methodist Church[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NBUILD. The article has some significant primary research but fails to illustrate the significance of the building or notability. Inclusion on the city protection register doesn't seem enough and, after a search online, can't see how this article could be notable as a small former local church building 59abcd (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bells Corners as there is enough coverage in the article to enable a paragraph or two at the town page imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge -- A typical local church article, thus NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, Article does not show notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - enough to support inclusion in the Bells Corners article. Ingratis (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Coverage doesn't warrant a standalone article, but worth a mention in the context of the neighbourhood. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bells Corners Bruxton (talk) 15:47, 8 September 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 23:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Madsen[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR standards. His notability comes from being in a famous family, not his acting. Also, an ongoing problem of article subject editing his own article (which he created) so COI involved here. Originally PROD'd but an IP editor removed the PROD tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed every Google News hit for this name (about 60), and briefly checked the top search results on Google Books, Google Scholar, and general Google search. I found zero sources to support notability. Regarding the three sources listed in the article, two are not Reliable and the third lacks significant independent coverage about the subject.
- jeanbooknerd.com is a blog. Not a Reliable Source.
- wingmanmagazine.com: Their about-us page contains zero useful information, and certainly nothing to indicate professional and responsible editorial oversight. Their submissions page has an open call for unpaid submissions. They clearly are not vetting writers, and it's clearly not credible to presume fact check these unpaid unvetted writers. They also explicitly invite promotional pieces, and this point should not be understated, considering the almost comical level of Puffery in the cited piece. The first THREE sentences manage to pack in: "illustrious" "incomparable acting heavyweight" "inimitable" "rising star" "incredible" "charming" "looks and acting chops" "keen insight" "astute knowledge".
- wmagazine.com This appears to be the best of the lot. It is an interview, which is often recognized as a difficult case for Notability purposes. The first paragraph barely has three sentences about him. The rest lacks independence, with the subject saying whatever he wants about himself. While it contains extensive comments by the subject, it it lacks significant independent coverage about the subject. Alsee (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with Alsee's extensive search, from my own attempt to find coverage the only coverage I could find was either from a primary or unreliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:20, 8 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Moodie (settler)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO. Limited secondary sources beyond overly significant primary research all of which indicates no notability. Quick search online revealed no indication of notability. 59abcd (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO - insuffeciet RS to establish notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Scotland, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Coldupnorth (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no hint of notability. Thparkth (talk) 17:26, 7 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Lowry Gourlay[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO. No indication of notability within the article despite significant research undertaken - only involved with insignificant local issues. Quick search online revealed no indication of notability or significance. 59abcd (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed vote based on new sources found Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Ireland, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
350 library holdings as shown here is significant for works of this age. Leaning Keep, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At most Weak keep -- Atlantic306's reference is to a single book of local history and reminiscences. There seem to be multiple editions and it is held by a lot of libraries. However, his significance is as the founding pastor of the church at Bells Corner, which is the subject of another AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book describes his ministry in some detail, and there are several in depth obituaries to be found on Newspapers.com (including this one). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG Bruxton (talk) 15:58, 8 September 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!} 22:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Robertson (settler)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO. Extensive primary research with overly long excerpts provided but no indication of notability with the individual seemingly only involved in local issues. Quick search online revealed no indication of notability. 59abcd (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO - insuffecient RS to establish notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Scotland, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no hint of notability. Thparkth (talk) 17:26, 7 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Arnold (settler)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO. Limited sources beyond primary. Seems to only be involved in local issues such as holding a post master role. Quick search online revealed no indication of notability. 59abcd (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO - insuffecient RS to establish notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Scotland, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite some good references on the history of the area, the person does not meet notability criteria. Wikipedia does not have hundreds of thousands of biographies on other post masters in history. Coldupnorth (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no hint of notability. Thparkth (talk) 17:25, 7 September 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!} 22:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Bell (settler)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO. Limited sources beyond primary. Seems to only be involved with a tavern and held a local councilor role. Quick search online revealed no indication of notability. 59abcd (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO - insuffecient RS to establish notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Ireland, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local municipal councils are not an "inherently" WP:NPOL-passing office, so he has to be evaluated strictly on the sourcing — but this depends entirely on a mixture of primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all with a tiny smattering of local-interest history books that aren't demonstrating a reason why he would have nationalized or internationalized significance. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 4 September 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 Tygers of Pan Tang#Discography. Consensus is that though the album exists and has been mentioned, the coverage is not detailed enough and/or mentioned in sufficient independent reliable sources to warrant a stand alone article. SilkTork (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Kill (album)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NALBUM, asking for a redirect to the band's page. Contested redirect by Kingofstillport. Cannot find anything suggesting notability per a before search. Nothing in the article contributes to GNG right now. Justi yaya 15:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United Kingdom. Justi yaya 15:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tygers of Pan Tang#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows a handful of passing mentions in books. SBKSPP (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Now convinced with the sources added to the article by Kingofstillport. SBKSPP (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect, but do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To clarify I'm asking for a redirect per the 2021 RFC cited in WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT that says that contested blank and redirects should be taken to AFD Justi yaya 00:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It - Recently, I found credible sources that reviewed it and included their reviews and statements on the article page. Kingofstillport (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingofstillport, I saw your expansion of the article. I believe you've added [1][2][3] sources to the article. To pass GNG, multiple (usually 2-3) reliable sources that are independent of the subject providing significant coverage is needed. Source 1 is from allmusic, which, according to WP:ALLMUSIC "Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability". There is no accompanying prose that I can find relating to the album. The hrrecords site appears to be (according the citation) selling a vinyl version of the album, and as such is not independent of the subject. The bravewords citation seems reliable and good to use. I stumbled upon it during my before search and sort of ignored it after seeing that it doesn't show up on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE (which I probably shouldn't have). Your added citations contain only one source that count towards notability, one more source is needed for a GNG pass. Justi yaya 06:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 22:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tygers of Pan Tang#Discography - fails WP:NALBUM Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and Merge whatever useful is in this article.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Tygers of Pan Tang#Discography - currently only 2 sources seem good enough, which is light in my opinion. Jupiteralien (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now meets WP:NALBUM with sources added to the article by Kingofstillport. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting (final) after addition of content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to/with Tygers of Pan Tang#Discography. Doesn't appear notable alone with its sources. Nythar^T^.^C 20:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as above. A handful of scanty one-paragraph mentions (which say little more than "Wow that's cool") on obscure semi-blog sites doesn't equate to significant coverage on multiple sites with a reputation for reliability and fact checking. Ravenswing 06:30, 8 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moodie Drive[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability. After a search I've been unable to find anything which could possibly suggest it could be notable. Af course, given its a local road I highly doubt any improvements could rectify this issue. 59abcd (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication why this generic road is notable or needs an article any more than any other of the millions of roads on the planet for which you can similarly name a distance, termini, speed limit, and intersections. Seems lots more on Template:Ottawa Roads should go too. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not merit inclusion. Just a garden variety road. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, the notability bar for a road is not just the ability to write a bit of information about the road's physical characteristics — every road that exists at all has physical characteristics by definition, so the distinction between a notable road and a non-notable road hinges on the ability to write and reliably source some social, cultural, political or historical context for what might make the road more significant than most other roads. This article is not clearing that bar. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 4 September 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 11:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Lama[edit]

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

The sources mentioned below are not WP:RS and are promotional PR stuff and the article itself doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. DIVINE (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and Nepal. DIVINE (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Dear DIVINE, seems like the article is in good standing ever since with viable contents backed by references. Could you please point out promotional PR stuff as you mentioned and help the article to grow rather then deleting it. Every contribution matters and would appreciate your's too. Also, please make sure it's not a aftermath of these conversations backed by your personal outburst. Thanks - Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed them, which you can see here [4] Instead of copying and pasting the same convo, you are free to discuss as this is a deletion discussion and present some reliable sources for the articles. As your article lacks supportive references and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO there's not any personal outburst here. I have fixed a few of your articles, removed non-RS sources and added maintenance tags, which you can check yourself and also fix yourself. Regards, DIVINE (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DIVINE, I've reverted your changes here. Can you please justify your statement of how these portals and news do not come under WP:RS before removing those sources. These are the major sources in Nepal for artists. Else, could you please mention the list of authorized reliable sources in Nepal to prove your statement of NOT WP:RS - Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think those are reliable sources, you should not be adding articles or references to mainspace. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, im not convinced about the sources already present in the article. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2nd and 3rd sources are decent. Can't access 1st source.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article. Photographs taken by the same person who above voted to keep the article, possibly WP:COI. Nythar^T^.^C 16:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom, lacks WP:RS. ~ Yeti Dai (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd also like to see some opinions from more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are definitely lacking quality and quick search doesn't reveal anything significant which could otherwise suggest notability. Also find it very worrying that an admin, albeit for another project, has got involved in such a debate. Very clear WP:COI and some poor behaviour regarding edit warring. The last revert by Nabin K. Sapkot does not seem in good faith - reverting low quality sources previously removed by DIVINE, whilst the AFD was ongoing, which contained non-existent URLs. 59abcd (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Promotional article. Alex-h (talk) 15:27, 4 September 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-abortion by country[edit]

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

The contents of this article are already covered in both Anti-abortion movements and Abortion law, and in various "Abortion in COUNTRY/CONTINENT" articles. I've recommended mergers for both pages, reviewed content and cites in detail, and modified the article significantly. By WP:GNG on the topic "Anti-abortion by country", I suggest to delete or move to the draftspace. Sections use WP:SYNTHESIS to suggest citations about various religions, abortion access, and legality imply general public opinion. This content is in clear violation of WP:OR & WP:NPOV, violations which would be further motivated by the article topic. Few to no citations where the primary topic is "anti-abortion" for each country suggest the topic is not notable.

Edit: I would also argue delete under WP:NOPAGE. Framing an article on the topic of abortion in an article which only covers the anti side of the issue makes it impossible to include important context even with the right RS, and trivially easy to spin RS to suggest strong anti-abortion sentiments based on fringe opinions (there's just no opportunity to define the popular opinion). SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Against - Siliconred has made no effort to even engage on this page and make the changes he thinks are right to it. He has not even attempted to make a single edit to the text on the page to change what he thinks should be different. It is absurd to nominate for deletion without actually making any real attempt to change what he thinks is problematic. AFD is not Cleanup.

If the issue is that the content can be placed in other articles, then that is a merger discussion not an AFD discussion. This user already created a merger discussion for this article less than 24 hours ago. Reesorville (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comment, I suggest moving to draftspace, and AfD is, to my understanding, a valid path for this recommendation. If others recommend a different path towards moving to draftspace I am happy to remove this AfD notice and propose elsewhere. I will start making edits in the meantime. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

on the right hand column of this page, there is a link that says 'introduction to deletion'. On that page, it says the following:

"When not to use the deletion process Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing."

I don't have any issues with the edits you have made thus far. You don't need to worry about an edit war from me; you're welcome to contribute and make changes where you see fit. Reesorville (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even with my changes so far, the article content is clearly already covered in other articles. I don't see a reason to keep the article. The article title, "Anti-abortion by country", is misleading for the article content, which really is "Abortion by country". Suggesting the article topic is "Anti-abortion" implies cherry-picking quotes from the citations, often which are about abortion access in these countries -- content which is already covered in other articles, as I've tagged. It's just not clear that the citations demonstrate clear WP:N of the specific "Anti-abortion by country" topic in a way which does not already exist on Wikipedia. It's redundant at best, and encouraging WP:POVPUSHING via the article title at worst. I still recommend delete or move to draftspace. My issues with the article stem from more than just quality. Per WP:GNG, we need significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article — i.e. citations that specifically, and as the primary subject, describe anti-abortion sentiments for each country. The citations do not do this; rather, they discuss abortion law and abortion access in various countries, not anti-abortion in various countries. The only information on that topic is contrived via WP:SYNTHESIS to suggest that popular belief is driven by common religions in each country. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'clearly covered in other articles' - this is a merger discussion, not an AFD discussion. You already created a merger thread on the other page where this can be continued. It makes no sense to move to draftspace if you want this content covered in other articles and not having an independent article; moving to draftspace means that the topic at some future point can still have an article about this topic. Reesorville (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to the idea of moving this article to Abortion by country but this topic is already a redirect to Abortion law -- and I support this redirect as opposed to making two conflicting articles on similar topics, again still keeping me in the delete camp, but open to possible compromise. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or else merge after major cutting and rewriting.

The article badly distorts public attitudes toward abortion in various countries. The article's title basically gives any editor who wants to promote an anti-abortion POV a blank check to do that, because they can comb through sources taking only the parts that talk about opposition to abortion. As an example, let's take the very first country listed, the Democratic Republic of Congo. The subsection characterizes cultural attitudes toward abortion as being entirely negative, citing two sources (which both describe the same study and say essentially the same thing, so they should be considered one source). The gist of what the authors say is that, after in-depth focused interviews, it turned out that the people they studied had a lot of sympathy toward women who get abortions and held "nuanced" views about abortion under many circumstances (such as an abusive or unfaithful husband). So the impression given in the article's subsection on the DRC of hardened public opposition to abortion is the opposite of the point the authors are trying to make.

Similarly, the section on Vietnam cherry-picks sources to give the impression of broad public opposition to abortion in Vietnam. The sources I'm most familiar with say the opposite. For example, T. Gammeltoft's book Haunting Images: A Cultural Account of Selective Reproduction in Vietnam describes almost universal support for aborting a defective fetus. Genetic birth defects have been a huge problem in Vietnam due to U.S. chemical warfare (such as Agent Orange) in the 1960s and 1970s. The genetic effects have persisted for several generations, and caring for the severely disabled victims of genetic deformities is a major burden for families and the state. In Vietnam there's virtually no opposition to abortion of a fetus that would be born deformed. NightHeron (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely w above argument. I have made significant cuts at this point in an attempt to align the content with existing citations and add new citations but despite this the issue boils down to the article topic incentivizing cherry-picking from sources to demonstrate that some anti-abortion sentiment exists somewhere in the country for each section, which is meaningless WP:UNDUE in the context of an encyclopedia. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 00:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just about listing anti-abortion ideologies/sentiment in different parts of the world. if it is POV-pushing, what is the POV that it is pushing? That it exists? I think an encyclopedia exists so that a person is able to find that kind of information.

Wiki ought to have an article that can cover anti-abortion opposition generally, and not simply just things called 'movements' in RS. Unless you can give an adequate reason for why that shouldn't exist, this Afd has no case in it. Afd is not cleanup, if you think that there are issues with sources or particular facts you are free to attempt to edit those things and work through the normal editing process. The Afd discussion is discussing whether wiki should have an article on this topic at all. Reesorville (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If perhaps I could provide something here, because there seems to be ignorance here about wiki's deletion policy. If a topic should not exist on wiki, because it is not notable, it is covered elsewhere, it can't be made so it has a neutral point of view or some other reason that means this topic shouldn't exist in an encyclopedia, then there is a case for an Afd to be made. An example of a POV problem with an article, would be if someone, for example made an article where the topic itself is an opinion that is trying to push a POV; for example, if someone created an article called: 'Logical flaws in Republican Party platform', even if we can find RS that has material on this, there probably isn't way of reconciling this topic with NPOV and Afd is then warranted.

