Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 09 July 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandchannel[edit]

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

Dead site of an unknown company. does not meet the significance criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyWeAll (talk • contribs) 18:29, July 1, 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. The article appears to be written by a small number of users contributing content without any citations and then retrofitting some unrelated sources to match existing text. Overall, pretty much no supported material. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of political parties in Bangladesh#Registered parties. Joyous! Noise! 20:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity Revolution Bangladesh[edit]

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

The party has never won a seat in any parliamentary election and, as far as I can tell, in any election. It was registered this year, and it might be a case of too soon. The party does not have any notable politicians, and coverage is routine. Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Islam, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Party existed in the country since 2010 and never been elected any seats which is normal for most political parties in the country as there is an allegation of rigged election since. I don't think it should be deleted. SaifASabuj (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Confusing. A repeated reference is ecs.gov.bd's page not found. 3 news from reliable sources. (Dhaka Tribune, Prothom Alo and Jugantor) The rest of the names of Insaniyat are not found in other source. To survive requires improvement. Otherwise, I think it's appropriate to delete it. Violating the criteria WP:N. Ontor22 (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of political parties in Bangladesh#Registered parties. The Prothom Alo piece is a good start on establishing notability, but even it calls this 13-year-old party "an almost unknown political entity". More may be written about them if they contest the next election, in which case the topic could then be spun out again into a stand alone article, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back Alley Blitz (Friday Night Funkin' OST album)[edit]

Back Alley Blitz (Friday Night Funkin' OST album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a video game soundtrack album, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NALBUMS. The notability claim here is that it exists, which is not automatically enough all by itself, but the article is referenced entirely to primary source online music download platforms that are not support for notability, with not a shred of WP:GNG-building coverage about it shown at all. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to be the subject of coverage and analysis in real media independent of itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ic this is somehow kept it should be moved to Back Alley Blitz.--65.93.194.183 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources in the article, and I cannot turn up any myself. Fails GNG and NALBUM. WJ94 (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Holding[edit]

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

There is sourcing in English, however it's routine churnalism type announcements. Nothing in Russian article or language results indicates CORP level depth. Star Mississippi 20:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deny Marcel[edit]

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

Routine player profiles only, no news or other information establish notability. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Ketut Mahendra[edit]

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

Passing coverage only, or genera statistics. No sources establish notability, esp. not reliable sources. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalbazgaray[edit]

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

A redirect to this article was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 8#Shafiullah Orakzai, leading to me investigating it, and I'm thinking this is a hoax.

First off, when google searching -wiki and -wikipedia, the only results for "Shafiullah Orakzai" are social media, and the only results for "Lalbazgaray" is one OpenStreetMaps edit by a user of that name. Furthermore, the original page creator is Lalbazgaray (who was recently unblocked, and I'm not sure that was a good move, given this edit after being unblocked). There is a Lalbazgaray at the coordinates given on both Google Maps and OpenStreetMaps, but given the OpenStreetMap history is also suspicious, with Lalbazgaray being the most recent editor and the location being published by Shafiullah Orakzai, I'm not convinced the Google Maps town is trustworthy (you can submit things to be added to Google Maps). Google Maps is also the only citation in the article, and I'm not seeing any evidence this town actually exists per google search.

Admittedly, I'm not experienced in catching hoaxes, and I could have missed something here, but this is extremely suspicious to me. (There are reviews for the POIs on Google Maps in the town going back a year or so, which does make me hesitant.) I'm taking it to AFD as such. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please note that the creator keeps posting a selfie into this article, presumably for vanity purposes. I'm trying to remove it as swiftly as possible but it's likely that the creator will restore. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My sense is that it is not a hoax - there is a departmental Facebook page discussing a school there, and a Facebook post about a cricket tournament there, but I had to do a lot of magic to find that, and Facebook obviously isn't a reliable source. It's going to be impossible to determine this one without knowing the local language. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The site of Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education Kohat lists a primary school "GPS Lal Baz Garay" (Sr. No. 2010) in the Orakzai District. So the town exists. Having a government's primary school, the town is obviously populated and legally recognized. Also the name in the article is misspelled. The name has two spaces in it: Lal Baz Garay. I couldn't find anything else about the town in both the English and Urdu sources. Insight 3 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete - not a hoax but Google Maps shows a tiny village with this name at the article's coordinates. This may not meet WP:NPLACE. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our article says Lalbazgaray is in the Orakzai District (known as the Orakzai Agency until 2018). The most recent national census (2017) lists "rural localities" in Orakzai; Lalbazgray isn't on the list. From this table, it looks like mostly they only track places above 1,000 people in that district although there are a few smaller ones noted. If a populated place doesn't meet WP:GNG, then WP:POPULATED requires "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.".
Lalbazgaray's near Shahu Khel which is in Hangu District. I checked the Hangu District census; Lalbazgaray wasn't listed there, either. Maybe Lalbazgaray's inhabitants are included in the Shahu Khel numbers. In any event, Lalbazgaray doesn't look legally recognized.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck hoax claims in the nom as there's something here, though whether it meets WP:POPULATED is still a question. Good work on finding more info to all who did. I'm still leaning towards delete on the back of lack of legal recognition. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as there is nothing but the AfD template left. DarkAudit (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's back to having content. The removal was by the initial author, but this doesn't qualify under G7 because of intermediate edits. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Joyous! Noise! 22:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89–'90[edit]

Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89–'90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination per this RfD. Article was created in 2008, and then BLARred in 2021. An attempt at restoring was then made in 2022, only to be BLARred once more roughly an hour later. CycloneYoris talk! 22:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. CycloneYoris talk! 22:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails both WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG, as well as having needed additional citations for more than five years. HorrorLover555 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly Redirect to Dr. Feelgood (album) if anyone is concerned about alternatives to deletion. Per WP:NTOUR, this tour did not receive news coverage as a stand-alone event in its own time, being simply announced in conjunction with the album, nor has it gotten any historical treatments in the decades since. It's telling that someone attempted to add attendance and revenue numbers for the various listed shows but left many of them blank, indicating that such info is probably not available. Therefore, this article is not particularly useful for readers, in addition to being non-notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, undersourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that was tagged as using primary references for seven years when it was first redirected back in March 2021. Aspects (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's amazing what you can learn from Wikipedia deletion discussions. I now know that the Dr. Feelgood World Tour '89–'90 was not undertaken by Dr. Feelgood. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 22:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MATRIX Architects Engineers Planners, Inc.[edit]

MATRIX Architects Engineers Planners, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Passing coverage in one newspaper is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Article is 15 years old and a speedy delete request was declined in 2009. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Joyous! Noise! 20:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cryptoverse[edit]

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

Zero mentions in RS. The first Bloomberg site looks fishy, due to the font and the mention that it's published by a PR company copyright down at the bottom. Rest of the sourcing is of zero importance for notability, a combination of PR and non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree that this is not notable. Crypto companies have a strong motive to create a Wikipedia page for apparent credibility despite lack of notability.
Chamaemelum (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a G11. some of the sources appear to be dubious paid promotional blogs pretending to be news outlets. I removed those and the press releases and the coverage is one Bloomberg article, which doesn't mention the article topic - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Failed notability requirement. Crypto platforms are quite notorious in trying to be included in Wikipedia. Noneate (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very short, not notable in any way, and possibly promotional content. HarukaAmaranth (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Joyous! Noise! 20:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Munawar Ahmad[edit]

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

Not seeing notability. Other than in relation to his children, there is no indication of why this individual is notable. Zero sources that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In addition to the above comment, there isn't even an attempt to claim some sort of notability in the article.
Chamaemelum (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Joyous! Noise! 20:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of Malaysia by age[edit]

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

Seems like an unreasonable SYNTH, we already have an article for Prime Ministers with their ages. This is just re-telling what's in that chart. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a precedent so far to delete all lists of people sorted by age. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot come up with any utility for this list. If there had been discussion about ages and how those affected their offices then it might be defendable, but just an ordering by age ... no. Lamona (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete “X by random Y” lists are WP:NOTSTATS cruft Dronebogus (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 20:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minami Aizawa[edit]

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

Non-notable adult actress. Sourcing is all red or orange linked per sourcebot and I can't find mentions of her in rS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Muscatine, Iowa. Joyous! Noise! 20:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MuscaBus[edit]

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

Non-notable local bus company. Sourcing is routine business news. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 20:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwin Skeete[edit]

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

One official appearance for the Guyana national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I guess this AFD discussion has been in limbo long enough, there is a clear consensus here o Keep this article for now. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Kericho truck crash[edit]

2023 Kericho truck crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This fails WP:NEVENTS. At best, it is WP:TOOSOON. To quote WP:EVENTCRIT:

A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect... Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. (Emphasis in original)