If a topic is something that ought to exist, but you disagree with the way that the page is being written at present or think that there are claims on the page that you believe are problematic, then you need to go through the normal editing process, working through consensus with other users and work out those problems. Afd is only supposed to be used if the topic of the article is problematic in itself and there is no way of reconciling those issues except through deletion.

These arguments about issues with POV appear with different sections of the article content appear to be the latter, not the former. What you need to demonstrate here to delete is why an article... any article... that is trying to cover this specific topic (anti-abortion globally) is not supposed to exist on wiki. You need to show why what you see as POV issues cannot actually be resolved through the normal editing process; simply just claiming that what you see as POV issues exist in the text is an irrelevant argument from that perspective.

I can't see a logical reason why an article can't exist on wiki that touches on this subject and be neutral. Simply just describing the ways that opposition to abortion exists around the world is not advancing any POV in itself other than asserting its existence, which is exactly what an encyclopedia exists to show. Reesorville (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Support for abortion legality redirects to Abortion rights movements. There should not be a separate article on country-by-country support for abortion rights for the same reason that the article Anti-abortion by country should be deleted or merged. The same reason would apply, for example, to an article Support for capital punishment by country that went from country to country looking for evidence of broad support for capital punishment. Cataloguing evidence of support and statements in support of a certain POV without proportional attention to the opposing viewpoint is in violation of WP:NPOV, which is a core policy. NightHeron (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what I'm perhaps not following here is why couldn't you couldn't just put opposing viewpoints or (more likely) criticism of the topic on this page? If that is the issue, it seems you could simply solve that by editing.

The reason why this needs a separate article from anti-abortion movements is because the consensus on that page is that we can't include anything anti-abortion that isn't defined as a 'movement', whereas there is highly significant anti-abortion material that then can't be added. If we could change the consensus on that page to allow things not defined as 'movements' but make it into opposition to abortion generally, I would be in favour of a merger; otherwise I think there needs to be page that shows this as topic as a whole.Reesorville (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for other editors to comment. Like it or not, there are legitimate arguments for deletion of this article — at this point you are repeating yourself. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support delete of this page as a non-English speaking country's native.

It's hard to not cherry-pick "Opinion" from an already small amount of English sources.I don't think this is an article to makes us natives interest to join. When I look at Japan, which is my country, There are only two English sources,⁣and one is a certain Guardian reporter. (I know he is reliable as a long time resident of Japan. He happens to be reliable in Japan's case.I'm not sure about other countries.)Paperworkorange (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also that Opposition to abortion legality is also a redirect to Anti-abortion movements. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete As a distant second I suppose draftifying it would be acceptable but as a concept I think "anti-abortion by country" is a tough fit for a neutral encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For some more color: I think this is substantively a content fork of our articles on anti-abortion movements and abortion law. Perhaps it could be merged or redirected (There are already two merger discussions open regarding it) but it is just as easy to delete it as it is an orphan and "anti-abortion by country" is not really a likely search term or (as I noted above) a string of words denoting a good subject for an encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these points were already brought up in the talk page discussions on the anti-abortion movements article, but it is worth repeating here for those who haven't read it. The reason why this article was created was because the anti-abortion movements article doesn't allow for any material on the topic that isn't called a 'movement' and anti-abortion law doesn't deal with anything except the laws. However, the topic of anti-abortion in general, beyond just 'movements' and 'laws' is notable and contains lots of material that doesn't fit the scope of either article. In case there is any doubt whether RS exists that talks about the topic in general outside of the narrow scope of 'popular movements', here is a sample that I put on that discussion: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12345323/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21972672/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34557809/, https://www.asianews.it/news-en/Abortion-is-illegal-and-wrong-for-Indonesian-Muslim-leaders-as-well-32597.html, https://religioncheck.com/is-abortion-haram-in-islam/, https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-will-reduce-number-abortions-non-medical-purposes-2021-09-27/. If this article is deleted and nothing else changes, the end result is that there is nowhere to put this content except on the individual country/topic pages that talk about the situation of abortion in each country/specific category, because we don't otherwise have an article that talks about opposition to abortion as a general topic anywhere in wikipedia. To repeat, I am in favour of a merge as well with anti-abortion movements if the article's scope could be less narrowly defined.Reesorville (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually want to be involved in discussion ~~arguments~~, but I cannot overlook how you are cherry-picking non-Christian countries' information.Or ,making English page about opinion results hard to not cherry-pick opinions.

Here on one of your source, "asianews.it" writes on "about us" page

"AsiaNews is a news agency promoted by the PIME missionaries, the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions." (Underline by me)

Basically, the website is writing about Asian from Christian viewpoints. I hope you notice this is very offensive for people of other religion. Or irreligion like over 60 % of people here in Japan.Paperworkorange (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As other editors say, ⁣to create this page is violation of WP:NPOV, resulted from WP:SBEXT Paperworkorange (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the individual country articles or "Abortion law" article would be great places to put the information from your pubmed citations, for example, though perhaps not "Anti-abortion movements". Three broad cites is hardly sufficient for an article whose topic proposes detailing this sentiment for every country. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 12:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asianews is not a deprecated source on wikipedia and it is used as RS on other pages; being a Christian source doesn't make it automatically disqualified.

RS doesn't have to exclusively about a topic in order to be used for that topic. For example, if I have a book about the first world war, and it has a few paragraphs in it about General Haig, I can quote that part of the book for the article on General Haig... this isn't a form 'cherry-picking'. The issue with portions of sources about larger topics is when there is a question about whether the topic is 'notable' or if it is giving an unfair representation regarding the topic. The former problem can be solved by finding sources that are exclusively about that topic (which are easily found for this topic) and the latter problem is solved by people going through the editing process first and attempting to solve what are seen as POV issues, and not by deletion until it is apparent those issues can't be solved. Reesorville (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For us non-English speakers, who are often misrepresented or wrongly connected to western culture, then ~~hard to convince western the articles are not true because of lack of English article,~~have hard time convince editors ⁣they are wrong because of lack of English sources ,this is in creation of POV issues.Paperworkorange (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to use English sources for English wikipedia. You can reference Japanese sources (or sources in any language, as long as they reliable) to use when writing articles on English wikipedia. This is true for all pages, including this page. If you think that the little bit mentioned on Japan on this page is POV or inaccurate and you have Japanese sources that can correct it, you are welcome to edit it and attempt to make the corrections. The same is true for every page on wikipedia. Reesorville (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True with English wikipedia.Yes.But you have never battled with a bunch of English-speaking editors who push their POV.That's why I don't want to join here.in addition from I don't see any reason to create this page.All countries have "Main article" link.I cannot see satisfying content without clicking "Main article". I cannot see any reason of creation or existence of this page, which likely ends up another western POV pushing. Paperworkorange (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are not many anti-abortion arguments in Japan.Paperworkorange (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are much more important articles for us non-English speakers to fix. I will not join here to fix but I fear the existence of article will be needless bothering for especially non-English speaking non-Christian.Who need this article? (I will stop tonight)Paperworkorange (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good reason we don't have an article on opposition to abortion rights be country, as distinct from abortion rights movements, anti-abortion movements, and abortion law. It would become (and already is in this case) a grab bag of references and claims about abortion generally--in this case about opposition to it generally. in contrast to, for example, a section on an article for a country (or an article on sentiment about abortion in a country), this would in an invitation for editors without the cultural context to write about abortion across hundreds of countries around the globe. In contrast to articles on abortion law, abortion rights movements, or anti-abortion movements, it would be an invitation to write about whatever content can be found on the internet regarding anti-abortion sentiment outside of the contexts of law, medicine, or political action. Neither of those conditions serve the reader and I don't see how, through editing, this article becomes something which doesn't have both of those problems (and again, it seems to have been constructed to produce them). Protonk (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you think that 'anti-abortion movement' as an article is fundamentally different on this point of 'inviting editors' to write without context? Reesorville (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a definable subject--so a reader would expect to see information about a movement or a group an editor could choose to include or exclude information such that it is relevant to a particular group in a country or countries. Conversely "anti-abortion" by country could include anything that has to do with what an editor construes about opposition to abortion. Protonk (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what you mean?: anti-abortion as a general topic would allow for any opposition to abortion to be mentioned regardless of the ideology, reasoning or context of the opposition? Whereas anti-abortion movements are things that you can tie with particular ideologies, reasonings or contexts?

if that understanding above is right, then I still don't see what the problem is. If you think that showing the different ways that opposition exists needs greater context, that can be done by adding such context to the text of the article. Furthermore, in fact, I think you are perhaps identifying exactly what the problem with 'anti-abortion movements' is, which led me to make this article: the reasons that people who oppose liberalizing abortion around the world are not uniform; why people, organizations or governments in one place resist attempts to make the procedure more accessible or attempt to make it more restricted can be totally different than what exists in another place. If one looks at 'anti-abortion movements' article, one may get the impression that opposition to abortion globally is just a question of the pro-life movement that exists mainly in western countries, which is absolutely not the case.

If someone wanted to come to wikipedia to research abortion and they wanted to know why people oppose its liberalization, how does the encyclopedia serve this by redirecting a search for 'opposition to abortion legality' to an article that only covers an ideological movement that affects only one portion of the world? Reesorville (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is being demonstrated in this thread and on the three talk pages in question. The problem with having a content fork is that it becomes a place for citations looking for a home. If there is information that can't be added to e.g. anti-abortion movements because it doesn't relate to movements, that doesn't mean that what we need is something very close to anti-abortion movements in order to find a home for that information. It means we need to find an encyclopedic subject where it makes sense to add the info. so for example if we've got some article about how people in Pakistan feel about abortion the answer is to find an article on Pakistan (or even abortion politics in Pakistan) in order to give it due weight. The answer is not to create a third cross-country list because the piece of info doesn't fit in the first two. I mentioned this offhand in my vote but it should be a tell that the title is not descriptive at all. "Anti-abortion by country" is...anti-abortion what? Sentiment? Politics? History? Actions? It isn't clear to me what a reader should expect from the page or what an editor should choose as inclusion criteria when inevitably content disputes arise. Contrast this with the two extant cross-country articles we have. Protonk (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it was referring to all of those (sentiment, politics, history, action, ideology, etc.), but I'm not really opposed to a different name for the article if that would help define the topic better. I also disagree and I don't think it is more helpful to require users to need to look up the individual page for each country if they want to learn about opposition to legalized abortion, and the fact that those pages exist don't give good reason for why this content can't have its own summary page. Reesorville (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The summary page(s) already exists. They are Abortion law and Reproductive rights. Both include country-by-country descriptions of the topics in discussion here. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 14:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. This article would constitute unnecessary forking of content already covered elsewhere, were it not largely unsourced and/or synthesis which doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator is correct. Bruxton (talk) 02:51, 9 September 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mihara Yasuhiro[edit]

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

~~Promotional article and there is no significant coverage. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)~~ Struck for being a sock. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Japan. DavidEfraim (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and improve. It's a student's first article and needs a ton of fan language removed and better sources, but a WP:BEFORE search turns up substantial coverage in GNews, including Vogue and Women's Wear Daily, so there's definitely potential for a decent article. Storchy (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (If an article is possible on this subject, it should be started over.) This is a student's first article, the promotionalism is so extensive that it should have been considered for speedy, but the blame for it is not the student, who was apparently poorly instructed, but the WP liaisons. How could they ever have passed the article for submission? Or do they think that the quality of the submitted work is of no importance? Perhaps all submissions from wikied should be required to go through AfC. FWIW, the course was at the College of DuPage; I see on the user page that Oshwah and Ian (Wiki Ed) offered assistance--there is no indication it was effective. ; the course page is at [5]]. I shall be examining the other work from this course. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Storchy there is RS here for him, just not in the article - I've added 6 references. He has quite a bit of coverage of his Paris shows, going back 10 years or more, and there are interview features, no doubt lots more coverage in Japanese language articles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Vogue and Metal Magazine sources demonstrate significant coverage according to WP:GNG, I have no doubt there is more out there, this, for example. I would take exception to the way this article has been handled by the user proposing deletion, tagbombing the page you propose to delete is not ideal. A better path would be to search for potential sources and improve the content. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sigcov does seem to exist: — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Vogue 2023: "One guy in a hi-vis vest and sunglasses was brushing the trash-strewn floor with an almost insolent lack of application—he kept stopping to chat to people instead of getting on with the job at hand. Closer inspection revealed that this layabout was in fact Mihara himself." Direct coverage specifically about Mihara's own unusual behaviour at an event
- Grailed: "Born in 1972 in Nagasaki, Japan, Yasuhiro enrolled in Tama Art University’s textile design program in 1993. Early on in his studies, Yasuhiro developed a passion for footwear which he nurtured through working part-time in factories and through exploring tanneries and wooden last ateliers during a foreign exchange trip to the United Kingdom. Following his trip abroad, Yasuhiro set out on creating his own brand." Biographical material directly about Mihara himself
- Le Petit Archive: "This Japanese designer started designing shoes in 1996 while studying art at the “Tama Art” University in Tokyo. This was the way he found to express his creative vision into a very common element in daily life, shoes. [...] Another of his passions are toys, which he has been collecting since he was six years old." Again, material is directly about Mihara himself
- WWD: Again, covering Mihara's own behaviour

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Ramsay[edit]

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

This is a BLP for an athlete who competed in the Commonwealth Games and in Scottish National Championships. Although she had significant success at youth level, this isn't enough to meet athletics notability guidelines.

~~There are several articles on Ramsay's career published online. However, these are all based on interviews and most are published by organisations she is associated with.~~

~~I have improved and updated the article, but I still don't believe there's enough to meet GNG.~~ The article appears to have been created by the subject and a notability tag added shortly after its creation was removed in error. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on a quick look, I found [6] which is significant coverage of her. And also [7], though it seems like she worked for Scottish Athletics, so may be a primary source. Worth someone doing a more thorough search to see if WP:GNG can be established, as I think it's possible that she will. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note I had already added the first source to the article before nominating for deletion. I don't think it's a primary source though as it's largely based around an interview. As you say, the second source is from an organisation she is affiliated with so doesn't do much good (and again, it's strongly based around an interview).