This is a tragic event, but not "notable" as of this moment for Wikipedia's standards. If there are convictions, legal changes, hearings, etc., then it may be notable through the aftermath. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Kenya. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is being considered for ITN currently, it has at least a few supporters there. As was pointed out, there are plenty of smaller accidents with their own articles even if the long-term consequences are limited. - Indefensible (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many sources and a large number of casualties. I'm shocked that this was nominated. gidonb (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The threshold for unless something further gives them additional enduring significance may be passed given the magnitude of the event. Update: Keep per notes about WP:RAPID below —siroχo 06:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, leaning neutral - this has a stronger argument for notability than 2023 Buldhana bus accident by the sheer number of deaths, but I'm still not convinced that a crash in an "area [...] known for having frequent road incidents" passes NEVENTS and NOTNEWS. Anarchyte (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An accident that causes 52 deaths is clearly notable and it also meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Necrothesp, I'm going to ask you to refrain from making up your own notability guidelines. Please see WP:EFFECT for what type of effects are considered sufficient to be presumed notable. The barrier is significantly higher than "52 deaths". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thebiguglyalien, I'm going to ask you to please refrain from pomposity. It's not a good look. Any editor can make any comment they choose at AfD, and you'll note (or maybe you missed it, although it was rather clear) that I also cited a notability guideline, WP:GNG. Also note that the idea that an accident on this scale would not be considered notable if it occurred in the USA or the UK is simply laughable. So here's another citation for you, WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If this accident had occurred in some western countries such as the US, this nomination would not have occured. This is an example of the bias in wikipedia. 52 deaths from an accident is something significant and clearly notable. 117.254.34.205 (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carberry highway collision (2nd nomination) as well, so it's not that the crash didn't occur in a Western country.
    I'm clearly in the minority here to think these articles are absolutely unwarranted and prime examples of what NOTNEWS is meant to prevent. The same issue is seen with various shootings. Why my fellow editors view these as encyclopedia-worthy is beyond me. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly are. Why (some of) my fellow editors view teenage social media "influencers" as encyclopaedia-worthy is beyond me, but hey, them's the breaks! We all have our own ideas of what's encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOT:NEWS, NEVENTS and WP:N - a burst of coverage of news without sustained coverage is not an indicator of notability. Documentation at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) is sufficient for this topic. --Masem (t) 18:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shocked to see this nominated for deletion. I fail to see what part of WP:NOTNEWS applies here. The only part that could make sense is the bullet point on news reports, but For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events clearly doesn't apply here. I feel that NOTNEWS is far too often invoked in situations where no part of NOTNEWS is relevant to the situation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Seems to still be getting some coverage, with at least the possibility of resulting policy change. Agree with Vanilla Wizard above that NOTNEWS does not apply. -- Visviva (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nomination seems like a violation of WP:RAPID. Also, it seems like this will lead to changes that meet the criteria of WP:LASTING. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a rather uncommon event. However, I find the accusations of bias against the nominator excessive. Deckkohl (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Side conversation
  • As I asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carberry highway collision (2nd nomination) — since when are news organizations not considered secondary sources? Who other than news orgs will produce secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of an ongoing event? Do you have anything to point to supporting this interpretation?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanilla Wizard The fact that contemporary news coverage is a primary source is overwhelmingly accepted in academia.
    • Harvard Library: Some types of primary sources: [...] news film footage, contemporary newspaper articles
    • MIT Libraries: Newspapers are valuable primary sources for historical research
    • University of Cambridge Library: Primary sources are first-hand accounts of a topic. They can include [...] newspapers
    • University of Toronto Libraries: What can be a primary source? Think about what kinds of primary sources might be related to your topic: [...] newspapers
    • University of California Berkley Library Think about what types of primary sources might have been produced that would be relevant to your topic; think also about which persons or organizations might have produced materials. Some possible types of sources: [...] Newspapers and magazines
    • The University of Queensland Library: News and newspapers are a type of primary source.
    I find it baffling that it's being presented as a secondary source by a handful of AfD users on Wikipedia. The whole point of having a secondary source, and the reason they're required for notability, is because they're removed from the subject and they compile already available information. News reports by definition provide new information. If an event has been covered in secondary sources like books, journals, or other retrospective coverage, then it is notable. If it is only covered in newspapers, then it's most likely not notable. For example, the 2020 Beirut explosion meets GNG because several books have been written about it and you can find extensive commentary that exists after the event took place. You'd be hard pressed to find a car crash that's been covered to this extent, so specific car crashes probably aren't notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just "a handful of AfD users" that regard news organizations as secondary sources. I've never seen anyone say otherwise until just now. I've been here for six years and never once have I heard someone regard news coverage as primary sources on Wikipedia. WP:PRIMARY sources on the encyclopedia are sources that are close to the event, typically from those directly involved, e.g. witnesses. Secondary sources are a step removed and synthesize primary sources to offer analysis. News articles are secondary sources on the encycloepdia. If your standard is that no article can exist until books are written about it, no article about a current, ongoing, or recent event can exist on the encyclopedia, and that's just not how it works. When I asked if you had anything to point to, I was hoping you'd respond with the text of some Wikipedia policy or guideline.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed that actual reliable sources confirming it would be the end of the discussion, but you're now presenting your opinion as if it outweighs what reliable sources say. If you want policy, there's WP:RS: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. A newspaper is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events. "Breaking news as a primary source" would be along the lines of The wire service announces that a prominent politician has been taken to the hospital. The weather service says that a tornado touched down. But you'd be hard pressed to find any news sources with no analysis. See the "Examples of news reports as secondary sources" section. I wasn't offering my opinion, I was referencing what WP:PRIMARY says. You could also see that WP:NEVENTS, which you invoked, states In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK) - the view that anything published by a news organization is a primary source and does not determine notability is unarguably wrong. If it was as black-and-white as "all content published by news organizations is a primary source and matters not when determining notability, no current events warrant articles, wait for books to be written", then we wouldn't have an entire section of the main page dedicated to articles about breaking news. This shouldn't need explaining.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that anything published by a news organization is automatically a primary source. You're the only one that's used "news organization" in this discussion. Any source created while the event is occurring or developing (or by someone who was present while it was) is a primary source, including contemporary news reports. I also didn't say that "no current events warrant articles". WP:NEVENTS provides valid SNG exceptions where sources don't need to be found right away. If you don't want to acknowledge what I've already confirmed with reliable sources, that's your choice, but please don't attribute things to me when I didn't say them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an unfair interpretation to suggest you are stating that current events cannot be covered considering you are still saying Any source created while the event is occurring or developing, nor is it an unfair characterization to say that you are suggesting that anything published by newspapers about a breaking event is a primary source when you've said, and continue to say, exactly that. I also got the impression that you did not disagree with these characterizations as I stated them in each reply and you did not until now indicate disagreement. "News coverage does not confer notability", "News coverage is a primary source", "If it has only been covered in newspapers, then it's not notable", and other sweeping statements strongly implied the arguments I've been responding to. In any case, what you've said is incompatible with Wikipedia policy, including the policies you've invoked, and external references to support the claim that news coverage is a primary source are irrelevant when we (seemingly?) agree that, on Wikipedia, news coverage can be a secondary source, provided that it offers analysis. You never critiqued any source for lacking analysis, you simply noted that the sources are news (or rather, published by news organizations), and decried that they're all primary sources as a result. I think we've beat this horse to death by now, so I'll leave you be, but I sincerely hope that you don't make these arguments in other AfDs going forward, or at least phrase them differently in the future if I've severely misunderstood what you are and are not arguing. Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would IAR closing this and renominating this for ITN on July 10 be appropriate? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I do believe that nomination was prematurely closed as this AfD had and continues to have a pretty clear consensus against deleting, and it's a disruptive nomination per WP:RAPID (in general, if something is a current candidate for ITN/C, it's probably RAPID to AfD tag it as ITN covers breaking news), I have to say that at this point it's not breaking enough that a fresh new ITN/C nomination would be likely to succeed and I don't recommend trying. Instead of closing the ITN/C nomination, the closer should've closed this AfD instead and posted the ITN/C nom, but it's too late now.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still way better than something 3 weeks ago. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Likely too stale at this point for ITN @User:Aaron Liu, but I am kind of surprised that we did not SNOW keep this. - Indefensible (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indefensible ITN guidelines say that it is only stale when it is older than the oldest entry, which is well from 06-23, way older than 06-30.. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This happened over a week ago though, people would probably vote against in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion it's still better than something three weeks ago. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This meets NEVENT and NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. Neither is an absolute bar against recent news coverage, but asks Wikipedians to seperate the mundane and routine from those with lasting encyclopedic significance. Generally, an accident that kills 50 will have that, which would justify keeping it per WP:RAPID. There are also plenty of English-language Kenyan news sources that can be found through a rudimentary WP:BEFORE check that treat it with more than the kind of routine coverage that's excluded by NOTNEWS. For example, coverage of the memorial service, investigations into how the accident occurred, and promised policy changes by Kenyan officials, in-depth examinations of the impact on victims' families. [6][7][8][[9][10][11][12]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per WP:RAPID. Although within the remit of WP:NOTNEWS this is a major, widely reported national incident with some international coverage (Al Jazerra, Deutsche Welle). Should be kept for now and re-evaluated at a later date. Rupples (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Baily (priest)[edit]