It doesn't appear there was any significant coverage in local or national papers at the time of her selection for the Commonwealth Games, I suspect due to the abundance of Scottish athletes participating. Perfectly happy to reconsider if something else emerges/ MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as an alternative to deletion. It is the Athletics Weekly article that makes it difficult to quickly !vote "delete", as it includes 6.5 paragraphs of facts reported neutrally by the publication (even though it also includes quotes from the subject). Per WP:BASIC, multiple independent sources can be combined to establish notability, so if other articles like this were found, it would be a "keep". By draftifying, it gives the community more time to look for those sources (possible that Scottish newspaper coverage does exist, etc.), but if no further edits are made to the draft in six months, it will be deleted. As a side note, the other big problem with this article is that the "Achievements" section is completely unreferenced; another good reason to draftify. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Despite some good efforts to find more references, notability is still not established. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is now sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:BASIC and the article has been cleaned up to fix the COI issues. In addition to the in Athletics Weekly (6.5 paragraphs of facts reported neutrally, excluding interview quotes, in a national publication), there are numerous snippets of factual reporting across multiple articles focusing on Ramsay (again, ignoring interview quotes), including the Glasgow World feature and the Daily Record, plus an article about her support for a charity event in Glasgow Evening Times. The coverage spans multiple events in 2014 and 2015, and the other sources not included here (such as the Scottish Athletics articles) provide more up-to-date information about the athlete. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I think there is enough there for me to change my !vote. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my delete !vote. I can now advocate for keep based on sources found by Cielquiparle MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:33, 8 September 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azeem Sarwar (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Want to send this article to draft, current policy does not allow for articles to be sent to draft if they are over 90 days old. Article needs some serious cleaning up. I had some difficulty finding sources but I only checked in English not Urdu. The topic sounds like it could pass GNG with some additional sources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Would prefer to send this to draft so it can be improved. Author is still active on Wikipedia so sending to draft will not act as a backdoor deletion. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — with proper maintenance tag. Sufficient Urdu sources with deep coverage are available: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and more. Insight 3 (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Insight 3 I was only able to translate a few of the articles but are they all coverage of his death or are there any other sources about him? From the sources you gave and the way the article talks about him he sounds important and notable. That was why I wanted to send this to draft and not delete it, because if there are other sources that can support GNG then it would be great to add them. Also the article needs some love and care, as it is it's a little rough. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of them have been published at his death. But this is not uncommon with pre-internet celebrities that we now find only their obituaries. The sources 3, 4 & 6 give pretty detailed biography of the subject. Insight 3 (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be remain in wikipedia. _ Noor Gee __WikiFriend_☺ 12:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sending an article to draft does not remove it from Wikipedia. No one wants to delete this article but we have to do something with it because of the state it's in. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify would be the best choice here. Deletion could be to harsh. --多少战场龙 (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and we will see if the article can be improved with time. Lightburst (talk) 18:51, 2 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final referees[edit]

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

Topic doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG- lacks in-depth coverage outside of WP:ROUTINE stories relating to individual matches. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Sports. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator states that the coverage is routine, and "relating to individual matches". This is not the case. There is very little about the game but lots about the referee and the game, either before the game has occurred, e.g. here (in a national newspaper) or many decades afterwards, e.g. this obituary in a separate national newspaper from last year, which mentions straight away that he refereed the 1962 and 1963 finals and doesn't give the same attention to any of the other games he refereed. This suggests that if the referee is remembered at all (and is receiving an obituary in a national newspaper many decades later) it is for this game and so game and referee are linked. This source also states in the headline that refereeing the game can make a person part of an "elite group", which is far from routine. --Gaois (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are lengthy articles in The Irish Times, e.g. here and here, which link various referees to various finals and are about the referees and those particular games. WP:NLIST states: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". --Gaois (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really don't understand what this article/list is "for". The relevant list/section in the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Finals articles already includes a "list of All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final referees". What, therefore, is this article "for"? The only other (non-duplicating) information we find is at the top (where we have somewhat discursive editorial about what an honour it is and how important the role of the referee is - not especially ground-breaking information). And at the bottom (where we find the same stats represented in a different format - grouped by person rather than by year). How is the article not WP:REDUNDANT or, at least, WP:OVERLAPing with existing article(s)? Guliolopez (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That list/section was (mostly) added after this discussion began... so clearly this existed first. The first entry to that section was added two days after this article appeared. The list/section that was added later also looks as if it is completely uncited. And less complete. I have only just seen it. It looks as if the person who added it (who hasn't a very long edit history and previously only seems to have shown an interest in rugby, soccer and American football) arrived after an absence of several months and copy/pasted the details across. The timing is very strange. I don't mean to suggest that one or the other is the right/wrong way but that was the order of events. --Gaois (talk) 03:09, 3 September 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 per WP:CSK#3 as an erroneous nomination. The project not being finished yet is not a valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opera House metro station[edit]

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

This is a speculative article about a place that doesn't exist yet. SparklingSnail (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. Skynxnex (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The place evidently does exist given there is a picture of it in the article. And so no proper rationale has been put forward here. NemesisAT (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NemesisAT. It appears a significant number of seemingly reliable sources confirm that the station exists, just not complete, with on-going news about estimates of when it will be opened to the public. Even if, at this point, the line never operates, it's still likely to be notable given the time and cost spent on the project. Furthermore, many incomplete subway/metro stations have articles since they exist and are notable based on sustained coverage. I've added a more recent source with more details of estimated timeline. Skynxnex (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly exists, and well-documented. Not speculative whatsoever. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Rationale given by rationale is clearly false, even at time of nomination the title of the first source describes the station as a thing that exists. The other sources also show WP:GNG is met. Jumpytoo Talk 05:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (per WP:SK point 3) per all above. Reporting reliably sourced speculation by others does not make an article speculative, nor is there any prohibition on articles about things that are under construction. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 4 September 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!} 22:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lota Francis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:00, 2 September 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 everyone else desired to keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohana (surname)[edit]

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

During NPP this page was redirected and the information in this page was added to Ohana (disambiguation) page. The page creator has been reverting the redirect and the merge. Talk page messages have been erased. My rationale for deletion is per WP:DABNAME A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page. The page exists for that purpose. I have already merged the content and so this page should be deleted. Bruxton (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bruxton (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, revert the merge, a valid, referenced {{surname}} page, just like tens of thousands similar ones. You may also want to look at more argument in the RFC, Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Surname pages are disambiguation pages or not?. Yossi Rimon (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this nomination is damaging to the encyclopedia, as references and external links are expressly forbidden on disambiguation pages, so we would need to delete valid content to accomplish the merge. ~~WP:TROUT the nominator, and topic-ban them from the area for a year or so, for good measure.~~ BD2412 T 21:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @BD2412:, just trying to do my job. The reference was just added after the merge. I have now removed it - we have a valid d page and the other is duplicative. Not sure what I am missing. Bruxton (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Removing valid references from encyclopedic content is textbook vandalism. If you do this again, it will be an immediate trip to WP:ANI for restrictions. BD2412 T 22:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I am going to take a break. I am quite shocked by your aggressive tone in an AfD. I asked for clarification of your comments above, on your talk page, and instead you came to the AfD to threaten me. This is disappointing behavior from an administrator, and I am an editor simply helping tackle a significant backlog. If I was wrong to put Ohana and Ohana together in a D page we could have discussed. Bruxton (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked that an experienced editor would think that it was permissible to remove valid references from an article in order to improve their case for deletion. That action is far more aggressive than my tone. BD2412 T 22:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AGF - The reference was added after you told the article starter in the RFC that they should if possible include references providing information about surname origins and usage. So not my fault, I redirected long before that addition. Again if I am wrong to delete it, discuss, not threaten. Bruxton (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly valid surname page with info about the name itself, refs, and a long enough list of names. Names are usually partial title matches that shouldn't be cluttering up dab pages unnecessarily. Station1 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surname easily passes WP:NNAME, which requests at least two notable persons with the surname (which there's currently nine). Jalen Folf (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn Seems the guideline has a bit of ambiguity regarding surname and dab pages but I am now aware of the Anthroponymy project's goals. Bruxton (talk) 17:28, 5 September 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. Nominator opened based on being unable to find appropriate sourcing, but eventually it was found. Problem solved. Whether to merge this article into the book article does not need AfD. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Lavin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There's not much point to this page, he had a minor controversy four years ago, wrote a book two years ago. I've tried in vain to improve the page by looking for better sources and an update as to what he's up to now, but I think it may just be better to merge his biography onto his book page Culture Warlords and/or delete this article. Naihreloe (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Literature, and News media. Naihreloe (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not extremely widely covered but notable enough per Molly White.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how substantial/notable are the critical reviews given in the article? Book reviews are not in my toolbox of knowledge, unfortunately. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, it's essentially a collection of the reviews and comments he made in his books. Naihreloe (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the article are rather sloppy as most of them are links to the persons profile as contributor to certain news organisations. Never the less, this person meets notability through Significant Coverage, per these sources that are referenced in the article:
Talia Lavin: "La historia oscura de la sangre y del odio está en todas partes" | Público (publico.es)

Talia Lavin: Into the Abyss – Guernica (guernicamag.com)

New Yorker Fact-Checker Resigns After ICE Tweet Controversy (thecut.com)

Talia Lavin: Into the Abyss – Guernica (guernicamag.com)

“Infiltrarme en los grupos supremacistas en internet fue como bañarme en ácido a diario” | Transformación Digital | Tecnología | EL PAÍS (elpais.com)

And in the hundreds of articles about the person that can be found online such as for example (in no particular order):
What's antifa? Journalist Talia Lavin on the reality behind the media's "pernicious lies" | Salon.com

Left-wing Rolling Stone writer who called Buffalo shooter a 'mainstream Republican' falsely implied — as a fact-checker — that a disabled vet is a Nazi - TheBlaze

New Yorker staffer Talia Lavin quits job after falsely accusing ICE agent of having Nazi tattoo (nypost.com)

White Supremacy And Its Online Reach (npr.org)

Talia Lavin Fails as Fact-Checker, Succeeds as Smear Merchant | National Review

Talia Lavin, Who Falsely Trashed an ICE Agent As a Nazi, Just Lost Her Gig Teaching "Journalism" for a Hilarious Reason – RedState

'Jeopardy!' contestant Talia Lavin on 'Turd Ferguson': 'I’m going to go for broke or joke' | Fox News

She Masqueraded as an Aryan Princess to Take Down Neo-Nazis (thedailybeast.com)

A Jewish writer spent over a year undercover on white supremacist message boards. Here's what she found. - CBS News

Former NYU adjunct: Buffalo mass shooter is a ‘mainstream Republican’ | The College Fix

Confronting white supremacy among our neighbors, our families — and ourselves - The Boston Globe

Why Transphobia Is at the Heart of the White Power Movement | The Nation

New Yorker fact-checker 'resigns' after slandering ICE agent and Marine veteran as Nazi | Fox News

Anti-Semitism, white supremacy and swords: Talia Lavin dives into the most hateful corners of the internet - Jewish Telegraphic Agency (jta.org)

NYU Cancels Former New Yorker Fact-Checker Talia Lavin’s Journalism Class (thewrap.com)

That has got to be significant coverage beyond any reasonable doubt? PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that's why i'm pushing more for a merge into his book's page, since it's the same 2/3 events mentioned (being on jeopardy, the ICE incident and his book) in all sources. i'd rather not delete. Naihreloe (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as far as I am concerned notability is not an issue and this article has "the right to exist" per notability. Whether it should or should not be its own dedicated article is up for discussion between any editors that want to contribute to the articles in question, but notability is not the issue here. I see that the article was previously a redirect to the book and someone thought it would be a good idea to make it a dedicated article. Perhaps AfD was not necessary? Isn't it ok to just go ahead to merge and redirect? If that person who made the article, or another editor, disagrees they can just revert and a discussion about it will be initiated in the talk page of the article. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 22:15, 1 September 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) Yeti Dai (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Francis Sharma[edit]

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

lacks secondary and reliable source, fails WP:Notability.

previous WP:PROD was contested citing " roman catholic bishops are notable ". Yeti Dai (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding sourcing: both the Catholic Herald and UCA are reliable, independent sources. They might cover Catholic matters specifically, but both provide independent coverage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable, there should have been other sources independent of catholic. I can not find even trivial mention in other independent sources. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) Yeti Dai (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now hold on there! Sometimes a topic is only notable with regards to a specific community (in this case, a ~1.1 billion person community). If article's subject is covered by reliable and independent institutions (both CH and UCA are considered as such)–regardless of those institutions' focus–then that's enough. We have articles for some rather niche but very, very notable high-level math concepts that have only received reliable coverage within the mathematics academic community. Your standards would preclude them. As for WP:NBISHOP: it might not be a policy (maybe it might be time to fix that!), but it is a consistently accepted standard across multiple significant WikiProjects. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Pbritti. And yes, Roman Catholic bishops are notable (see WP:NBISHOP). @Yeti Dai: it would be easiest if you just withdraw the nomination. St Anselm (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus regarding WP:NBISHOP. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) Yeti Dai (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Roman Catholic bishops are considered notable. Thank You-RFD (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. WP:OUTCOMES predicts that bishops are almost always notable; that's not the same as giving them automatic notability, but in this case we have sources from the Catholic Herald and Union of Catholic Asian News (both of which appear to be privately owned and reliable news sources, not affiliated with the Catholic Church) giving a pass of WP:GNG. No doubt we could find more sources in Nepalese media. No valid deletion rationale has been given so this meets WP:SK3. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. His appointment in 2007 was reported in The Times of India.[14]--Jahaza (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that. I will withdraw the nomination. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per David Eppstein. Mccapra (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also coverage as his time as an ambassador, here [15]. We should have GNG by now. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep just as an excuse to pontificate (sorry) about major religious figures: Catholic bishops are presumed notable because, digging deeply enough into foreign language, online, and offline sources, we will find plenty eventually. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert-Joseph Coffy dealt with this a year ago. Basically, if anyone thinks a Catholic bishop should be deleted, they've not done a thorough enough BEFORE; that's what the presumption of notability means: we have a reasonable expectation that it can be found based on our experience in previous discussions. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 2 September 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!} 18:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ATK Mohun Bagan FC (youth)[edit]

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

Non-notable youth team. All the sources are about the senior squad, save this newswire piece. Could be redirected to the senior team, but frankly it's not a likely search team and will just incentivize recreation. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SIGCOV. No need for a redirect. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its that they were on the verge of getting their competition to play but thier participation was cancelled everytime but this time in cfl they will play. so please keep this as it is.@Giant Snowman @Sportsfan 1234@Alyo Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:38, 4 September 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lee (analyst)[edit]

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

~~Most of the citations are profiles and interviews. Unable to locate significant coverage. Fails notability DavidEfraim (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. DavidEfraim (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Your typical financial guy-bitcon enthusiast, nothing special. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That is a mischaracterization of Tom Lee. He is a full-time analyst on CNBC, covering the stock market in general, not just bitcoin. Jacona (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Among other things, he's been featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. — Jacona (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Handmeanotherbagofthemchips, it would help if you did some research first beyond just looking at the current article. Even more helpful would be if you looked for some sources to support article claims. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my vote, @Liz. Being just an analyst, even in such a organisation, is not automatic notability. If there is extensive coverage on himself, then I’d happily change my vote. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part of participating in an AFD is doing that research yourself, Handmeanotherbagofthemchips. Look closely at the sources in the article, investigate online sources yourself. Don't base your opinions by just reading the nomination statement and agreeing or disagreeing with it. If you want your opinion to be considered by a closer, and not disregarded, do your homework on each AFD you participate in. Bring more than just a "Keep", "Delete" or "Fails GNG" to the conversation. Become a contributor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not finding notable sources as a journalist, otherwise I'm not seeing notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I would agree an analyst is not notable, but Lee has had three Wall Street Journal articles about him over the past couple decades. One in 2002 about his work as a JP Morgan analyst and a controversial report he released about Nextel (1,000-ish words), one in 2014 when he left JP Morgan covering his work as an analyst (around 500 words) and one in 2021 post-JP Morgan regarding his market prediction during COVID and overall reputation. The latter being the weakest as it is short but still contains a couple or so independent paragraphs about him (about 300 words after removing quotes). In addition, he received in-depth coverage by CNN also related to his controversial COVID prediction. If folks do not have access to WSJ, happy to provide more details; just ping me. For transparency, I was the AfC reviewer that accepted the article. S0091 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I completely agree with the above statements by @S0091 As the content creator for Tom Lee (analyst) page, there are many articles that were listed citing many independent sources that proves Tom Lee's notability.

Lee is currently a full time weekly CNBC contributor on CNBC HalfTime, Tech Check, Fast Money, and Closing Bell Overtime and appears in many other reliable sources such as:

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbisnoff/2021/10/05/money-manager-thomas-lee-sees-17-year-bull-market-powered-by-millennials/?sh=5304d7d41a7e

Fox Business News: https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6066321285001#sp=show-clips

NBC: https://www.nbcnews.com/video/tom-lee-bottoms-in-for-small-caps-524919363783

Yahoo: https://sports.yahoo.com/long-time-bull-tom-lee-115142632.html

Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-04-03/fundstrat-s-tom-lee-correction-is-quite-healthy-video. JetsetJeri (talk) 21:01, 6 September 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 21:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Locomotor Disabilities[edit]

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

Not notable. Searching on Google does not show news coverage, Books shows some employment news and some overview of India in 2022, News fails GNG, and Newspapers shows nothing. Firestar464 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Medicine. Firestar464 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not the same as newsworthiness. Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely still fails WP:GNG. Firestar464 (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is indeed different from newsworthiness, but there's no independent reliable sources that indicate it is actually notable. Rathfelder feel free to share any Hindi sources you may find. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:38, 9 September 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!} 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syarah[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Presented sources are mere routine coverage about funding that all startups normally receive these days. Nothing to show WP:CORPDEPTH. Hitro talk 13:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Saudi Arabia. Hitro talk 13:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the current sources, analyzing the company's history and talking independently about its activity and achievements, are enough to prove eligibility. They are mainly in arabic but from quality medias.--Art&football (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of the references in the article reveals the following:
- This from alarabiya.net relies entirely on information provided by the company and executives, it has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND
- The alikhbariya.com website is a blog, the article is posted by an anonymous "admin" and there is no information in the Who We Are section, fails WP:RS.
- This on elmareekh.com has no attributed author/journalist and no information on whether any editorial overview exists. The article itself relies on generic information and descriptions including company announcements and has no "Independent Content". Fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND
- This in jawlah.co has no attributed journalist nor is there any information about their contributors available on the website, fails WP:RS. The article itself relies on a company announcement and information from the executives and the company and has no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from The Arabic Reporter has no attributed journalist, the website is a blog and the article is attributed to "admin", fails WP:RS.
- This from menabytes.com is based on a funding announcement with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from entrepreneur.com is based on a funding announcement and quotes from the founder, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from almijharalarabi.com is three sentences with no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
- This from wamda.com is based on a company announcement with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from Waya is also based on a company announcement with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This from Forbes is a profile after the company announced new funding and relies on information provided by the company. There is no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
- This from Al Jazeera is based on a company announcement and includes the text of the press release, fails ORGIND
- Another from the Mena News network which suffers from the same problems as thearabicreporter and almijharalarabi references (part of the same "group") in that there is no attributed journalist, no information of who is involved, no indications of any editorial oversight, article attributed to "admin", fails WP:RS. The references is also a mere three sentences, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This from sabq.org also has no attributed journalist, has no information on any contributors, no indications of editorial oversight, fails WP:RS. The article itself appears to rely entirely on information provided by the company and their executives with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND

The references provided and all of the others I can find are regurgitations of company announcements and basic company information provided by the execs. None provide original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to source analysis by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:26, 8 September 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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson's Hospital School[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines wp:nschool. A search for sources did not uncover additional sources to improve the notability. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My own WP:BEFORE searches suggest that several notability criteria are met. In terms of the school (as a building), it meets WP:NBUILDING. (In that it listed in the Record of Protected Structures as maintained by Westmeath County Council and hence has "protected status on a national level"). In terms of the school (as an institution), and even discounting the recent national coverage on 1E/RECENTISM/NOTNEWS grounds, a news search returns evidence of coverage (of which the subject is a primary topic) in both national news sources (like the Irish Times), and in local news sources (Westmeath Examiner, etc). The Irish Times coverage, in particular, suggests that WP:SIGCOV is met. Guliolopez (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NBUILD and WP:NORG per above evidence Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on grounds discussed above. Schooling material is subsidiary to what makes the subject of this article notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improvements demonstrate nominator's BEFORE was insufficient: GNG is clearly met. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is a nationally protected building as per WP:NBUILDING and has coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is a High School; conducted in the protected building. That is quite enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 4 September 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 delete. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matir Pori (2016 film)[edit]

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

Non notable film. There is no significant coverage, no reviews about this film, i did not find any. Article has some references but they are just passing mentions, unreliable, promotional and talk about actor "Symon Sadik" rather than this film. Article fails WP:NFILM, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment originally created (and deleted) at Matir Pori, by a blocked sockpuppet of User:Symon Sadik. Storchy (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 2 September 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 delete. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomar Kache Rini (2014 film)[edit]

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

Non notable film. There is no significant coverage about this film, i did not find any. Article has some references but they are just passing mentions, unreliable, promotional and talk about actor "Symon Sadik" rather than this film. Article fails WP:NFILM, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment originally created (and deleted) at Tomar Kache Rini, by a blocked sockpuppet of User:Symon Sadik. Storchy (talk) 18:48, 1 September 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 delete. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayabini (2017 film)[edit]

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

Non notable film. There is no significant coverage about this film, i did not find any. Article has some references but they are just passing mentions, unreliable, promotional and talk about actor "Symon Sadik" rather than this film. Article fails WP:NFILM, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it a remake of the 1992 film? PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think no, one is romantic thriller and another horror comedy. —MdsShakil (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 2 September 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 delete. CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tui Shudhu Amar (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film. There is zero significant coverage about this film, i did not find any. Article has 19 references but none of them are about this film, they just mentions this film name once and that's it. Article fails WP:NFILM, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment originally created (and deleted) at Tui Shudhu Amar, by a blocked sockpuppet of User:Symon Sadik. Storchy (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of WP:G5 and WP:SELFPROMOTION. George Huntley (talk) 15:27, 2 September 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 13:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Ismayilov[edit]

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

completely and utterly non-notable vanity spam PICKLEDICAE🥒 12:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Praxidicae says it well. This is an autobiography that does not meet minimum notability requirements. The first two editors of the article are obviously socks. CockpitJim (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only the nominated reasons, but also a total lack of reliable sourcing, or, more precisely, no sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear non-notable vanity spam. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From what I found they, they are a videographer that specialises in making car related videos, has a somewhat significant YouTube channel, won Best Commercial at the Festigious Film Awards and best commercial at Top Shorts Film Festival and was an honourable mention in the Los Angeles Film Awards (LAFA), they hit a pedestrian with their car who later died at the hospital, and manages 20 Luxury Flats in Budapest... interesting combination of things but none of them is significant enough I think.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:36, 1 September 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 13:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Malcomson[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BIO. The only mention of the individual in question within secondary sources seems to be regarding a relatively insignificant tavern/local hotel. All other information in the article is based on primary sources and of very little notability. 59abcd (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is perilously close to WP:A7 - there is no real claim to significance. GoldenRing (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frankly seems like a case of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. A WP:BEFORE search returns only the same trivial/passing mentions we find supporting the text. Including the "weak" WP:ANCESTRY link. The text otherwise makes no claims to notability (being born, having a family, opening a tavern and selling that tavern are not notable activities). The only claim to notability (in the body and in the refs) seem to be the subject's association with a historical building. If the building is notable, it can/should have an article. Otherwise notability doesn't "transfer" to the building's former owners.... Guliolopez (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article on the building also on WP however similar level of notability - being AfD'd here. 59abcd (talk) 13:43, 3 September 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. Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winterbury, Delaware[edit]

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

Non-notable subdivision fails GNG and NGEO due to lack of independent significant coverage. Article was successfully prodded for this reason and later undeleted after sources were presented at RfU. However, the sources [16][17][18][19] consist of a routine neighborhood profile and several thinly-disguised advertisements. –dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Delaware. –dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to pass the general notability guideline, with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see the following: IN FULL BLOOM from The News Journal; Winterbury stars from The Morning News; Winterbury Homes Open from the Journal-Every Evening; New Sample Home Opens from The Morning News; and Winterbury Hills home to be shown from The Morning News. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale. Note that the "sources" cited in the preceding !vote are mostly identical to the ones rightly rejected in the nomination. Notices in local newspapers that houses in a subdivision can be viewed or purchased do not make for notability. This is WP:MILL material. Deor (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILL is an essay and has no power here. ROUTINE (cited by the nom as a reason for discounting the sources) only applies to events and not communities. And articles about communities in local newspapers can make the community notable (can you show me a policy saying it does not?), as long as they "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content," which is clearly the case here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "WP:MILL is an essay and has no power here"; I was mentioning it for its relevance, not its "power". You have quoted part of SIGCOV, but you seem to have missed the part that says, "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases ...". Notices placed in the local press by real-estate developers are not independent with regard to the real estate being developed and do not contribute to its notability. Deor (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I cited are not "advertising" or "press releases" but rather, articles by staff journalists about this community in the state's top newspapers (how is that not independent?). What policy says that articles like this cannot contribute to notability? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think those aren't press releases, you must be more credulous than most folk. Deor (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources cited above appear to be only local in nature and thus do not meet WP:AUD. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Locality of coverage is completely irrelevant, with the exception of companies and organizations (WP:AUD). The thing is, a populated place like Winterbury is not an organization / company. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:AUD might not explicitly apply to places, but it is still useful guidance. What makes this subdivision more notable than any others in the Wilmington area? As both the nominator and Deor mentioned, the cited sources appear largely promotional in nature and nothing out of the ordinary for a subdivision. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No WP policy says an article must be "out of the ordinary" to exist. And it does not need to be "more notable" than other neighborhoods in the area, that is just an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which is specifically named as an argument to avoid. Additionally, the articles are not promotional, but as I said prior, they are written by the staff journalists in the state's top newspaper (which actually would meet WP:AUD with "at least one ... statewide ... source"!) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the sources establish notability, you are welcome to improve the article. Otherwise, I'm not seeing enough significant coverage here. Winterbury is in the Wilmington area, so I would expect run-of-the-mill stuff in the newspapers you cite. Looking specifically at the sources, I'll concede that the first article may meet SIGCOV, but the others are promotional material and shouldn't be considered independent of the subject (see WP:SPIP). Remember, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a subdivision with no claim to notability. The cited stories are routine local coverage of the sort reported for every new development back in the day. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11, whose anaylsis is based in policy. Djflem (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment It is unfortunately common in these discussions to argue as though the reasoning presented in essays, by dint of being such, is wrong. As far as WP:MILL is concerned, I seriously doubt that there's anyone who rejects every argument advanced in it, and those who frequent AfD know that most of its conclusions have been ratified by consensus. In the case of subdivisions, there has been a consistent consensus that as a rule they aren't notable. Yes, it's easy to find real estate coverage of developments, but the real notability is coming from GNIS, because there are plenty of places it doesn't name which also have routine real estate coverage. And yes, there's longstanding consensus that GNIS doesn't confer notability. Saying "it's just an essay" doesn't undo the fact that many people in the discussion don't think such coverage confers notability. If you want policy, argue positively how such coverage is sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic housing development without evidence of notability, a subdivision of lots lacking significant coverage to pass Geoland2. Reywas92^Talk 17:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to each of your points: Generic housing development: Completely irrelevant. Without evidence of notability: Wrong, clearly meets GNG per sources provided above. a subdivision of lots: Irrelevant. lacking significant coverage to pass Geoland2: Wrong, the articles I provided clearly discuss the topic "directly and in detail" (the definition of SIGCOV). And actually, Winterbury does pass Geo2, which states Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions ... which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources, as it has "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" (SIGCOV from The News Journal, The Morning News, and the Journal-Every Evening as shown above). So, your argument is invalid. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to hold that routine local real estate coverage of the construction and subsequent sale of the properties in a subdivision is not significant, and the Morning News and Evening Journal are not independent: they were simply the morning and evening editions of the same paper. Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

routine local real estate coverage ... is not significant ROUTINE does not apply to communities and I'll say it again, locality of coverage is irrelevant. So, all that matters is if the coverage covers the topic "directly and in detail" (SIGCOV), which it clearly does in this case, meaning that it is a GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wilmington, Delaware#Neighborhoods.(see below) It's basically just one street, but The News Journal indicates that it is considered a neighborhood. WP:GEOLAND "Populated places without legal recognition" supports a merge unless there are sufficient sources for a standalone article, which there aren't unless we're going to write about the residents' need for leaf-clearing machine.----Pontificalibus 07:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While GEOLAND does say that (If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it), we clearly have enough coverage to "develop the article using known sources" (and we can write much more than the residents' need for leaf-clearing machines, for example: when it was founded, where exactly is it located, who constructed the houses, how many people live there, any notable residents, how the houses look, how large are the houses/how much land for each house, what kind of terrain is the community in, etc. etc.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have WP:SIGCOV to provide more than a brief description of the neighbourhood. WP:WHYN states "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." I think a merge is therefore the best option.----Pontificalibus 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try expanding the article today or tomorrow to show you that we have enough information to write more than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article a bit. It is now 17 sentences, which I would say is more than "half a paragraph." BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changing from merge - the details added are trivial padding, there's isn't the kind of detail that would be expected of a standalone settlement article. It seems my merge target was not appropriate as this lies outside the relevant area, and it seems WP:UNDUE to shoehorn this into the county article.----Pontificalibus 06:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last round - would like to see more consensus around the merge proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Show home announcements are not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When a reliable newspaper (in this case, DE's top newspaper) independently covers a topic "directly and in detail," such articles are SIGCOV, meaning this clearly passes GNG, which requires Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What we have is just that. Also, this is not a show home announcement. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sources are necessarily used for notability; there are others that satisfy that. Those mentioned above, can be, and are used, for verifiablility of facts stated in the article. Djflem (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the delete votes I am seeing are actually valid arguments. The nom cited ROUTINE as a reason to discount the sources, which does not apply; Deor references the nom and cites WP:MILL, which has no effect here; Presidentman cites yet another policy which does not apply here (AUD, which is for companies...); Mangoe says that the sources should be discounted because they are routine local coverage: Well, ROUTINE does not apply to communities (only to events) and locality of coverage is, for the third time, irrelevant; Reywas92 says Generic housing development without evidence of notability, a subdivision of lots lacking significant coverage to pass Geoland2 which I have shown above is a completely invalid argument; and GoldenRing says that Show home announcements are not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources... show me that policy please (if the news articles cover the topic "directly and in detail," which they clearly do here, they are said to pass SIGCOV, per WP:SIGCOV itself!). Also, not all sources are show home announcements. So there's a rebuttal for every delete !vote in this discussion (for a more detailed rebuttal see my replies). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a great deal of lawyering to try to overcome what every delete response is saying: all this "news" coverage is promotional material of the sort that was and still is standard, routine advertising in the real estate sections of newspapers great and small— and really, the Morning News and Evening Journal were and are hardly as exalted as you are trying to make out. The only reason why we are having this argument in the first place is that, for whatever reason, the people doing the topo maps around Wilmington recorded every subdivision around, while (for example) those in central Maryland did not. The one I grew up in is much larger than Winterbury, big enough to have its own elementary and middle schools, and I suspect that if I fished in the right places I could find similar real estate coverage. But it's not named on the topos, and therefore isn't recorded in GNIS, and that as we all know is the real reason why Winterbury has an article. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There are multiple independent sources that state Winterbury is a distinct area within the Wilmington metro area. It merits a standalone article. - David Stargell (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly ridiculous. It's a tiny subdivision on one circular street, not a "distinct area". This is not what should have an encyclopedia article. Reywas92^Talk 18:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what should have an encyclopedia article - Actually, you're wrong. When a topic has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as is the case here, it should have a wikipedia article. Saying that a notable place should not have an article because of its size is... utterly ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Nothing says that minor local promotional coverage means there "should" be an article, just that notability may be presumed. WP:NOPAGE and other guidelines allow for exlusion of inappropriate topics for stand-alone articles, and I stand by that mere housing developments, such as the over 370,000 subdivisions with homeowner associations in the US, should not have their own articles. A selective merge of many of these articles to a Subdivisions of New Castle County, Delaware could be appropriate, but it's not at all ridiculous to see articles for single short streets as undue and this coverage as insignificant. Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just have to disagree on that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't "multiple independent sources that state Winterbury is a distinct area", there's only one, the others are regurgitated press releases and real estate sales features.----Pontificalibus 06:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In response to the last relisting comment, I'll add that I don't think a merge to Wilmington, Delaware#Neighborhoods would be appropriate; this subdivision is not in Wilmington itself, and it's a "neighborhood" only in the loosest sense—a place where people refer to one another as neighbors—not in the sense that, for example, Chelsea or Greenwich Village is recognized as a neighborhood in Manhattan. I'm sticking with my delete opinion. Deor (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neighbourhood is a very fluid term. Djflem (talk) 08:09, 3 September 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 Lea Salonga#Compilation albums. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate OPM Collection[edit]

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

Notability in question.