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

Nothing on the page to suggest that the subject meets the notability standards for inclusion. Other than being a name in quite a long list of Canons of Windsor, there is nothing I can find to suggest he was a notable priest. JMWt (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A canon, but that is as far as it goes. Does not meet presumed notability, and neither are there sufficient sources or information to suggest he meets GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)
  • Comment. (1) Roger mentions the subject (pp. 165-6) as a possible reformer. (2) Fasti Wyndesorienses (which appears to be a biographical dictionary of the deans and canons of Windsor) has something on p. 155, and is cited by Roger, but I can't read it online. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    sounds like a mention of a mention. JMWt (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Anchor Hunt[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NTV. UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Joyous! Noise! 20:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Djamal Msaidié[edit]

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

Two appearances for the Comoros national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is no notable news, mentions in books, etc. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 20:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Villanueva (footballer)[edit]

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

One appearance for the Belize national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 20:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dellon Torres[edit]

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

Six appearances for the Belize national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I found was this and this, both from the same website. JTtheOG (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Joyous! Noise! 20:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debi Carson[edit]

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

Not sufficient sources to establish notability. This biography article contains: Reference 1, a passing mention; reference 2, self-authored; reference 3, dead link. The sources should be (1) reliable, (2) secondary, (3) independent of the subject, and (4) talk about the subject in some depth. Was PROD 7 November 2010. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Joyous! Noise! 20:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Weise[edit]

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

I'm not seeing sufficient notability for this researcher. He is a lecturer with a reasonable but not exceptional number of publications, won one university-internal non-funded award (of which a bunch seem to be given [13]) and was nominated for two more, and did some outreach. This doesn't get us to either GNG or NPROF level. Newish academic (PhD 7 years ago) at the beginning of his career; WP:TOOSOON. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 20:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LoginRadius[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References do not meet WP:ORGCRIT and I was unable to find anything better in a WP:BEFORE search. CNMall41 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Joyous! Noise! 20:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 NCHL season[edit]

2014–15 NCHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hockey season for a league that previously had its page deleted for being non-notable. No sources to justify notability for the season itself, and given that the league itself was deemed non-notable, I doubt there will be much argument for keeping an individual season of that league. fuzzy510 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a clear consensus among editors in this discussion to Keep this articles despite problems that might currently exist in the article. Hopefully, they can be improved through editing. If you feel strongly that this article should be deleted, please wait a decent period of time before renominating or the AFD might be procedurally closed. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Essays[edit]