No hits on Google, Google Books, Google News, Google News Archives, and Google Scholar.

I have issues on finding info on the presented charts in this article. Google doesn't register any hits.

WP:ATD is to Redirect to Lea_Salonga#Compilation_albums Lenticel ^(talk) 08:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Philippines Pop Album Chart does appear to have been a thing but seems to now be defunct. I suspect it is related to the Philippines Hot 100 which appears in the list of deprecated charts at WP:CHARTS. Happy to be corrected though, in which case please discount this !vote. GoldenRing (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's not it since the album was released 2007 while that Philipines Hot 100 was launched in 2016. --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, Philippines Hot 100 ended in 2016 and was replaced by Billboard Philippines. GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad then --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lea Salonga#Compilation albums. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lea Salonga#Compilation albums. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. No coverage came up in my search. QuietHere (talk) 22:56, 5 September 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 Draft:2022–23 in Indian football. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 in Indian football[edit]

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

2022–23 in Indian football

This article has no references and so is not ready for article space. There is also a draft, which was declined once as too soon, but was then created in article space anyway. The article should be deleted, and the draft left alone for improvement to be moved into article space when it is ready. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Draft:2022–23 in Indian football. Giant Snowman 20:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Draft:2022–23 in Indian football, and protect the article space name, so that this cannot be copy-pasted into article space again (which is a copyright violation). Alternatively, deleting as an unattributed copyright violation would also probably be correct too. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. GoldenRing (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Draft:2022–23 in Indian football: per WP:TOOSOON and WP:ATTRIBUTION. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Draft:2022–23 in Indian football per above. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:32, 8 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Schiøpffe[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. References are all links to databases, no independent coverage. Claim to notability is weak, they played music with some famous people but that doesn't make them notable. Searched online and couldn't find any other sources to make them notable. I would have sent this article to draft because there's a good chance this article can be made to pass GNG and SNG but there is a policy against sending articles older than 90 days to draft. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Would prefer to send this to draft so it can be improved. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because Jazz musicians did not use to create perfumes, undress, did influencing on social media or try to design fashion (cf. pars pro toto Jennie (singer), Rosé_(singer),... and all the rest), just because they kept a low profile, doesn't lessen their impact on Jazz history. Notability used to be defined by sheer musical achievement. Like playing with the greatest, being part of the band, having their names on LPs. Just because WP is otherwise crowded with subcomplex pop musicians who just happen to keep a social media account shouldn't lead anyone to believe that bloated articles about the personal life of shortlived self-proclaimed or "produced" artists should constitute the standard. -- Kku (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing this for a long time and this is one of the most useless votes I've ever seen. Just because you don't like pop music, that doesn't mean a token pop singer isn't notable, and that logic accomplishes nothing for the present discussion on Mr. Schiøpffe. See WP:OTHERSTUFF and most of WP:ATA, for starters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all jazz musicians are notable. This dude isn't Oscar Peterson. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable since he has an entry in Grove Music Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.J686900 Piecesofuk (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The music directory mentioned by the previous voter is just a brief notice that Mr. Schiøpffe existed and that he has some credits. Yes, he played with lots of important people but notability is not inherited from them. Mr. Schiøpffe is only visible in the credits for other people's work and that is not enough for his own article here. Meanwhile, the nominator's recommendation to draftify is okay, but consider whether future improvement is likely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
380 words is hardly a brief notice: "Schiöpffe was regarded as one of the best European drummers of his era" Piecesofuk (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It sounds like this guy is important and people believe he could pass GNG. That's why I wanted to draft this article and not delete it to give people time to improve the article and maybe find sources in Danish that I couldn't find. If we can agree to sending this to draft to be improved I'm willing to commit to doing the AfC review of it to bring it back to mainspace and ensure it doesn't get lost or forgotten. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as the existing references in the article are poor but the Groves reference is promising and so there is a possibility the article can be improved, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is an IMDb article on him, [20] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Besides the Grove Music Online ref, which is short but SIGCOV, none of the other refs are reliable or significant. Only one ref isn't enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC, though a listing in the authoritative Grove probably means that this article has good potential (sadly, I I can't find any more refs online, but there's probably offline ones), so IMO a draftification seems suitable. VickKiang (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I feel draftification would be a dubious outcome here; if sufficient sources cannot be identified at AfD while the article is in mainspace, it would just be deferring a slide towards the draft being deleted out of sight. I am reluctant about deleting articles about subjects on which a standard work such as Grove has an article. The one recording under his own name ("Drum Colours", 1957) has left little trace outside listings, but insofar as there is a bylined biography of the subject in Grove (albeit rather brief), I feel it indicates he had some prominence in the music scene around the Baltic, a view bolstered by him recording as part of the European AllStars ([21]) as well as with various visiting musicians. On balance, I am inclined to think it is better to keep this article. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If new references came to light during this process I would absolutely withdraw the nomination as I have in previous nominations. I have a real concern about there being non-english sources out there hence why I felt sending to draft would be a better outcome than just a delete. As it stands it looks like we aren't going to have consensus so the point is kinda moot. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:32, 5 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bratsch (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. A WP:BEFORE search mostly returns results about things unrelated to the band. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 21:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 21:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [22] (in German) appears to be in-depth coverage, [23] has some that may or may not be considered in depth, and [24] has a bit (but it's mainly about one of their albums). There is another short piece at [25]. The French and Catalan articles also look to have detailed information about the band, both citing the offline source "Jean-Pierre Thiollet, « La Potinière : "Bratsch" à quatre et en musique », Le Quotidien de Paris,‎ 2 juillet 1981." (that I don't have access to) among others. Based on everything I'm seeing, I strongly suspect that most of the sources about this band whose peak popularity was pre-internet and who seem to have principally toured in continental Europe are unsurprisingly offline and not in English. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it should be kept based on what Thryduulf posted. In addition, if they toured more than 2 countires, then it meets WP:MUSICBIO.Zeddedm (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know whether they toured all these countries, but the French and Catalan articles state they have performed in, at least, France (~650 concerts), Germany (~240), Switzerland (~80), Canada (~50), Ukraine, Turkey, Spain, Greece and Armenia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the non-english sources identified above they also have a staff written bio at AllMusic here and four staff written album reviews. Passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smokeasac[edit]

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

Most of Smokeasca's coverage seems to be inherited from the fact he produced and wrote for Lil Peep. Either way seems to be a case of lacking WP:SIGCOV and certainly doesn't satisfy WP:NBIO either in its current state or based on a search of sources >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do the Billboard piece and the NYT article in the article not count? I pulled up the Billboard one in Google and was going to cite it here but it's already been used. This in GQ [26]. Not substantial coverage but enough put together to !keep ? Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on my source analysis above, and seemingly lack of anyone else's opinion in the debate. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 1 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selina Unamba[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added sources. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries." This purge of Oceanian sportspeople really looks like WP:BIAS (and it looks worse when you notice which Oceanian countries are being targeted). It undermines the utility and the credibility of Wikipedia as an institution. --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman: Per IdiotSavant above. Clearly significant figure in PNG womens and international football who helped Papua New Guinea women win Papua New Guinea's only major trophy, the 2022 OFC Women's Cup. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing changes for me, unless there is a policy other than BIAS that confirms this overrides GNG? Giant Snowman 08:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sourcing and above comments. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

≠

Delte If biography of Kendall Velox is nominated for drletion despite coverage in four print books and 63 international appearances for national team. Then sadly Selina Unamba must go too. Or that closer of the discussions will use wp:common sense and use wo:not !voting. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawid2009:, Selina Unamba has sources and is clearly significant figure in PNG womens and international football who helped Papua New Guinea women win Papua New Guinea's only major trophy, the 2022 OFC Women's Cup. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 12:48, 6 September 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage; sourced only to topo map and GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: there is a group of articles that were nominated along with this one:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming) - closed as keep, and challenged Wikipedia:Deletion review#Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Man Lake - closed as keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Bear Lake - closed as keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) - closed as keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirque Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) - closed as keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyote Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) - closed as keep

- Added updates re outcomes & single challenge Atsme 💬 📧 16:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist. dlthewave prodded this article less than a week ago and now sends it to Afd before I even have had some time to make updates to it.--MONGO (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added further details which meet GEOLAND I believe.--MONGO (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no question that it passes N, but thanks for adding more info, MONGO. An admin respectfully requested that the nom stop prodding and nomming. We are being inundated apparently based on the nom's misinterpretation of WP:NEXIST and WP:GEO which clearly apply here. Atsme 💬 📧 13:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a lake which passes our WP:GEOLAND. Gentle reminder to WP:BEFORE Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge (see comment below)) per WP:GEOLAND, which says in the relevant section: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.. It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park and that is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. To be clear, those who say it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND and that the nom. should have considered WP:BEFORE have not provided any sources that demonstrate that notability. The fact it sits in a national park does not confer automatic notability. Per WP:GEOLAND there is insufficient verifiable information for an encylopaedic article and this stub should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Consider that you may be misinterpreting the GEO guideline. It is understandable because our guidelines, policies and essays are all confoundingly contradictory at times. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GEOLAND, which most editors hold to override the WP:GNG. Consider WP:GAZETTEER; this article is appropriate for a encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I also find a few mentions, which perhaps don't add up to GNG but may be used for further sourcing:
- "Park lake named to honor Dudley Hayden". Jackson Hole News. 10 December 1970. Retrieved 27 August 2022. Continued at [27]
- "Looking back: 30 years ago". The Jackson Hole Guide. 6 December 2000. Retrieved 27 August 2022.

There are a couple smaller entries. Again, borderline on WP:GNG, but there are no verifiability concerns here. I entreat the nom to withdraw their other nominations, as it's a little tiring for me to conduct six more searches. Ovinus (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If an article such as List of lakes in Grand Teton National Park existed, would anyone here be opposed to merging this article into it? I am neutral. Ovinus (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus: I am ok with the idea of the list in addition to keeping the individual lake articles. That way if there is ever a future new consensus we have a target for redirect. Brilliant Lightburst (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ONly objection I have is the vast majority of lists consist of less information than these stubs had to begin with and are worse as far as providing anything of knowledge.--MONGO (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend waiting until I get the research back from Stan Klassen Research Center - Jackson Hole Historical Society & Museum (jacksonholehistory.org), and have had time to research other avenues, such as Wyoming Game & Fish Dept., USF&WS, USGS, NOAA, and NPS. Atsme 💬 📧 02:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out we have a list article already: List of lakes of Wyoming although none of these lakes are on it. However my suggestion for how these be reworked was really about more than just a list article, where existence is noted but little more can be said. I would think there was enough significant coverage for an article "Lakes of Grand Teton National Park", which would be more than a list as you could have sections on geology or hydrology, or a broader discussion about them as a group. Information could be expanded out from this section [28] as well as the following glaciation section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added – a bit more historic information. WP:NEXIST Atsme 💬 📧 12:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks to the closer for relisting this for fuller discussion and to User:Atsme for finding and adding the newspaper article about the naming of Dudley lake. On the question of notability, and particularly whether this meets WP:GEOLAND, I do not believe that a reference about how the lake was named demonstrated WP:SIGCOV. All lakes got named somehow but that in itself does not demonstrate, per WP:GEOLAND that there is sufficient information for an encylopaedic article. There is information, yes, but GEOLAND specifically speaks of enough information to write an encyclopaedic artice. Merely stating WP:NEXIST is not relevant as I have repeatedly stated that sources don't have to be in an article to show that it is notable, but evidence that sufficient information exists somewhere is required to demonstrate this.

Yet I have a quandry here, because in general I am very loathe to delete any actual useful (and reliable/true) information from Wikipedia, and the information about the naming is itself useful/of some interest. I would normally suggest merge at this point, but the problem has been that we do not have a suitable merge target. The naming of the lake would be clearly relevant to an article about Dudley Hayden, but as the red link here shows, there is not enough information to show WP:SIGCOV for an article about him, either. So we can't merge it there.

The other target I have repeatedly suggested is an article that goes into detail about the lakes of this national park. Not just a list but an article. The lakes are significant as a group, because they are largely alpine glacial lakes in pristine wilderness with some interesting features. The geology and prehistory are interesting to me at least, and they are interesting for leisure and recreational reasons. I have said I think such an article would be better than all these tiny stubs, but we don't have one. Well, we didn't. I have just spent some time creating Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. My view is that this information could be preserved in that article in a section that looks at the history of the named lakes.

However, I have not pre-empted this discussion by copying in that information (or rather, if you edit it, you will see I did copy it in in a comment just to give an idea where I would put it, although I am thinking some of the named lakes can be taken together under a single heading). Lots to think about there, and indeed, maybe you will throw up your hands in horror and say that we can't possibly do it that way, in which case the Lakes article can develop along the lines of geology, history and glaciology and all the stuff that makes for an article that I would find really interesting! However, I do hope that we can move towards a consensus that this article is, in fact, a good merge target for the small amount of information we have on various of these lakes. It can also be a parent article to any of the lake articles that are significant (noting that Grand Teton National Park does not contain links to all of these).