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

I am renominating based on the consensus at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Physics_Essays. Ca talk to me! 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Ca talk to me! 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, again, passes WP:NJOURNALS, and we now have independent sources describing the journal as not reliable ([14]), so we too can describe it as such. This is a journal with 30+ years of history, with a foreword by Gerhard Herzberg on its first issue, at one point edited Gerardus 't Hooft. That it's shit does not make it not-notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And here you are as always pretending that WP:NJOURNALS is an actual guideline. Note to AfD closer: NJOURNALS is just an essay written by Headbomb himself. It is not supported by consensus, and therefore passing NJOURNALS is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Tercer (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm here pretending it's what I think. I couldn't give a rat's ass about it's official status. And while I'm a major contributor to that essay, I'm certainly not its sole author, nor sole endorser of it. Literally hundreds of people in hundreds of deletion discussions (and countless PRODs) have agreed with its guidance. Yes, some disagree with it. I couldn't care less. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were actually hundreds of people supporting NJOURNALS there would have been no difficulty in turning it into an actual guideline. Yet, it was attempted, and it failed. Tercer (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was attempted in 2009, but the closing statement from @SilkTork says that "as there is a general feeling that this proposal is helpful, it would be inappropriate to mark this as a failed proposal", so I'm not sure that it's fair to say it failed. (Also, that was nearly 14 years, and editors' views might have changed since then.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of speculating, one could easily find out by attempting again. Which won't happen, because the proposal will certainly fail again, for the same reason it failed the first time. Tercer (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of (baselessly) speculating the proposal will certainly fail, one could easily find out by attempting again. Frank Anchor 16:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I don't want it to succeed, it would be a bad faith proposal from me. It must be proposed by its proponents. Less talking, more doing please. Tercer (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be placing onus where it is not due. Isn't it you who wants it proposed, so that you can try to argue against it? —Quondum 17:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the third editor in a row shows up to annoy me with idle talk. I don't want it proposed, I was just challenging Headbomb's ludicrous assertion that hundreds of people support NJOURNALS. The onus is on him. Tercer (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Headbomb has shown that literally hundreds of people support NJOURNALS via participation in years-long AfD discussions, spanning at least ten years. There it is in black and white (or whatever font color one is using). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the fourth editor shows up to repeat the same bullshit. We still have zero proposing it as a guideline, which is how support is actually measured. Tercer (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging past participants @XOR'easter, Snow Rise, Oaktree b, Randykitty, MICHAEL 942006, Sal2100, and Bduke:. The others were Ca, who nominated, and myself, which don't need pinging. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry to say, zero proposing this as a guideline really means nothing. I think the point is we have been shown a fact by Headbomb which indicates much support, which fits with the reality of the situation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already understood the first time, there's no need to repeat five times that you will not propose it is a guideline as you know it will fail again. Tercer (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, was perhaps more "famous" in the past. Scopus shows importance. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scopus is a database with 34,346 journals. Do you seriously believe every single one of them is notable? Should we have 34,346 stubs in Wikipedia consisting of nothing but the scarce information Scopus provides about its entries? Tercer (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be a problem? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also grossly exaggerates the number when multiple sections often get covered in the same articles (e.g. Acta Crystallographica A, Acta Crystallographica B, Acta Crystallographica C, Acta Crystallographica D, Acta Crystallographica E, Acta Crystallographica F = Acta Crystallographica), etc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very sensible way to organise information. One wouldn't want to have a ton of nearly identical eternal stubs. One could take it one step further and not only merge together Journal of Physics A, Journal of Physics B, Journal of Physics G, etc., but also merge them together with the article on their publisher IOP Publishing. What little information we have about them can be conveniently displayed there as a table. And unlike the individual journals, IOP Publishing is actually notable. Tercer (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would be lame and against Wikipedia policy. Thankfully nobody took NJOURNALS seriously and actually created these tens of thousands of stubs. Tercer (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all the journals on the planet? It confers some sort of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. WP:GNG is very clear that a mention in a gigantic database doesn't imply notability, you need to have significant coverage. Tercer (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pushing falsehoods. GNG mentions databases once. That mention is very clear that database coverage may need to be examined to determine whether or not it confers notability, a very different thing from stating that it automatically does not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just insulting me. The actual quote from WP:GNG is Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Unlike your selective misquotation, it's being negative about databases, not ambivalent. Together with an actual quote from WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, it's clear that one entry in a gigantic database doesn't count. Tercer (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading comprehension insults itself. Did you see that word "may"? May not support notability when examined. If it were intended to mean that it cannot support notability and would not need examining to make that determination, it would have been worded differently.
Anyway, "database" just means a large repository of data, organized in a structured way. Google books is a database, one that happens to contain full-text content of many books. Most newspapers organize their content in databases. Doing so does not magically invalidate the contents of those sources. One has to examine the source to determine the reliability, depth, and independence in each case rather than using blanket rules. Exactly as our guideline says. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're intentionally misunderstanding what I just wrote. There's no point in continuing a conversation under these circumstances. Tercer (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hard fail of WP:GNG. After the last AfD there was a great effort in finding sources about this journal. The best they could find was a passing mention dismissing it. WP:SIGCOV is clear that much more is needed. Furthermore, that source is itself published in a completely unknown journal, that I couldn't find in either SCIE and Scopus. I suspect the only reason they found it reliable is because it's saying what they want to hear. Tercer (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I tend to think that indexing alone is not quite sufficient, but here we have a published evaluative opinion, more than we get for most good journals. There is also some in-depth coverage at [15] which (as published in the same journal) is not independent and maybe dubiously reliable, but still could be quoted to explain the motivation for founding the journal. Unfortunately I do not seem to have subscription access to that source; maybe someone else does. Beyond the sourcing, this article serves an encyclopedic purpose in explaining why publications in this journal are WP:FRINGE and cannot be relied on. (The quote I have in mind from the link above would emphasize the same point, and suggests that it was fringe as a founding principle rather than once being good and degenerating to fringe.) A lot of the animus against this journal, apparent from its repeated nomination despite strong support in the previous AfD, appears to stem from its fringe status, but that is the wrong reaction. When something is fringe science, but prominent as fringe science, we should explain its fringe nature rather than casting it from us as an abomination. Fringe topics that have no properly neutral mainstream source to warn us of their fringe nature may need deletion regardless of notability because we cannot cover them in a properly neutral way, but that exception does not arise here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't count me as having this animus. The problem I have with this article is the absence of sources. I have no problem with articles about fringe journals that have sources, such as Progress in Physics. Tercer (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What a bizarre choice of example. Our current article on Progress in Physics has no non-database sources, and no mainstream sources that attest to its fringe nature, unlike this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had this source in mind, that for some strange reason is in the external links section. Yes, it's just some professor complaining about a paper in the journal to its editor, but Physics Essays doesn't clear even this extremely low bar. If you want another example take viXra then, the fringiest of the fringe. Tercer (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, largely per David Eppstein, who puts it very well. The fact that it is a fringey journal is not a reason to delete the page, but to write the page in such a manner that explains to our readers what this thing really is. The independent sourcing is marginal for our purposes (and thus, my "weak" opinion), but I think it is sufficient for having a page about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Forbes72, just below, about the new sources, and that makes my "keep" a bit stronger. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I dug up a few more passing mentions in reliable sources (Physics Today/Nature/NYT), and a more lengthy treatment by a local newspaper. I think we've got enough for WP:GNG, though it definitely is not enough for a long article. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 23:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NJOURNALS is an essay and meeting it carries zero weight. The coverage that I found (linked somewhere above) is a single sentence. That is not nearly enough to contribute to GNG. Coverage by the journal itself is obviously not independent and counts for zilch as well. The only other material we have on this topic is the fact that it at one point successfully applied to be indexed by Scopus and thus received the autogenerated metrics Scopus produces for every journal in its database. That is decidedly not secondary independent SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that I am assessing the new sources the same way I assess any topic for GNG-meeting coverage, although NCORP is clearly what the standard should be as journals are businesses.
    Ref #2 (Nature "Page charges") is a primary letter to the editor and so does not count towards GNG Red XN.
    Ref #3 (the obit in AIP for Ugo Fani) is by a Physics Essays editor: not independent, and is not significant anyway Red XN.
    Ref #4 (NYT obit) quotes a separate obit written by the same PE editor in PE but does not otherwise provide more than a passing mention of the journal Red XN.
    Ref #5 (Nature obit) is another passing mention Red XN.
    Refs #6–9 (AIP matters, price lists) are a primary, non-independent announcement about a partnership between AIP and PE; and primary, non-independent pricing lists Red XN.
    Ref #10 (Pocono) is a credulous local-news human interest story about a podiatrist's FRINGE challenge to the fine structure constant (or something). It reports only what the podiatrist said about the journal, which is not independent coverage Red XN.
    Ref #11 (CAS source index) leads to a blank page, but would be primary database metrics anyway Red XN.
    Ref #12 (MIAR) is pure non-independent primary database metrics Red XN.
    Ref #13 (Clarivate) is just a link to the Web of Science search page but would not contain secondary independent SIGCOV anyway Red XN.
    Ref #14 (INSPIRE HEP) is a list of articles in PE Red XN.
    Ref #15 (Thomson Reuters) is a single-word announcement that Thomson Reuters has dropped PE Red XN.
    Ref #16 (Thomson Reuters 2013 JCR) just links to the wiki page on JCR, but would not contain secondary independent SIGCOV anyway Red XN.
    Ref #17–19 (Scopus, SCImago, 2021 JCR) are pure non-independent primary database metrics, a page that says SCImago for PE was discontinued, and the 2021 version of ref #16 Red XN.
    If we were to consider any of these items SIGCOV, the same standard would justify the creation of several million athletes, objects, foods, etc. that also appear in "selective" databases and receive "coverage" in the form of automatic primary database entry comparisons and proprietary metrics. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My recommendation would be to redirect the page to some list of journals that have been described as fringe/unreliable/whatever, with a brief summary of its status. That way anyone searching for it will learn it is unreliable, but we won't be boosting its visibility or legitimacy by giving it the same treatment we give real journals. JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re your last paragraph: We really need a corollary to WP:SOAPBOX, as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Just as we should not slant our coverage to promote non-notable topics that we think are deserving, we should also not slant our coverage to avoid promoting topics we think do not deserve promotion. Notability or non-notability should be the reason for an opinion here, not whether the subject is legitimated by having a Wikipedia article or whether we can performatively delegitimate it by deleting its article. (Also, surely if we did want to delegitimate it, the way to do so would be to have an article describing it as fringe and as having been delisted by the selective indexes, rather than just staying silent about it.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you could engage with my coverage analysis rather than soapboxing over one sentence? JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't respond to your coverage analysis because I didn't find anything problematic with it. It is the sort of analysis of depth of sources that should happen at AfDs. I disagree with your opinion on how much depth of coverage is necessary but there's nothing wrong with that kind of disagreement. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And not all sources need to be there for WP:N purposes. WP:V purposes is more than a fine reason to cite them. One aspect of that analysis that's wrong is that Scopus/JCR/MIAR/etc... are primary sources or non-independent. They aren't, they're secondary sources and are independent.
    Personally I don't care much about the Ugo Fani content. That belongs on the Fani article more than on Physics Essays article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the content from indexing services is secondary SIGCOV, then why does NJOURNALS only consider the "selective" ones to be SIGCOV? The selectivity has zero effect on the amount of coverage provided by the source. To quote David from another thread: using the selectivity of a source to evaluate the significance of a subject is the sort of thing you would do under a significance-based notability criterion, one that evaluates subjects based on what they have done rather than on their depth of coverage. [...] But that is not how GNG works. And if you can get secondary SIGCOV from automated numbers like CiteScore and appearing in lists sorted by such metrics, then why are the h-index, publication graphs, and other detailed metrics provided by Scopus for paper authors not SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    why does NJOURNALS only consider the "selective" ones to be SIGCOV same reason why we consider NYT to be count over Bob the Nutball's Blog. DOAJ is a comprehensive listing of all open access journal, which aims to include all such journals, with a minimal filter of excluding the predatory ones. It's secondary, but not significant. JCR and Scopus, on the other hand, have a much higher bars to clear, and that's where the significance comes from. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significance" refers to the depth of coverage provided by a source, not to the prestige of the source itself.
    Non-expert blogs are not counted at all due to being SPS, but even if you use a valid comparison like NYT vs Yakima Herald, the same article does not "contain more SIGCOV" when published in the former than it does in the latter! You seem to be confusing indicators of notability, which don't really count for anything outside PAGEDECIDE, with the actual establishment of a GNG pass through SIGCOV in IRS, which is essentially outlet-agnostic all else being the same.
    And again, why do the comparably-extensive Scopus metrics available for authors and papers not count whatsoever toward SIGCOV? If Scopus, with its haughty requirements of "publishing for 2+ years" and "having an editorial board that isn't all cranks" and "scope of more than regional interest" is so selective, shouldn't it be just as notable for an individual researcher to have a Scopus profile, since that shows they've received attention from (likely) multiple journals illustrious enough to be indexed there? JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i am repeating this to you to keep the article. i don't think that this article is bad but some weakness are there that's not a problem but the problem is if the article is deleted then some one will make it again and you will be arguing again and again MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: MICHAEL 942006 That is a truly remarkable reason to advance for keeping a page: "keep it because if we agree not keep it someone may defy consensus and re-create it." Presumably that argument can be applied to any deletion, so we should never delete anything. I don’t think you will find any support for that argument in any Wikipedia policy. As for "you will be arguing again and again", it is precisely to avoid that problem that we have criterion for speedy deletion G4. JBW (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G4 only solves the "arguing again and again" problem when there is consensus to delete. As you can see with this very AfD, it doesn't solve the "arguing again and again" problem when there is no consensus to delete but some people feel strongly that there should be one. Perhaps there should be a WP:SK criterion for re-nominations after a keep that fail to advance any new rationale, but there does not appear to be one. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of organizations opposing mainstream science § Journals or Delete. One opinion and bunch of uncontextualized statistics is not significant coverage. JoelleJay's source analysis is quite compelling. The truth is that this journal fails WP:GNG. However, the current information is valuable, so I would not want to see it get deleted. I believe a merge would be the best choice. Ca talk to me! 12:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot merge information into a list article; it is inherently an index, and is restricted to essentially a one-sentence description. Also, the other organizations seem to each have their own page, which supports this perspective. —Quondum 01:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a merge requires some information to be lost. If List of fringe journals exists, I would have recommended a merge there. Ca talk to me! 10:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on prior indexing in Scopus (and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY) along with coverage listed above is enough to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 15:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frank Anchor, indexing on Scopus is not a valid notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, by the letter of policy, it is not explicitly a criterion for notability. However, WP:IAR is a policy and common sense dictates that the significant prior inclusion in a major citation database, along with the coverage listed that is at least borderline-GNG, shows that Wikipedia is better for having this article present. Frank Anchor 12:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally IAR does not fly as a keep rationale at AfDs. But maybe this balances out with the admission below that the speedy renomination after a previous keep was also based on IAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally IAR does not fly as a keep rationale at AfDs because voters tend to use it out of desperation for a lost cause. In this case, I brought up IAR to show there are cases in which the rules aren’t perfect and there are cases in which they need not be applied rigidly. Frank Anchor 19:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to argue IAR, that's fine. JoelleJay (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This discussion is clear evidence that this junk fringe journal is notable; the incredible nature of the content and lack of citations are not relevant to its notability. The article cites evidence of the journal's problems, making it valuable reading material for anyone looking up the journal by name. The content of the article causes no material, psychological, or physical harm. Deleting the article won't delete the journal; the world is not smarter just because we don't talk about dumb. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, on procedural grounds, rerunning an AfD only a week after the previous one closed is typically out of line. If there was some question about whether the closer evaluated the consensus properly, then this should have gone to DRV instead. Second, also on procedural grounds, the nominator has voiced support for a merge, indicating that this is the wrong venue after all. Third, the matter of whether or not WP:NJOURNALS is officially a "guideline" is pretty much beside the point. We delete articles on the basis of essays all the bloody time; ever !voted "delete per WP:TNT"? Or, for that matter, "keep per WP:HEY"? Linking to an essay is just saying, "I think this is good advice and applicable in the present circumstances." Maybe it's less of a rhetorical slam dunk than pointing to a document with a weightier consensus behind it, but I am far from convinced that the distinction matters here. All a "per WP:NJOURNALS" !vote does is to say, "Yes, in my opinion, the sources present count as 'significant' and adequately 'in-depth' (and rather than typing out myself all the reasons why, I will point to this page that I agree with)". Before the prior AfD, one could have made the argument that this journal having a Wikipedia article made it look more respectable than it is, but now we have a sourced statement calling it garbage and another calling it sleazy, so that concern no longer applies. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've participated in a good 1000+ AfDs and almost none of them have been closed on the basis of meeting an essay criterion, and those that have have generally been swiftly overturned. Much like WP:TOOSOON, WP:TNT and WP:HEY are not !vote rationales, they are references to the actual guidelines that the !voters believe have been met. NJOURNALS operates on the assumption that primary, autogenerated catalogue data and metrics can ever count towards GNG, which isn't in line with any PAG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the close was erroneous, then a renomination is the incorrect procedure for addressing that. We have WP:DRV for that sort of thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I nominated this article for deletion because I evaluated the consensus at the fringe theory noticeboard and deemed that a renom should be made. It is not my opinion. Rerunning an AfD only a week after is out of line, but I applied WP:IAR since I saw a consensus. Ca talk to me! 10:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article was indexed in Scopus until 2017 and also currently listed as ESCI on Web of Science. This article passes WP:NJournal. Nanosci (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nanosci, do you think NJOURNALS is a Wikipedia guideline? JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NJOURNALS references at least one guideline - GNG, just like the other writings that you mentioned reference guidelines. And editors refer to essays during AfD and other discussions all the time - past and present. There is no way to tell if they explicilty mean the essay or the guidelines you say are referred to. Yet, they are accepted as an Ivote for keep or delete. It is indeed a rich history that we have here on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A quote from the essay reads: Even if editors personally believe a journal is "important" or "inherently notable", journals are only accepted as notable if they have attracted notice in reliable sources. Yet no one have yet to provide GNG-meeting sources. Ca talk to me! 06:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are obviously entitled to your view, which is what you seem to be stating. My view it has attracted GNG-meeting sources, as discussed above. And, discussions such as this are important to the process for determining the fate of the an article. And that is what is happening. Otherwise, AfDs would not be needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of notability essays allege that their criteria correspond to GNG, and they are still treated as invalid justifications at AfD because they are not real guidelines. I've participated in 1000+ AfDs, many of which contained editors saying "keep meets [NESSAY]", and those !votes are disregarded. NJOURNALS also does not state that meeting NJOURNALS meets GNG, it vaguely says something about the "spirit" of GNG. But even if it did, that would be false because the criteria in NJOURNALS are plainly separate from GNG. And if it was supposed to be merely a predictor of GNG, then users would need to actually show that GNG sourcing existed since the presumption is not based on a consensus guideline but rather on a niche essay.
    If you are arguing that the non-index sources above meet GNG, then that's another thing (which I believe is rebutted with my source analysis). But the majority of the editors here who are citing NJOURNALS are citing the fact that it was indexed by Scopus, not the "coverage" it has received by non-index sources. They are treating it as a de facto notability conferrer, which is not permitted by policy. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"which is not permitted by policy" You seem to forget that WP:IAR is policy. Wikipedia is better for having this article than not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with editors using IAR as a one-off in exceptional circumstances. But that is not what most keep editors are arguing; they are arguing that NJOURNALS confers notability, which it does not, and/or that the metrics from "selective" indices constitute IRS SIGCOV, which they do not. IAR also doesn't override NPOV, which is inevitably violated in articles that can only be sourced to themselves and trivial primary sources, so it's not an option to IAR NJOURNALS into a real guideline against/without consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, but the above comment is a misrepresentation. Putting aside IAR - NJOURNALS has a history of conferring notability for academic journal articles based on selective indices whether or not there are metrics involved. Hence, journal articles are not sourced only to themselves and only trivial primary sources. The indices have historically been considered secondary independent sourcing, and are still considered as such. NJOURNALS has been applied as a guidance and it does have consensus as shown by Headbomb above. NJOURNALS also has consensus that is demonstrated by WikiProject Academics membership (participants)[16], and the 60 or so new articles listed on that page [17]. So, please stop misrepresenting the facts. It is not a consensus that you want, but it is the consensus that exists. In the end, NPOV is not violated by this process. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. The only way to measure consensus it's to actually argue about the subject. Luckily we don't need to make shit up, there is right now a passionate discussion in the talk page of NJOURNALS, with several editors supporting it and several editors opposing it. This is not what a consensus looks like. Tercer (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the happenings over at that page is some sort of consensus discussion. And, based on the definition you have provided, NJOURNALS was argued about in deletion and other discussions during its illustrious 10+ year history. In any case, the support is not based on thin air. It is based on brass tacks participation on the ground. --Steve Quinn (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NJOURNALS is not a guideline, full stop. Its usage at AfD reflects LOCALCON, not global consensus. Guidelines can only be established through high level RfC consensus from the entire community. Headbomb's AfD search results include all mentions of "NJOURNALS"; a brief scan suggests most of the time it is invoked alongside real guidelines like NORG and GNG, and the subject kept/deleted due to meeting/not meeting GNG. E.g. The result was delete. The main guideline-based argument given for deletion was failing the general notability guideline (GNG) due to lack of substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. Notability of journals (NJOURNAL), however, is neither a guideline or policy.[18] The majority of these AfDs also appear to have some subset of the same pro-NJOURNAL participants ± confused editors who think NJOURNALS actually is a guideline and thus feel "compelled" to !vote keep,[19] which suggests a WALLEDGARDEN more than a broad consensus -- this is especially true in AfDs ending in keep based on meeting NJOURNAL.[20] Additionally, consensus can change, and more recent discussions have indicated that when editors outside of the academia wiki-niche participate there is considerably less acceptance of NJOURNALS as guidance. E.g. The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are weaker. They are based on the supposed academic importance of the journal as per WP:NJOURNAL, a page that has essay status - that is, it does not reflect Wikipedia community consensus. The "delete" opinions, on the other hand, stress the lack of reliable independent sources that cover this journal. This is a very strong (and unrebutted) argument, because it reflects WP:V, a core policy.[21]
The result was delete. Even if I found the point on passing WP:NJOURNAL was made out, which I don't, that is an essay and passing it does not show notability I am afraid.[22]
[23] JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the process I described above is permitted by policy based on its 10+ year history. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree with Tryptofish, it's not the actual idea of the article that's bad, it could just be written a little better to present the information in a clearer manner, maybe add some more information if possible. SwashbucklingSalamander (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as vandalism-only account Ca talk to me! 07:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been following this discussion for a while since I was mentioned in the proposal. This article needs some improvement, but it should be kept. --Bduke (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. signed, Rosguill talk 05:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kothaga Maa Prayanam[edit]