On this basis I am changing my own view from delete to merge to Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot understand what is gained by copy pasting 18K bits of text from an FA to a daughter article.--MONGO (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a copy and paste. There is new information in there, and soon will be more. The reason for expanding information out into new articles is to allow the articles to be expanded in a manner that would be undue in the parent. But by all means nominate it at AfD if you think it should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should probably move this discussion to the article TP, and let this AfD close because this article clearly passes GEOLAND. Anything beyond reasons delete or keep per our PAGs should go to the article TP, and let article creators provide input, if they so choose. Let's not make it overly difficult for the closer to find what they need in order to do a proper close of this AfD. Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like you I thought that anything beyond delete or keep should be discussed on article talk pages (and thought I had been told that by a closer in the past) but I was recently informed by an AfD closer that merge is indeed a valid AfD outcome, and that is confirmed by WP:AFDFORMAT. So the question of merge is pertinent here. Article creators are here too, so I would be grateful if you would consider my arguments above. You do repeat your view that this passes GEOLAND, but I do not see an answer as to how it passes the text of WP:GEOLAND which says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Applied sources are more than sufficent by quantity and quality to meet both GNG and GEOLAND. Arguments to delete or merge are as unpersuasive as process-based discussion. This isn't close. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm iffy on if it meets WP:GNG, but WP:GEOLAND says Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. In this example, while the article is still stubby, it has decent, verifiable info on its history and topography for a partially encyclopedic article (P.S. while it seems to be a stub, somehow Rater says it's 52% a start class article). VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 5 September 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. There is consensus to keep a standalone page about this topic, but there isn't clear consensus as to what its title should be. Given that sources have been produced that a priori would count toward GNG, any persuasive argument to delete would have needed to engage with these sources and show evidence for why they should not be considered evidence of notability. The "delete" opinions here do not do this, and largely rely on cursory or off-topic argumentation. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist antisemitism[edit]

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

"Zionist antisemitism"? Not a single scholarly source discusses this topic, see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22zionist+anti+semitism%22+or+%22zionist+antisemitism%22++or+%22zionist+anti-semitism%22+-%22anti-Zionism%22&btnG=

The sources cherry-pick "antisemitic Zionists" from google books for instance ref https://books.google.co.il/books?id=GHfggnggtNcC&pg=PA79&dq=%22antisemitic+Zionists%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22antisemitic%20Zionists%22&f=false, sources about anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Infinity Knight From what I can see, there are multiple references to Zionist antisemitism, pro-Zionist antisemitism, Christian Zionist antisemitism, etc:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Zionist+antisemitism%22+-%22anti-Zionist+antisemitism%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Zionist+anti-semitism%22+-%22anti-Zionist+anti-semitism%22&btnG=

There are also multiple references to "antisemitic Zionism"/"anti-semitic Zionism" or to "antisemitic Zionists":

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22antisemitic+Zionism%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22anti-semitic+Zionism%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22antisemitic+Zionists%22&btnG=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22anti-semitic+Zionists%22&btnG= Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this concept clearly has enough circulation to pass notability. The article needs improvement, not deletion. It might even be appropriate to change the title to "Zionism by anti-semites" or something like that. Chagropango (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:LaundryPizza03 Can the discussion also be listed at WikiProject Palestine and WikiProject Jewish history? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bohemian Baltimore and LaundryPizza03, nomination seems to have neglected any WP:BEFORE at all and instead just claims no sources exist when they clearly do. nableezy - 14:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't leave a !vote. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry, meant Chagropango, messed up copying signature. nableezy - 14:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know about anyone else, but this looks notable enough for inclusion to me. user:skullovitch (Sorry, but this is covered by WP:A/I/PIA and requires extended confirmed to participate. nableezy - 15:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. This article is a very alternative way of writing about Christian Zionism, or small portions of Christian Zionism. The article relies heavily on anti-Zionist organizations, like the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website to make collect its tendentious points. It also collects every instance, like Paraguay, Poland, and Norway in which an anti-Semite supported Israel under the false label of Zionism. Alfredo Stroessner was not a Zionist, but he is presented as one here. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 08:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:לילך5 The article is not only about Christian Zionism. It is also about the state-sanctioned antisemitism of the Israeli government, the antisemitism of major Zionist groups in the diaspora (the ADL, AIPAC, and DMFI have all recently been accused of antisemitism), the antisemitism of right-wing nationalists who may not be Christian at all, etc. You dismiss Jewish anti-Zionist groups, but give no reason. Should their perspective be erased because you don't agree with it? All of the "tendentious points" in the article are sourced, based on what other people have asserted, but you seem to dislike the opinions in the sources. Is that a justifiable reason for deletion? You declare antisemitic Zionists as using a "false label of Zionism", but that is your opinion. If someone declares themselves both a Zionist and an antisemite, as people like Richard Spencer explicitly do, why do you become the expert who gets to declare them "false" Zionists? There seems to be some sort of dubious assumption here that "good" people are real Zionists and "bad" people are fake Zionists. Why should Wikipedia choose your opinion over theirs or over observers who have called them Zionist antisemites? Whether or not Stroessner was personally a Zionist is irrelevant, because critics of Israel's dealings in Latin America are also criticizing the Zionist antisemitism of the Israeli government itself. The section on Poland explictly mentions that the Bund ran campaigns denouncing what it called "antisemitic Zionism", so I'm not even sure how that section is debatable. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "state-sanctioned antisemitism of the Israeli government" is particularly off topic, and contains laughable claims such as Jacobo Timerman being arrested by Nazis. Timerman left Europe before the Nazi's rise, lived in Argentina, and later made Aliyah to Israel, he was never persecuted by any Nazi regime. The entire section is about dealings between Israeli entities and foreign actors who may or may not be antisemitic. This includes claims by far left groups in the "Rights Groups Demand Israel Stop Arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine" piece as sourcing. This article contains a collection of criticisms of Zionism or the Israeli government. It has very little to do with antisemitism or Zionism. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:לילך5 Scrubbing all mention of Israeli antisemitism as "particularly off topic" is convenient to protecting the Israeli state from critique and bolstering the Zionist POV. And if Christian Zionists and right-wing European nationalists are false Zionists, then it implies that only Jews are real Zionists. This strikes me as a dangerously antisemitic conflation of Jews with Zionism. The section on Jacobo Timerman can be cleaned up to be more precise. He was certainly tortured by Argentine Nazis while in prison. The criticism of Israeli support for antisemites (and the social effects this had on the diaspora) has everything to do with antisemitism. When the Zionist establishment was silent about his persecution, Jacobo Timerman compared them to the Judenrat. In Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number, Timerman writes about the Nazi ideology of his torturers and how they hung pictures of Hitler on the walls, and he refers to them as "Nazis", "Argentine Nazi ideologues", and the "heart of Nazi operations in Argentina". Ramón Camps, one of his torturers, was certainly a Nazi ideologue and Nazi ideology circulated widely through Argentina's military and security forces. The idea that critics of Israel's arming of antisemites aren't objecting to antisemitism is laughable. When people critique Israel for arming murderously antisemitic Latin American dictatorships, that doesn't count as a critique of Israeli-backed antisemitism? I would argue that, yes, giving Uzis to Nazis who kill Jews is in fact antisemitic. Even when Israel does it. The "collection of criticisms" of the Israeli government are all related to Israel supporting, arming, and funding specifically antisemites or antisemitic regimes. You refer to the Israeli human rights activists as "far left". Which Israeli groups or Israeli individuals are you referring to and how do they count as "far left"? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absurd subject made up to attack Zionism using fringe claims. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Triggerhippie4 This sounds like "I just don't like it". Many people would consider "new antisemitism" to be an absurd neologism coined to demonize anti-Zionists, and yet the article remains, because sources exist that attest to it. Sources attest to the existence of Zionist antisemitism, so the article should stay. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt even begin to resemble a valid deletion rationale, much like most of the other delete votes. You not liking the subject is emphatically not a concern for Wikipedia. nableezy - 14:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: The phenomenon of antisemites supporting Israel (in one way or another) has been noted in enough mainstream sources that I say keep, with the caveat that the article should be renamed to something like "Pro-Zionist antisemitism". Some examples of this usage:

"Pro-Zionist right-wing antisemitism continues to threaten Jewish lives in the US and Europe. ... It is high time that pro-Zionist US and European Jewish organisations issue special reports on pro-Zionist antisemitism." (Joseph Massad, [29])
"There's a dangerous and popular fashion in Europe to be antisemitic and pro-Zionist at the same time" (Slavoj Žižek, [30])
"Trump, however, has inverted this formula by positioning himself as a pro-Zionist anti-Semite." (Masha Gessen, [31])
"Throughout Europe most major racist parties are antisemitic, Islamophobic and pro-Zionist." (Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, [32])

Alternatively "Antisemitism among supporters of Israel". That these people are "Zionists" is not something that should be taken at face value. –Ploni (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ploni What exactly is the difference between a Zionist and a pro-Zionist? That seems like a distinction without a difference. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore: Supporting Israel or Zionists (financially, legislatively, etc.) does in itself not mean one is a member of the Zionist movement. It's a subtle difference, admittedly. I imagine most Zionists would hold that antisemitism is fundamentally incompatible with Zionism, which is centred around belief in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and statehood, while some anti-Zionists have argued otherwise. Calling the article "Pro-Zionist antisemitism", "Antisemitism among supporters of Israel", "Antisemitic supporters of Zionism", or "Antisemitic supporters of Israel" would avoid taking a stance on this controversial question. –Ploni (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could be construed as a dog whistle for anti-Zionism, supposedly linking the movement to nefarious things like Anti-Semitism, based on an absurdly tiny, unhinged group. We can do it to anyone. Archway (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Archwayh If we only include the Zionist perspective and not the anti-Zionist perspective, it suggests that only Zionist perspectives (well-attested to here) are acceptable on Wikipedia and that anti-Zionist perspectives are to be censored and scrubbed from mention. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very limited and cautious Merge and redirect, to Christian Zionism. My first thought is that this is about the antisemitic wing of Christian Zionism in slightly obfuscated form and that it should be covered there. In fact, I am utterly shocked to see that it isn't covered there already given that it is well known that some of the more extreme Christian Zionists see Jews as nothing more than disposable pawns in their idiotic plan to trigger the apocalypse. We don't want a POVFORK with two articles covering the same topic in different ways. Trouble is that the content here is very variable but far more bad than good. It's overblown, and very POV, so merging it will involve a lot of careful rewriting to eliminate the excessive stuff and give the rest a NPOV. I suggest creating a section within Christian Zionism called Antisemitism within Christian Zionism, or something like that, to make it clear that this does not automatically include all Christian Zionists. If the consensus is that I am wrong here, and that this really is a separate topic from Christian Zionism, then my second thought is to agree with Ploni and suggest a rename to something like Antisemitism among supporters of Israel although that would have to be coupled with a massive dose of TNT to get rid of all the POV and overcoverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal I would note that the article isn't just about Christian Zionists. It also talks about the antisemitism of right-wing nationalists (who may be secular or otherwise non-Christian), the antisemitism of Jewish Zionists, and the state-sanctioned antisemitism of the Israeli government. When people criticize the antisemitism inherent to Israeli collaborations with right-wing nationalists and Christian Zionists, yes they are criticizing nationalist antisemitism and Christian antisemitism, but there is also a criticism of state-supported Israeli antisemitism as well. There's also an understanding on the Jewish left that Zionist orgs like ADL, AIPAC, Democratic Majority for Israel, etc have at times attacked Jewish anti-Zionists in ways that are antisemitic and draw on antisemitic stereotypes (examples would be AIPAC leaning into George Soros conspiracies or DMFI attacking Sara Jacobs for being too rich). Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (per keep arguments) but Rename the article to Pro-Zionist antisemitism as Ploni proposed. (Thanks Ploni, that’s better in my humble opinion.) - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article should exist if there are academic sources that: first, establish this as a legitimate subject meeting notability standards, and second, establish that it is distinct from the ideas and history of Christian Zionism. Barring that, I would support a merge with Christian Zionism. The current sourcing on the article is largely WP:PARTISAN, which on their own might not be enough to establish notability and should replaced with superior sources when possible. If it is dependent on these sources, then that is probably a good sign the article does not reflect an academic consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Thebiguglyalien The article mentions the antisemitism of the Israeli government, the antisemitism of Zionist organizations, the antisemitism of European nationalists, etc. It isn't just about Christian Zionism. By the way, the sourcing for the "New antisemitism" article is largely "partisan", but it seems that Zionist partisanship doesn't fall under the same scrutiny. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When Zionism first came on to the world stage a century ago with the Balfour Declaration it was denounced as anti-semitic by many influential British Jews. See Balfour Declaration#Rights and political status of Jews in other countries. Balfour himself is considered by many scholars to have been antisemitic - a decade earlier as Prime Minister he had pushed through the Aliens Act 1905, which sought to keep Jews out of Britain. Many authors have written on this, such as Professor Gilbert Achcar:

Achcar, Gilbert (2017-11-02). "Zionism, anti-semitism, and the Balfour Declaration". openDemocracy.

Today, the antisemitism underlying evangelical Zionism is widely reported. Notably the recent article by Dr. S. Jonathon O’Donnell:

O’Donnell, S. Jonathon (2020-01-23). "Antisemitism under erasure: Christian Zionist anti-globalism and the refusal of cohabitation". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 44 (1). Informa UK Limited: 39–57. doi:10.1080/01419870.2019.1704042. ISSN 0141-9870.

Some scholars have proposed that this link has always been there, such as Professor Joseph Massad:

Massad, Joseph (2019-05-15). "Pro-Zionism and antisemitism are inseparable, and always have been". Middle East Eye.