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

Whatever was stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kothaga Maa Prayanam stills applies. The article was recreated without any improvement.

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability. The film has only received one reliable review and not two. Two of the production sources are just about the teaser and trailer. Found these two additional sources that add nothing: [24] (cast and crew) and [25] (trailer again). This review [26] is deemed not notable. DareshMohan (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep.There's the 123telugu review. The Tollywood.net review mentioned above seems okayish. There is also this but the site is not really considered reliable. However the Times of India mentions the fact that the "film attracted a young audience" (here) and production has attracted some attention (interviews, filming stills, etc.).-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 22:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 123 Telagu source is usable, but I'm unconvinced that Tollywood is reliable. It has been discussed only once at RSN on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 376#Wanted to know whether these websites are reliable sources. The discussion involved one editor making a neutral note, another giving a detailed analysis on why the site is unreliable, followed by another editor adding the ref to WP:UPSD, which seems to affirm unreliability. Admittedly a RS discussion with only two participants offering views probably shows that there is only weak consensus for unreliability, but clearly it does not seem like this site should be presumed as a RS for its reviews (also the site doesn't have a clear editorial policy, at least for the English version). In contrast, The Times of India source linked above is only a WP:MREL source. Moreover, in this case the coverage is extensively quotes. I don't think that quotes would automatically discount a source from independence and SIGCOV, but in this case excluding the quotes the ref has only two short paragraphs and another one-sentence paragraph, which is insufficient for SIGCOV IMO. Likewise, other refs in the article are even shorter and similarly fails SIGCOV or independence. My search could not find more sources contributing to WP:GNG and WP:NFILM so this is a delete, and I respectfully disagree with the analysis above. VickKiang (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per VickKiang's analysis. We lack sufficient independent, reliable sources to support an article. The delete is weak because I'd prefer to fight systematic bias by keeping mainstream but relatively low profile Indian films and because I am relying on other editors' analysis of the Telegu language sources. But we need a solid base from which to work and that is lacking here. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 04:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language Rights Support Program[edit]

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

NN legal support organization. Tagged for notability issues since 2010. Fails WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There seem to be quite a few discussions of the program in Canadian government materials (e.g. [27], [28], both PDF). While I don't know whether these can be considered independent of the program, given its government funding, there are also scholarly papers (e.g. [29], [30]) at least from 2006 to 2017. Cnilep (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable government-financed program with good references already present in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NORG is met by sources found by Cnilep —siroχo 21:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Boston (band). Editors making policy-based arguments are nearly unanimous that this artist does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. signed, Rosguill talk 04:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adom (artist)[edit]

Adom (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. The Rolling Stone article (Boston Come Back) is the only source which looks to be WP:RS, and that's largely a passing mention. My own searching didn't find anything better.

I could probably just redirect this to Boston (band) on my own per WP:BANDMEMBER but given the controversy that's going on (WP:AN thread, SPI) I figured it was better to get a more authoritative decision. RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, alternatively, redirect to Boston (band). He's pretty borderline for WP:NMUSIC - per that, individual musicians are redirected to their bands unless they individually satisfy notability guidelines, and I'm not sure he does. He does have a few articles from Billboard and another news outlet, though. They're pretty scant, but it's something, and they cover his solo work since he left Boston. Kalethan (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote from Redirect to Weak Keep, edited entry above. Kalethan (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the entire band is being targeted for notable tags and deletion.seems almost like someone is trying to erase history? It’s only fair if one goes down then they all should come down. I vote they all stay up, and let the musicians have articles because they all were part of a pretty cool band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreykaa (talk • contribs) 01:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boston (band). Just about all of the info on this musician is about his time in Boston, so his temporary membership can be discussed there, while his songwriting credits are already covered in the article for the one album on which he appeared. His non-Boston work has received no reliable coverage and is only visible in promotional announcements and the usual streaming services. And finally, he was discussed in articles about the lawsuit in which he was sued for promoting himself as a former member of Boston (linked by a commenter above), which means that he has few other ways to promote himself. That also shows that there is no need for his own article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this because I see a lot of links with current press on Adom on his page. This seem pretty notable to me. Since his time in Boston he's had numerous projects. I've been following him for 20 years. Not notable? People want to know what the musicians in these highly popular bands are doing today. There are at least 20 musicians that have been in Boston and because they were in the band Boston makes each and everyone of them notable. Steve Hackett, Lawrence Juber and many other musicians shouldn't have a Wiki page according to the poster above. That's crazy. If you were in a popular band that sold millions of records. You are notable. These rules are stupid. 2603:9001:5000:5E29:A986:5FFD:E166:40E7 (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert back to Anton Cosmo. His name with the group Boston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreykaa (talk • contribs) 11 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - The people above who are in favor of keeping the article have done little or nothing else in Wikipedia. Most of them also put their comments in the wrong place, which I have fixed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have to disagree on this. The people who are not involved in writing wiki articles are very invloved in donating to wikipedia. Common folks. 74.78.194.27 (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. For what it's worth, the Billboard sources are not Billboard magazine, but Billboard Sound, which appears to be its press release offshoot. The "interview" (and all others like it on the site) appear to be the same generic template questions filled in exclusively with the artist's own answers. There is nothing to indicate this is actual journalism, as there is nothing written by an independent author (here just credited as "Staff") to reinforce or contradict anything the artist said. I'd say this is a very poor quality source for establishing notability. Rift (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go back to Anton Cosmo article. "For what it's worth" It seems like there are the same two users voting over and over again. I vote go back to Anton Cosmo. If we delete the article, the rest of the former band members have to come down. At least Cosmo has new music and press and also 16 million views on his single Kids of America.[1] How many other former members have these numbers? Not even Scholz himself has much going on. Something to ponder over. This artist is pretty active and notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreykaa (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boston (band). I cannot find sufficient significant coverage to support individual notability per WP:MUSICBIO, searching by both names. Schazjmd (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The musician is current and I see more references being added daily. I have been watching this guy for years. He is also verified (artist verification not paid sub) on social media platforms and very popular. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.194.170 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xar7cpR8I_g
  2. ^ https://www.instagram.com/adomcloud/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that the content fails WP:SYNTH. The arguments in favor of this view have been addressed by the "keep" side only to a limited extent. Instead, they mostly argue that the topic is notable, which is beside the point, because non-notability is not the reason for which deletion is sought. This means that the article can be recreated if this is possible with different, non-OR content. Sandstein 07:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in mathematics[edit]

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

This article consists only of WP:SYNTHESIS. This is clearly aknowleged by the unique content editor of the article (Cosmia Nebula), who wrote in Talk:Artificial intelligence in mathematics#Original synthesis: "My intention is to provide a balanced, verifiable exploration of AI's role in mathematics".

The article cannot be rewritten into an article respecting WP policies, since there are very few, if any, successful applications of artificial intelligence to mathematics. On the opposite, there are many application of mathematics to artificial intelligence. So, the article title does not respect WP:NPOV, by suggesting that a minor aspect of the relationship between artificial intelligence and mathematics is the major one.