These three sources illustrate the WP:GNG of this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to add: if the outcome of this discussion is "keep", the article needs a serious clean-up. –Ploni (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm sure that some elements of this can be saved in a keep/merge/rename scenario but most of them would require rewriting and possibly complete WP:TNT, hence the cautious nature of my merge !vote. DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to note the repeated bashing of the Jewish left (the "fringe" "tendentious" "far left"). I would note this as an example of a right-wing bias. But I would also note that there's a long history of demonizing the Jewish left, including a history in the United States, in ways that I believe are overtly or implicitly antisemitic. This antisemitic, anti-left demonization has been promoted both by non-Jews (See: "Zionism versus Bolshevism", Churchill's antisemitic essay against the Jewish left) as well as by some right-wing Jews (See: AJC celebrating the execution of the Rosenbergs). The popular stereotype of the Jewish left is often constructed along antisemitic lines - depicted as fringe, irrelevant, self-loathing, tendentious, subversive, rootless radicals - and sometimes this antisemitic construction is endorsed and promoted by Zionists. I would name AIPAC, ADL, and DMFI as examples of antisemitic Zionist groups that have attacked the Jewish left with antisemitic right-wing rhetoric. This isn't just my observation, but that of others as well. As Jacob Remes writes in The Forward, "These attacks continue the McCarthyite tradition of disrupting leftist movements by calling attention and objecting to the presence of Jews in them." Not every manifestation of antisemitism targets all Jews, some manifestations target specific Jews or Jewish groups. These are the bad Jews, who we have permission to hate and dismiss, unlike the good Jews who deserve protection from such prejudice. An implicit pulse here is that Zionists are the good Jews and Jewish leftists are the bad Jews. I identify this as a form of antisemitism, and I identify it as rooted in a history of institutional antisemitism. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This makes it sound as if the article was created as a WP:POVFORK, in which case a delete is definitely warranted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien A "POVFORK"...from what? From which "article or other page" was this supposedly "forked" from? I had originally intended on creating two articles, one for Zionist antisemitism and one for Anti-Zionist antisemitism, as the existence of both is well-attested to. But as I began to write the articles, I wasn't sure if an article on Anti-Zionist antisemitism would just be a re-hashing of the New antisemitism article or not. The existence of the "New antisemitism" article didn't occur to me when I was planning the article on Anti-Zionist antisemitism. If "New antisemitism" could be said to be a sub-set of a broader Anti-Zionist antisemitism, then I would support the creation of such an article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article largely overlaps with Christian Zionism, but it is written from a distinct POV. I don't believe it's appropriate to accuse users of antisemitism for identifying this POV and labeling it as WP:FRINGE, which it appears to be. In regard to your reply to me above, if you have an issue with the sourcing on another article, then you should address it on that article's talk page. WP:WHATABOUT arguments should not be invoked in AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Thebiguglyalien Since the article was created, I have had labels like "antisemitic", "tendentious", "far left", "fringe", etc. used against me. But the moment that I object, and question whether some of this rhetoric is itself antisemitic, I become the problem. The inappropriate person. I can be portrayed as an antisemite and a kook, but my objection to this characterization is inappropriate, because the Zionist perspective is apparently the only appropriate view. They can identify my supposed POV as whatever they like using whichever pejoratives, but I'm not supposed to question this? This is a double standard that I strenuously object to. It isn't fair. It implies that their opinion on antisemitism is good, whereas my opinion on antisemitism is bad. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please refrain from using WP:WHATABOUT arguments. If you take issue with the conduct of other users, there are proper places to resolve that. In regard to the article, you should not be using "your opinion" on a subject to form the basis of an article's existence. The more I look at this article, the more that it seems to be a WP:SYNTHESIS rather than an accepted academic subject (which, as I said above, is the criteria that should be used to determine whether it is kept). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Thebiguglyalien How is the article "original research" when there are in fact academic sources that discuss antisemitism within Zionism? Why are those sources to be disregarded? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the section on synthesis. Combining examples from different sources to produce your own conclusion is original research. As has been said several times in this discussion, the subject of this article does not appear to be an accepted subject of academic research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the sources I posted above, not all pro-zionist antisemitism is from Christian fundamentalists (i.e. Christian Zionism). Today that is the focus of most media covering the topic, because of the current political importance of Evangelicals in the US, but historically there were other motivations. British (and American) nationalist desires to redirect emigration out of Eastern Europe were one, per the example of Balfour above. Similar examples come from Nazi Germany, notably the Haavara Agreement. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile One unspoken assumption here seems to be that Zionists are Jews and thus gentile Zionists are not really Zionists, merely "pro-Zionists", a different category of person. I do question the conflation of Jews with Zionists. But even if we narrowed an analysis of Zionist antisemitism down to merely "pro-Zionist antisemitic" non-Jews, like you said above, that group includes more people than just Evangelicals in the US. I'm baffled by the comments saying the article only mentions Christian Zionists, while ignoring the stuff about nationalist antisemitism. The nationalist aspect of Zionist antisemitism admittedly needs more and better sources, but it is nonetheless obviously attested to (the sources about Christian Zionism were easier to find because they are more contemporary). You could also argue that the antisemitism within Trumpism embodies both Christian Zionist antisemitism and nationalist antisemitism at the same time. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. One problem underlying these misunderstandings is a conflation between Christian Zionism and non-Jewish Zionism by nominally Christian people. Many people don't realize that "Christian Zionism" is a specific reglious belief, not a synonym for Zionists-who-happen-to-be-Christians. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:45, 5 September 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 2001: A Space Odyssey. Clear consensus against a standalone article, redirect should not be reversed without substantial new evidence of standalone notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clavius Base[edit]

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

Semi-procedural nomination, as this should qualify for WP:G4 (speedy delation of recreated content, related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbiter stuff - assuming this was recreated; it's plausible the current article is about a different entity). Anyway, The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Pinging User:Shirt58 who tried to start an AFD but somehow didn't finish. The best WP:PRESERVE option could be redirecting this to Space Odyssey but that article doesn't mention this location, so it could violate MOS:EGG... Ps. I'll add that the entry is effectively unreferenced except a quote of uknown origin, and the 'Other uses' section is ORish likely violating WP:IPC too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A minor fictional location with no real coverage in reliable sources. The location is not even a particularly important part of the plots of either the book or movie (if I'm remembering correctly, it is simply the base that Dr. Floyd stops at on his way to investigate the Tycho monolith and has no role in the plot beyond that), and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that discuss or mention it outside of recaps of that part of the plot. The plot summaries in our articles on both the book and the movie do mention it, so either could work as a potential Redirect target. But, as this article has no secondary sources, and some of the portions seem like pure WP:OR, it should not be retained even if a Redirect is deemed useful. Rorshacma (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2001: A Space Odyssey, rather than the franchise, because it is most prominently featured in the first book/movie, and there's nothing about locations in Space Odyssey. Merging might be reasonable as well. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the coverage doesn't justify a stand-alone article according to the WP:GNG. A redirect may be valid as a search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:37, 6 September 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. ✗plicit 11:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schunk[edit]

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

All 3 sources are primary, not finding sources to satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG ASUKITE 18:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. ASUKITE 18:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-08 move to → Draft:Move/SCHUNK ← 2008-05 move to → SCHUNK

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 1 September 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 Draftify. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mor Luang[edit]

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

Probably not a notable series.

I cannot read Thai, but Google Translate makes it clear that ref #1 and #2 are barely-hidden press releases and ref #3 is an interview. I cannot find anything that resembles an independent review in English, but obviously a Thai-language search would have a better chance of success.

Pinging Danidamiobi who accepted the article at AfC in case they saw something I did not. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 11:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi Tigran. Thanks for pinging me. It looked quite insignificant to me as well but I felt I could be having some bias since it was not in my language and there Thai cinema may not have so much coverage of their cinema. Why I had accepted the article was specifically because the cast consisted of notable actors whose articles already wikilinked the movie.

On a second thought, this article might be moved to draft or deleted as it weakly meets WP:FUTURE. That's all I can say and I'll scrutinize drafts more carefully than I have always done. Danidamiobi (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's probably WP:TOOSOON, since the drama is still under production, but it seems to be the sort of show that would generate plenty of buzz. Thai entertainment reporting always leans heavily into PR material, so even with the actually popular works it's still quite hard to judge. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this article it will come into use when this television series airs, as it's a notable production. 2600:1011:A109:7454:E534:F2B6:B247:CE7B (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify at least until it is released. Consensus doesn't seem to be developing toward keeping or deleting; taking it back to draft would satisfy most parties' concerns. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 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 Monopoly (game). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Express Monopoly[edit]

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

This is a minor, non-notable card game Monopoly variant. It cites a single ref, which is the rules (not independent nor SIGCOV) and a link to BoardGameGeek, which is a user-generated database that is unreliable. No ref at all, the game only has 126 ratings on BGG, which also lacks any reliable links. Because of no RS whatsoever, this could be a PROD candidate, but I'm pinging Piotrus, BOZ and Guinness323 for possible refs they can find. VickKiang (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Parker Brothers if source is found to allow merging/mentioning. I wonder if we should have a List of Parker Brothers games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it's already mentioned at Monopoly (game) so that would be a better place to merge/redirect. BOZ (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with BOZ - its already listed with a small description at Monopoly (game)#Spin-offs, so if a merge/redirect is deemed appropriate, that would be the proper target. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With no RS, I'm not sure what to merge, so a redirect seems sensible. VickKiang (talk) 00:28, 2 September 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 redirect to Czech Republic men's national handball team. Due to lack of participation, this is a "soft" decision and the redirect can be undone if desired, followed by discussion on the article's talk page or possibly another AfD. Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Solák[edit]

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

I propose BLARing this page to Czech Republic men's national handball team, since the first source (out of two) is dead, and the other a trivial mention of Solák place on the Czech squad. I am unable to find other sources that are not player profile-like pages. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball and Czech Republic. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found an interview here but not sure if enough and a small article when signing a new deal. Not sure if enough and if not, then a redirect would work i guess. Not too much on a side in this case. Kante4 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:29, 1 September 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. Nominated by a confirmed, blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smolasty[edit]

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

~~The Majority of sources are lists of his works. No significant coverage. Fails gng DavidEfraim (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland. DavidEfraim (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. According to pl wiki, many of his albums received gold, platinium and diamond certificates (some of this info is present in our article, too). This means he meets WP:MUSICBIO#3, and I think he also meets #2 ("The album reached number 7 on the list of fifty best-selling albums in Poland.") and #8 (he also was nominated for Fryderyk although he didn't win). While I am not seeing any reliable SIGCOV, there's plenty of Polish language low quality (for me, DAILYMAIL celebrity gossip, etc.) news on celebrity and music portals about him ([33], [34], [35], [36]). I don't care about this topic to dig through this Instagram-like mess to see if something does provide reliable SIGCOV, but the point is, MUSICBIO appears met.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 1 September 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 Moot. Being handled editorially as discussed below and with agreement of all parties. Star Mississippi 02:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Football on ABC personalities[edit]

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

Completing a six-article AfD on behalf of an IP. At the talk page, the IP left this rationale for deletion:

Not only are there too many of them, but most of these articles are redundant with ESPN College Football on ABC, List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams, and ESPN College Football. I tried merging various articles into the latter two but got radio silence, therefore deleting them is the next best option.

Also included by the nominator are

List of ESPN College Football personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ESPNU College Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ESPN College Football Thursday Primetime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ESPN College Football Saturday Primetime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saturday Night Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and American football. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is bundling way too many different issues here, although I appreciate User:Sammi Brie was just following the IP's directions. Half of this is a LISTN issue, and the other half is a NTV issue. I think some of these could definitely be merged/trimmed, but then the IP also throws in Saturday Night Football, which is one of the biggest sports programs in the country and is easily sourced. At risk of annoying the IP through additional bureaucracy this particular AfD won't succeed and I wonder if we should try to start a different discussion. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Start a different discussion we absolutely should. Probably on the WikiProject you mentioned on my talk page. A WikiProject I had absolutely no idea existed BTW. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How should this AfD be split up? The two lists, the three other articles...should Saturday Night Football just be withdrawn? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think, Alyo? 100.7.36.213 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best place to start would be with List of ESPN College Football personalities/List of ESPN College Football on ABC personalities/List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams. There has to be a way to trim/merge those, and I'm happy to start a discussion with you on the CFB project talk page. If that doesn't go anywhere, we can come right back to AfD. I don't think you're going to be able to get consensus to delete ESPN College Football Thursday Primetime/ESPN College Football Saturday Primetime/Saturday Night Football, as those are major national television broadcasts, but I also don't want to predetermine the outcome of anything here just because I say so. Maybe we reopen your merge proposal of Saturday Primetime and Thursday Primetime into ESPN College Football? Either way, like I said, definitely agree with you that the lists of personalities should change. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's reasonable arguments for merging various of these things together, but I agree with the above discussion that Saturday Night Football shuld very clearly be unbundled from this. matt91486 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've striked it. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the deletion tag on the article, so there are now two lists and three other articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep As an inappropriate and poorly done bundling of only tangentially related articles. No prejudice against speedily renominating them in a more appropriate fashion. Smartyllama (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Liz: I think this should just be procedurally closed instead of relisting again. The CFB project is aware of the issue, and I think there's interest in merging the various articles, but this AfD is just standing in the way. Mackensen (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this as well, having merely completed the IP's nomination. If an AfD of this complexity is impeding project-level consensus, is poorly constructed, etc., then it's probably worth ending. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what is the policy basis for closing this discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I think we have a consensus (both of the editors involved as nominators, plus four other commenters) for a procedural close/"keep and allow other merge discussions about these same articles to continue". As of now, no editor is advocating deletion, and based on two relistings that seems unlikely to change? It's nearly impossible to have discussions about all of these four/seven articles in the same space, as they deal with different notability requirements (lists vs articles) and will likely involve different merge discussions. So if you want a specific policy to justify a close, I think this nomination fails WP:BUNDLE. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:26, 2 September 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 Pirate Party Germany#History. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christof Leng[edit]

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

Just not enough notability (fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and academics) for a BLP. A search did not produce any significant and independant coverage. User profiles, personal homepages, nor LinkedIn advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politics. Otr500 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD was malformed and has been fixed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to a redirect as well,, as the below editor suggests. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he were leader of the Pirate Party, I would suggest redirecting to the article for the Pirate Party of Germany. However, the article just mentions he's a founding member. Not a sufficient claim for notability. Bkissin (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pirate Party of Germany. Whoops, I didn't read it clearly. It looks like he was the party's first leader. Still not enough to meet GNG or warrant a separate article. Just include in the article for the Party. Bkissin (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pirate Party of Germany#History, per Bkissin. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NPROF, and WP:GNG. Not independently notable, but warrants a redirect to the History section of the Pirate Party of Germany page where he is referenced as a former party leader. Sal2100 (talk) 19:36, 1 September 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. There may be a need for cleanup, but there is consensus that the topic is viable for a standalone list. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of campaign settings[edit]

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

This is effectively a poorly referenced fork of List of role-playing games, but with an ORish split by genre (fantasy, sci-fi, etc.) instead of alphabetical. I suggest redirecting (given next to no footnotes, there's very little to merge). While one can argue that the concept of fantasy setting and role-playing game is not the same, given the very poor state of campaign setting which I tried to reference now a bit (and where I cannot find any refs for the typology used in the list discussed, i.e. the split into fantasy, sf, etc. settings), I'd argue that we will be better off with one list of RPGs rather than this poorly defined and underreferenced fork. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. Fails WP:GNG or WP:LISTN, the list is WP:OR that fails WP:V, with lack of refs, we could technically redirect this to Role-playing games or List of tabletop role-playing games, but the first is a poor target, the second also has issues per maintenance tags... VickKiang (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang How about my proposed idea of redirecting this to the List of tabletop role-playing games? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but that article is also debatable on if it meets WP:LISTN or WP:GNG, with cleanup tags that it might be indiscriminate. VickKiang (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep. From LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability" This is pretty darn useful for navigational purposes. In addition I know that there are sources on the idea of campaign settings. I'll have to look later (at work), but @BOZ: or @Webwarlock: can probably find sources. Hobit (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit How is having a dupliate list useful for anything? Having none could be a problem. Having a fork is always bad. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm following your question. Campaign settings are different than role-playing games, yes? I know you know that, but I'm struggling to understand your viewpoint that one is a fork of the other. Some games have many settings and (much less commonly) there are some settings that are supported by multiple different games. And some settings that are rules independent. Sorry, I think I'm missing something, help? Hobit (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit, but failing that I would think we can merge perhaps to Campaign setting. BOZ (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only the referenced material. There is possible OR there, with stuff being incluced on the list with no justification. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This isn't a list of campaign settings, it's a list of role-playing games organized by genre, and one column of the table (often incomplete) happens to be the setting location. It could be merged to List of tabletop role-playing games somehow, which also has a setting column, or very, very selectively in prose form to campaign setting, but I don't see any basis to keep the current list under this name. Since few of the settings themselves are independently notable, this does not serve any navigational purpose that the main list of RPGs that can link them in the same way does not or cannot. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hobit KitHutch (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my view Role-playing game and campaign setting are both notable topics in their own right, so this is not a WP:CONTENTFORK. Just look at the prominent examples of Dungeons & Dragons - one game, but many settings - and the Star Wars universe - one setting which was translated into multiple game systems. Sure there will be many cases where one game has one setting, but that duplication does not diminish the value of both lists for navigation: Someone who's interested in rule systems will browse the List of role-playing games, someone interested in game worlds will use our list here. A respective mention at See also will also direct users further as need be. I do think this list has a number of issues, but clean-up is the solution to that, not deletion. All that said, I am not fundamentally opposed to merging those two lists together if done properly. This would, however, be signficantly more work than cleaning up our list here: As Reywas92 has said, there is a setting column at List of role-playing games. But currently it is used to spell out the genre of each game, rather than the name of the setting. So this would need to changed/expanded/added throughout in order to provide the combined information we have in both lists. Daranios (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a list of substantially notable entries does not itself need to be referenced. I can see cleanup, but within the tabled list entries, there are clearly navigational uses. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly acceptable list. Not the same as List of role-playing games at all. Setting and game are not the same thing. Many games are tied to a particular setting, but many are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 7 September 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 Tempe Streetcar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Rd/Apache Blvd Station[edit]

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

Non-notable streetcar stop. The station is literally two seats and a small shelter. This does not justify a standalone article. I could not find any significant coverage either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Arizona. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, even in the pre train station RfC era stops on streetcar lines were typically not given the "presumed notable" treatment. I would of said redirect, but the station is called "Rural/Apache Blvd" on the route map so the current title would not be the expected search term. Jumpytoo Talk 06:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (also possible SEARCH TERM) to Tempe Streetcar, of which it is a station and where relevent information can be found. Djflem (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tempe Streetcar, still a plausible search term. MB 17:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tempe Streetcar: per above. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:43, 7 September 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 23:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maysam Hasanzadeh[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NCREATIVE. A number of film credits and awards but unclear if any are notable. KH-1 (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. Justi yaya 10:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seeing as these awards aren't worth much. George Huntley (talk) 15:30, 2 September 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!} 01:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sotillo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:59, 2 September 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!} 01:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Prospere[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched using various terms and did a scan of St Luician newspapers. I can find nothing but the occasional trivial mention. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:28, 3 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberwoods[edit]

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

No significant coverage from secondary sources. The article relies almost entirely on websites run by the subject of the article. There are multiple secondary sources cited, but it's for having links that point to Lumberwoods, not coverage of it. hinnk (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete endorse the deletion reason provided. Jahaza (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Save adding additional sources should not be an issue. I'll go ahead and start gathering these, thanks for your input. Gumberoo (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not meet the criteria for deletion as outline by Wikipedia. With regards to sources, attempts must first be made to find reliable sources and verify them. However, it is questionable that such steps were taken prior to nominating the article for deletion. A more-citations-needed notice was never placed on the article and, after some brief and initial research, there appears a non-negligible number of resources which, at least, cite Lumberwoods if not discuss it further. The landing page for Lumberwoods lists over twenty podcasts that cite it and several well-known and established websites. Most of the links to which do appear to check out. As well, a simple Google Book search shows at least four print sources citing Lumberwoods (lumberwoods.org or lumberwoods.com): Mythical Creatures of Maine: Fantastic Beasts from Legend by Christopher Packard (2021), American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore edited by Christopher R. Fee and Jeffrey B. Webb (2016), Treasury of Folklore: Woodlands and Forests by Dee Dee Chainey and Willow Winsham (2021) and Paul Bunyan in Michigan (2015) by Jon C. Stott. Moreover, while the article could certainly be improved by the addition of secondary sources most of the information presented is pretty straightforward and nothing that appears to be of a dubious or questionable nature. Likewise, I can find little reason to question whether Lumberwoods is a virtual museum or as to its contents. These both seem readily apparent. It seems more likely than not that secondary sources can verify this, yet the absence of these at present does not warrant the article's deletion. The main difficulty rather appears that a search on Lumberwoods yields many different kinds of result making the search for secondary sources more difficult yet not impossible. Time will be needed to narrow such a search. Overall, instead I feel it best, in this case, to add more-citations-needed template and go from there. Tripodero (talk) 23:46:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to your old user page, you are the director of Lumberwoods and decided not to disclose that here or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenwood S. Sharpe. hinnk (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenwood S. Sharpe. hinnk (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being a notable institution. References seems to be the same sources from Lenwood S. Sharpe which seems to sps sources, other sundry stuff not related to proving its notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No external reviews, no coverage. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable website. All citations are to third parties that have used the website as a "source" (makes me wonder about the editorial standards of those websites!), but nothing written about the website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per scope_creep. There does not appear to be any coverage about the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:58, 7 September 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!} 00:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation in Sarawak[edit]

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

Almost entirely sourced to facebook, a total disaster of organization. If nothing else this pretty clearly merits WP:TNT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Some of the prose in this article is difficult to understand, such as "The most popular district name in Chinese are Bau (石隆門) and Batu Niah (尼亞石山)." Was there a poll about how well-liked the names of the districts were? I assume that something else was meant, but I can't guess what. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Metropolitan90 I think they might have meant "The most popular districts are called Bau and Batu Niah in Chinese" but I'm not certain. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, "Batu Niah" is not a Chinese name; it's derived from Malay according to that article. So I guess the question is whether there was a poll about how well-liked the districts themselves are (not about their names). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting rather off-topic, but such a poll in a Chinese-language medium could be what is meant (i.e. in a poll for a Chinese-language website these districts were voted the most popular) or it could I suppose reflect actual popularity with Chinese-speakers or Chinese people (i.e these districts are home to the greatest number of Chinese speakers and/or people of Chinese ethnicity). At best though these are arguments for WP:TNT not for keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY in its entirety, as it consists almost wholly of bus stop locations and destination lists. Normally I'd !vote to redirect this to Sarawak#Transportation. However, not only is Sarawak a good article with adequate encyclopedic content about the topic, but there is literally nothing in this article that can be salvaged. Epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article's sources aren't reliable enough to know that this article has correct information. It uses Facebook, Instagram, and other unreliable sources. The article is also hard to understand. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 02:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. George Huntley (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and just being legitimately unsalvageable in its current state. Not to mention that it almost (if not) entirely cites unreliable sources. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:TNT purposes and then make the redirect per Epicgenius. It is WP:ASTONISHing to see a travel guide in an article of this title. Please use Wikivoyage for this stuff instead. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:07, 7 September 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. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Thornton[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Tagged for notability since March.

Prod removed with the justification probably significant figure in Belgian football at the time, played in the Olympics which was regarded as the top worlds football competition before introduction of World Cup also definitely has off-line sources as a result BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Olympics, Belgium, and England. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a lot of coverage of him in Belgian newspapers during his lifetime and some in other sources. This is just a few examples. He seems to be a well known footballer and club official in Belgium at the time, who was remembered with a number of editorial obituaries in different newspapers when he died. In addition to playing in the Olympics he had a role in some interesting early disqualification cases in the establishment of national teams because he was a British subject (contra his participation in the Olympics for Belgium). There seems to be at least one athletic prize named after him (or offered by him and named after him?) during his lifetime. He was also remembered, if I'm reading correctly, for his role in organizing Belgian national football in Paris during the First World War. --Jahaza (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- k. (28 November 1945). "Eric Thornton n'est plus". La Dernière Heure. p. 3. Retrieved 1 September 2022.(editorial obituary)
- Mauquoi, Maurice (6 December 1930). "A propos du Challenge Général de la L.R.B.A." Le Vingtième Siècle. p. 5. Retrieved 1 September 2022.
- "Beerschot en de Belgische athletiek zwaar getroffen: De heer Eric Thornton overleden". Gazet Van Mechelen. 28 November 1945. p. 4. Retrieved 1 September 2022. (editorial obit with large photo)
- de Behault, Maurice (5 December 1945). "La belle oeuvre accomplie par M. Eric Thornton". Le Peuple. p. 3. Retrieved 1 September 2022. (column in remembrance shortly after death, same newspaper ran a very brief editorial obit on Nov. 28[37])
- Menary, Steve (2011). GB United?. Retrieved 1 September 2022.
- Cazal, Jean-Michel; Cazal, Pierre; Oreggia, Michel (1998). Hohman, Jean (ed.). L'intégrale de l'équipe de France de football, 1904-1998. p. 18. Retrieved 1 September 2022.
  (ec) Going source by source, as originally presented:
  1. Passing mention; lists a number of players, and says that they were involved in organizing Belgian football in the UK. Adds a side note that he was a generous patron for Belgian army footballers from 1914-1918, but it is still clearly not WP:SIGCOV.
  2. Passing mention; all it says is that Robert Querin offended his quests by rejecting the Anglo-Belgian goalkeeper Eric Thornton.
  3. Passing mention; all it says is that Thornton was dismissed "last Tuesday" due to the championships only being open to Belgians.
  4. If neither of can check the contents, it's not much use.
  5. Passing mention; all it says is that the ten players Belgium sent to the Paris Olympics included an Englishman, Eric Thornton.
  I'm not even sure why you presented these sources; even the most comprehensive is clearly not WP:SIGCOV? If any of the additional sources you provided do include SIGCOV, could you please provide a quote or description of that SIGCOV, as I am not willing to spend the time to go through them given the lack of coverage within your original five. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  "I am not willing to spend the time to go through them" You need to 1) AGF and 2) actually look at the sources if you want to have an opinion on them. You seem to have looked at the wrong article for number 1. I've added a different link that links directly to the issue in question, which makes it harder to find the article, but also harder to look at the wrong article from the same newspaper. I wrote out full citations for a reason, you can't just use the links and then not make sure you're at the right part of the page that loads. It's an obituary for a particular person, so it's not a passing mention. I have already provided "description of that SIGCOV" for the updated version.--Jahaza (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  You're right, I did look at the wrong article for the first one; I was looking at one from May 1945, not November. And you're right; that one does appear to be WP:SIGCOV, but one is not enough to meet WP:GNG.
  
  You need to 1) AGF and 2) actually look at the sources if you want to have an opinion on them. - I did, and that's when I found that at least three of them should never have been linked as no editor could reasonably consider them to contribute to GNG and including them despite this wastes editors time.
  
  As such, it's not unreasonable for me to be a little more sceptical of any additional sources you put forward and so in line with this could you please provide either a description beyond "editorial obit", or preferably, in line with WP:RSUE, a quote of relevant portions of the article. BilledMammal (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Partial Excerpt Gazet Van Mechelen. 28 November 1945: "Ouderen van dagen zullen zich dezen stoeren sportman, dezen pionier van de voetbal- en athletickgedachte in ons Belgunland wel herinneren. Want reeds in de jaren 1904-1905 speelde Eric Thronton in ons land en wel voor de Leopold Club van Brussel. Later is de heer Thronton naar Antwerpen overgestoken en bracht hij de Beerschotkleuren mede op het voorplan. Hij speelde alsdan als doelverdediger en heeft menigeniet-onaardige prestraties op zijn actief. Maar voetbalspelen duurt niet eeuwig en zoo zagenwe de Beerschot athletickafdeeling in de laatete twintig jaren een goweldigen sprong opwaarts maken, dank aan de moreele en materieele hulp welke de heer Thornton haar schonk. Zoo kunnen we hem als de groote bezieler betitelen van de jaarlijksche internationale meeting, welke Beerschot A.C. gaf. Zoo vondenwe het dubbelapitig als de heer Thornton ons in 1940 verliet om naar zijn vaderland terug te keeren bij hetuitbreken van den laatsen wereldoorlog. We hebben voor eenige maanden met genoegen de terugkomst van dezzen in de sport vergrijsden weldoner kunnen aankondigen. Het weerzien maakte Beerschot en alle rechtgeaarde sportmannen toch zoo gelukkig, maar nu is die groote vriend ons voor goed ontvallen.
  
  "Hij ruste zacht na een leven waarin veel goeds werd gedaan."
  
  Partial Excerpt Le Peuple 5 December 1945:
  
  "Il n'est pas il ne sera jamais trop tard pour parler d'Eric Thornton.
  
  "Sa disparition laisee un vide irremplacable.
  
  "Voila un homme, Anglais jusqu'au bout des ongles, mais qui vouait a la Belgique un amour aussi fervent que s'il avait ete un de ses enfants.
  
  "Sa vie durant, il fut un mecene laissant parler son grand coeur. Citer ses interventions serait fastidieux. Philantrope, desinteresse, il fallait l'etre chez nous pour s'occuper du sport pauvre qu'est l'athletisme.
  
  "Il etait toujours pret a emboiter le pas a qui osait lui presenter un plan hardi et alors rien ne pouvair l'areter. Le jour ou je lui demontrai que nos athletes continueraient de pietiner dans leur mediocrite: 1) parce qu'ils n'avaient pas de techniciens pur les entrainer par des methodes adequates 2) qu'il manquaient de contacts avec l'etranger, Eric Thornton nous donna carte blanche illimitee.
  
  [Organizes international athletic competition that is attended by 18-20k spectators per year, with the cream of athletes from around the world for the benefit of Belgian athletes.]
  
  "Briser ce merveilleuz elan et a present l'animateur comme on la appele un jour, s'en est alle lui aussi...
  
  "En bon Anglais, il aimait le sport pour le sport. Je le vois encore toujours, rayonnant de plaisir, remettre au petit Polonais Kusociuski (disparu lui aussi) un chronometre en or, recompense (non prevue au programme) pour son record du monde des 3000 metres. Je vois aussi son mecontentement lorsque le speaker crut pouvoir citer et le geste et le nom du genereux mecene! Car Eric Thornton detestait la reclame.
  
  "Il etait sportif anglais cent pour cent.
  
  "Comme tel, les Beerschotmen et les athletes belges ne l'oublieront jaimais."
  
  --Jahaza (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you; the first I had already reviewed, following you pointing out that I had been looking at the wrong article, but the second I hadn't seen. Reading it, and your previous comment that it was a column in remembrance shortly after death, I get the impression that it is an opinion column; is that correct? If so, while it is significant, it cannot count towards WP:GNG as per WP:RSOPINION it is only reliable for the authors opinion, not for facts. BilledMammal (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  "the first I had already reviewed" It would have saved me a bunch of work if you had said that instead of insisting that I provide a quotation. Are you sure you're not confusing it with the one from the same date in La Dernière Heure which you previously said you had viewed.
  
  To insist that because we have a substantial obituary that tends towards opinion instead of straight news we're going to delete the article whereas if the author had kept his feelings out of it, we'd keep it because we'd have three for GNG, is an overly rigid application of the rules for deletion.--Jahaza (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  You're right; it is different, and it does count towards GNG. I still think the sourcing is a little thin (particularly given the third one doesn't count towards GNG) but it meets current guidelines, so I'll withdraw this nomination - thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 09:13, 1 September 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 Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Université de Bruxelles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Leboutte[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Tagged for notability since March.

Prod removed with the justification helped Belgium achieve bronze in the Olympics which was regarded as the top worlds football competition before introduction of World Cup also definitely has off-line sources as a result, but as there were only three teams in the football competition in the 1900 Olympics he fails WP:NOLYMPICS. BilledMammal (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Olympics, and Belgium. BilledMammal (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Université de Bruxelles. Giant Snowman 12:58, 2 September 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.