Before being a true article, the article was a redirect to computational mathematics, where artificial intelligence is not mentioned. As there is no other convenient target for transforming this article into a redirect, the only acceptable solution is to delete this article. D.Lazard (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@D.Lazard: Is automated theorem proving not a subfield of artificial intelligence, and does it not represent a successful application of artificial intelligence to mathematics? Jarble (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@D.Lazard:"suggesting that a minor aspect of the relationship between artificial intelligence and mathematics is the major one".
The article's title simply reflects its focus -- the use and role of AI in mathematics -- and does not assert that this aspect is the most significant or the only one. Its existence doesn't diminish or overshadow the value of other perspectives, such as "Mathematics in Artificial Intelligence". Its presence doesn't negate the need or value of the other articles, which people are free to write. These articles exist to provide separate, focused information. Significance is not a zero-sum game. As a live example, consider Artificial intelligence in government. The title does not imply the application of AI to government is more important than of the government's role in regulating or promoting AI.
Only by deliberate policy distortion could you understand my statement "My intention is to provide a balanced, verifiable exploration of AI's role in mathematics" as an intention to provide WP:SYNTHESIS. If I were to be more careful with words I would have said something like "The intended purpose of the article is to provide a useful paraphrase from verified secondary sources."
The accusation of WP:SYNTHESIS is invalid, as the article can be written based on only review articles, examples of which are this from 2021: Towards the Automatic Mathematician.
Over the recent years deep learning has found successful applications in mathematical reasoning. Today, we can predict fine-grained proof steps, relevant premises, and even useful conjectures using neural networks.
Or a more recent, popular report from the New York Times: A.I. Is Coming for Mathematics, Too.
Concerning possible objection that contents of the article can be incorporated into other articles: Computational mathematics is a very poor fit for redirection, since it is almost entirely used in the sense of "numerical modeling and simulation". Nor is Automatic theorem proving appropriate as there is more to AI applications in mathematics than automatic deduction. There is also automated inductive reasoning/conjecturing, as one can see from the review articles, or the essay by Terence Tao given below. Note specifically that it is not limited to formal verification or automatic theorem proving ("The 2023-level AI can already generate suggestive hints and promising leads to a working mathematician and participate actively in the decision-making process.").
The article meets WP:SIGNIFICANCE, as application of AI to mathematics is long recognized by experts working in AI (Marvin Minsky, John McCarthy, etc), and there are conferences and journals (International Conference on Automated Deduction, Journal of Automated Reasoning, etc) dedicated to the field. They are being recognized by mathematicians, too, such as Terence Tao in Embracing change and resetting expectations, so it has WP:POTENTIAL to grow, as per eventualism. pony in a strange land (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added the following references to the article. Notability was already demonstrated; it is now even more clearly demonstrated.
    • Davies, Alex; Veličković, Petar; Buesing, Lars; Blackwell, Sam; Zheng, Daniel; Tomašev, Nenad; Tanburn, Richard; Battaglia, Peter; Blundell, Charles; Juhász, András; Lackenby, Marc; Williamson, Geordie; Hassabis, Demis; Kohli, Pushmeet (2021-12-01). "Advancing mathematics by guiding human intuition with AI". Nature. 600 (7887): 70–74. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04086-x. ISSN 1476-4687.
    • Roberts, Siobhan (2023-07-02). "A.I. Is Coming for Mathematics, Too". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-07-03.
    • Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The first article ("Advancing mathematics by guiding human intuition with AI") is certainly an interesting case study. I am not sure we can infer much from this about AI in mathematics in general though. In case people did not notice, of the list of authors three seems to be academic mathematicians (who presumably provided the required mathematical background for posing the problems examined). All the other 11 authors were employees of DeepMind. So this really reads as an advertisement for the company's capabilities more than anything else, more than an analysis of AI in mathematics in general. As for the NY Times article, I can't comment as it is behind a paywall.
    PatrickR2 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment (somewhere between "delete" and "needs a major cleanup and focusing"). The first section, and the above comments, about AI aiding in generating new conjectures, or suggesting proof strategies fits with the title. Is it significant and written about enough for its own article? Maybe... The second section I do not understand the relevance. As I read it, it says that a mathematical technique TTT is used to solve mathematical problem PPP. The link is that technique TTT is also used in AI? But that just means that some mathematical theorems are useful in many areas of mathematics, which is no news, that's just normal in mathematics. In short: the first section may have potential, the second section seems irrelevant, it is mathematics beeing mathematics (not AI involved). One problem (on the article, or on my reasoning) may be a lack of clear definition of what AI is, beyond the enthusiasm of the day. - Nabla (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article definitely reads like WP:Synth trying to merge two fields of sciences. Hence, instead of dedicating a full article add this as a subsection in to Mathematics or as a write up in tools subsection of Artificial intelligence. Nanosci (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Note that deleting this may itself be a form of recency bias. Buzz around (a few specific use cases of) AI does not change the fact that historically, AI has been heavily involved in math. This is not WP:SYNTH, and probably just needs a bit of care. I don't prefer it but a possible alternative merge to automated reasoning but if done with care it might suffice. —siroχo 20:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "the fact that historically, AI has been heavily involved in math"
    This "fact" is rather disputable! To say the least, the article's current phrasing "Its use has transformed the way mathematicians approach problems, understand abstract concepts, and conduct computational mathematics" is an extreme overstatement which is not borne out by the article's content. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, topic is notable as the subject of several articles, has decades of history, and does not require synthesis. Enervation (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the contents could be merged into Computer-assisted proof, an article about automated theorem provers used by mathematicians. As far as I checked, all text of Artificial intelligence in mathematics actually deals with automated theorem proving, except for Risch algorithm, which seems to belong to computer algebra. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all content in the Applications section belongs in computer-assisted proof and all content in the Logical AI section seems to be irrelevant to the topic. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The boundaries of what counts as "artificial intelligence" are both vague and time-dependent (and lately it has become little more than branding), so the scope of any article with this title is unclear. Computer algebra is an encyclopedic topic, as is computer-assisted proof, but "artificial intelligence in mathematics"? Not so much. We should aspire to be something better than a junk drawer of stuff mentioned at HackerNews. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to computer-assisted proof (not sure how much there is to merge that isn't already covered in that article). I think the nom's interpretation of the article creator's intent is rather uncharitable, but the definitional problems pointed out by various contributors above are real and likely fatal at this stage. It seems noteworthy that most of the sources that purport to be about AI and mathematics actually end up talking about fairly narrow and specific applications. Perhaps in the future there will be enough scholarly debate around what "AI" actually means in the context of mathematics to support an article on that topic. -- Visviva (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Visviva. I'm not completely comfortable with this merge for a few related reasons. First, automated reasoning seems like a more general possible target. Relatedly, historically, the meaning of AI was a bit different. Formal logic led pretty directly to the field of AI and the line between automated reasoning and AI was almost nonexistent. We now think of AI as something that gets close to passing a Turing test or even AGI. But for decades that was not what the field of AI was really focused on. This leads to my last point. I worry that we may be seeing a recency bias towards "new" AI rather than covering the entire field of AI. What do you think? —siroχo 03:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think those are good points, and it's definitely not my field, but I am struck that the three mentions of "mathematics" in automated reasoning are either about computer-assisted proofs or old-fashioned proofs with no connection to computers. That still leaves me thinking that computer-assisted proof is the more precise target here. That said, I came into this discussion expecting to support a WP:TNT deletion to allow for the creation of a broad-concept article (BCA) here, since articles on these large, slippery topics are hard to write from scratch -- and represent something of an exception to WP:PRESERVE since IMX they are even harder to rewrite from a bad start. I still don't think that such a deletion would be a bad outcome here. But unless someone is volunteering to take a crack at a BCA right now (which is definitely not supported by the sources currently on hand), to my inexpert mind, it seems the referenced content we actually have here is substantially about computer-assisted proof, so my inclination is to merge whatever's mergeable to that article, and hope that something fresh might eventually sprout from the redirect. -- Visviva (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for going in-depth on your opinion! I think these are fair points about a BCA, though I'm a bit more optimistic that what we have being able to evolve into one. I don't think I have it in me to start a BCA right now, but I am also less uncomfortable with the idea of the suggested merge. I'll think on whether I want to change my !vote, but at the very least it's a bit softer now. —siroχo 04:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: based on WP:SYNTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickR2 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: None of the second half of the article is at all relevant to AI. Two of them are just algorithms in the same way that Gaussian elimination or the Euclidean algorithm are algorithms, just step by step processes. The third is just a kind of mathematical object like a group or a field is a kind of object. There are no sources indicating their special connection with artificial intelligence. And the first half is mostly related to automated theorem proving. I think an article by this name could be interesting and could use some of the material cited above in this discussion. But the article as is does not have notable material.Brirush (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Not every algorithm is AI, and not every news piece that has an AI in its title is about AI. Besides, current AI is just a neural net, do we want an article about "neural nets in mathematics"? Artem.G (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — since reliable sources have been found above talking exactly about

    artificial intelligence in mathematics.

Kate the mochii (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to computer-assisted proof - I'm persuaded by Visviva's arguments regarding the centrality of CAP to our coverage of AI in mathematics on Wikipedia. This is without prejudice to recreation if academic coverage of AI in mathematics that treats it as a subject cohesively, not just addressing the application of individual AI technologies in math. signed, Rosguill talk 04:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Faron Young. Star Mississippi 02:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Old Used to Be[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a song. This literally just states that the song exists, the end, and cites absolutely no sources at all -- but the mere fact that a song charted somewhere is not in and of itself an instant notability freebie that exempts a song from actually having to have any sourcing to support any substantive content about it, so this as written is not enough all by itself.
Obviously I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived US media coverage from the 1960s than I've got can find enough sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shiawassee District Library[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No WP:IS. No indication it passes WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - This Carnegie library article needed a little copy editing today, which it has had. The Carnegie libraries are historically and culturally notable to the United States. — Maile (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article at issue encompasses the historic Owosso Carnegie library. I have added to the article three examples of SIGCOV on the Carnegie library. In addition, the libary system as a whole has received additional coverage in more recent times, including here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing used in the article is fine, Carnegie libraries are usually on the NRHP as well, but I haven't checked this particular building. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism in Africa[edit]

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

I followed this article for over a decade, and I think it's safe to say that it appears impossible to convert into something useful for an Encyclopedia.

The current article consists essentially of three parts. First well-referenced overview where with inputs from academics questioning the existence of the article subject. Then a few examples of presence of fascist movements on the continent, but with the exception of SA these are essentially presence of European fascist movements in diaspora/colonial frameworks. Here there is really no WP:RS that connect the dots. Even if we are to accept the argument that Egyptian Greenshirts was a fascist movement, there is nothing sourced that would connect the Egyptians with South African far right politics. Whether And lastly some listing of leaders and groups that have been accused of fascism (with 'fascism' being reduced to a pejorative), conflating authoritarianism and fascism. There is nothing that glues together the article, apart from OR. Soman (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have just spent quite a while looking at the article and thinking and I agree with User:Soman|Soman. This article should have no place here. --Bduke (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Google Scholar and books search on the topic yields a few sources discussing fascism in Africa. Perhaps TNT should be considered instead Chamaemelum (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but isn't this more or less what we have in the article at the moment, different scholars debating whether some aspects of African politics can be referred to 'fascism' or not? In that case we should have an article on the scholarly debate in itself, without any pretense of listing different organizations. --Soman (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Bournville Centre for Visual Arts. Star Mississippi 02:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Project Space[edit]

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

I find no evidence that IPS ever was an organisation. It does not seem to have been incorporated or had staff beyond an exhibition curator. Rather, it seems to have been a venue, an art gallery run by Birmingham City University's Birmingham Institute of Art and Design (Q22661578) and located in the Ruskin Hall (Q26340863) building. No sources found in cursory search. Daask (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Donghae Expressway. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Busan–Ulsan Expressway Co., Ltd.[edit]

Busan–Ulsan Expressway Co., Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable Qwv (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus is notability is established. I leave title determination to an editorial decision. If there's anything blocking a move, just ping me. Star Mississippi 02:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pehr W. Palmrooth[edit]

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

NN architect. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, Finland, and Sweden. UtherSRG (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ARCHITECT.3 for designing multiple historically notable churches. —siroχo 11:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting from discussion below that subject seems to meet GNG as well after more sources have been found. —siroχo 23:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so much famous and This is a very significant historical and religious churche: per WP:ARCHITECT.3--Patricia (Talk) 11:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:ARCHITECT.3. Has designss multipld churchesof significance.BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a lot out there if you look for it (more sources on the .fi article, too). Clearly a notable architect, once this AfD's closed, page needs to move to his proper name, Pehr W. Palmroth, one 'o'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep, see sources in the Finnish article. /Julle (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • But yeah, really needs to be moved to the correct spelling of his name. /Julle (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - There are references above to WP:NARCHITECT#3, but I'm not seeing anyone explicitly point out the sources that satisfy the second sentence in addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). The articles for the wikilinked churches are both very badly referenced, and I don't see anything better in their fi.wp articles.
    @Julle and Alexandermcnabb: Did you look at the fi.wp sources in detail? #1 and #5 are database entries, with #1 being just the DOB and DOD, and #2-#4 appear to be WP:SPS. I'm not sure what fi.wp references you refer to (hah). -Ljleppan (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your source evaluation here above my own, and strike my !vote. /Julle (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also note that simply saying There's a lot out there if you look for it is largely useless, unless one actually points out what sources they refer to. Ljleppan (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a lot of his churches and a source to the article. I think that's enough for WP:GNG. I'm honestly not interested enough to do more than that. My vote and rationale for it stands. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the en.wp article we're discussing here? The one where the references consist solely of a name+DOB+DOD in a database (ref #1, Structurae), a database entry of a cathedral he designed (ref #2, kyppi.fi), another database entry consisting of name+DOB+DOD (ref #3, Kringla) and a list entry of a total of 130 characters (un-numbered ref Sveriges och Norges statskalender)? That's incredibly far from reaching WP:GNG. Ljleppan (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the coat of arms of the city suffices, otherwise Unless someone reads Finnish I think we can call WP:IAR on explicitly requiring newspaper articles about a 200 year old cathedral that survived a battle and an occupation. —siroχo 08:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Finnish, and searched for Finnish language sources. The refs used at fi:Kuopion tuomiokirkko are all rather bad. Searches for both the architect and the Kuopio cathedral both just return useless hits, like a news blurb about how "there are still a few open slots in the summer for marriage ceremonies". Even the Finnish Heritage Agency listing is just stuff like "Made of stone, building started in X by so-and-so, halted in Z, continued in W, seats replaced in Y". By your call for an IAR keep, I take it that you too have failed to find anything that would actually meet either WP:GNG or WP:NARCHITECT#3. Ljleppan (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read Finnish or Swedish (or Russian for that matter) and don't have access to newspaper archives in either language either. I actually tried to find pre-1900 newspapers in those languages (not even about this topic, just find the newspapers so I could query about the topic) but I literally don't know the languages well enough to find the archives in a reasonable amount of time.
    I'm invoking IAR for this because I believe WP:ARCHITECT#3 applies in spirit here. The purpose of the clause you're querying about really is not to exclude verifiable architects of notable buildings from 200 years ago. It would not serve the encyclopedia to follow this guideline to the letter here. Instead, let's follow the spirit of the guideline, and recognize that it better serves the first and second pillars to include an article about a verifiable architect of multiple notable structures from 200 years ago. —siroχo 11:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe the guidelines should be changed, you are naturally free to propose the change on relevant talk page. I'm also rather confused why you keep bringing up pre-1900 newspapers, nothing in the guidelines says the references must be contemporary. Perhaps you are misunderstanding "periodical" in periodical articles or reviews as "period"? Ljleppan (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I happen to have access to archives of historical newspapers and other publications published in Finland, and I can't see any relevant hits in either Finnish or Swedish newspapers. There's someone called "Carl Palmroth" going about; a reverend "A. Palmroth" does something or else; someone called "C. O. Palmroth" has levied a bunch of money from various bank accounts as part of some debt recovery process; a dentist called "R.W. Palmroth" advertises his services; a land survey commissioner called Palmroth is traveling to Hamburg in 1881 (nb: our subject died 1825); someone called "Georg Juhana Palmroth" gets a diamond decorated ring from the Russian Emperor in 1882; a lieutenant Palmroth is going about around 1807 doing something with a first platoon, etc. etc.
    The only even potentially relevant hits are non-news things like this, which lists the name of "Pehr Vilhelm Palmroth" as an ensign of the Royal Uplands Regiment, and this which says the same guy is a conductor in 1809. These contribute nothing towards a GNG pass. Ljleppan (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If this comes up multiple times I may propose a change, but I don't see a need now. Appreciate your input. —siroχo 11:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • source I added a source in Swedish to the article. Good article and clearly stated about him.--Patricia (Talk) 10:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source no. 5:here.--Patricia (Talk) 10:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be a self-published source and mentions the subject only in passing. It's neither a good article nor clearly stated about him. Ljleppan (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS? by whom? He died 200 years ago--Patricia (Talk) 15:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "self" in "self-published" does not talk about the subject of the text, but the author. I suggest you (re)read the linked policy. Ljleppan (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
iam not sure but maybe this is one way: here. Patricia (Talk) 15:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also changed:Petter "Per" Wilhelm Palmroth. not move yet.--Patricia (Talk) 15:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Patricia Mannerheim for your updates. Thanks to them, I was able to find another in-depth source, added into the article, and I think its sufficient for GNG now, in addition to ARCHITECT.3 —siroχo 23:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: Help me out here, again: what sources do you claim constitute a GNG pass? Because as far as I can see, the Finska Museum ref is just two extremely brief mentions of the subject, same for Sveriges kyrkor. Do you have access to the sources beyond what is shown in the Google Books preview? If yes, please describe how they match the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews requirement of WP:NARCHITECT#3. It'd be best if you could write up a brief WP:THREE statement (from either a GNG or an NARCHITECT angle, whichever you believe is the strongest) to help the rest of us figure out whether we agree with your rather plain assertion on the notability pass. Ljleppan (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, asking for a friend and all that, but what is that long wooden thing over there? Looks to me a lot like a stick, I'd have to say... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of everyone, I went to scour the stacks and found the archival copy of Finskt Museum, vol XIX (btw, as far as I could determine, the book is not "in Finnish and Swedish" and the relevant article is only in the Swedish version). The two snippets shown by Google Books is indeed everything there is: two passing mentions. I also checked the separate index, and it contained the following entry: Palmroth, P. W., arkitekt F 1912: 63, 69.. So that appears to be all for that source.
While in the stacks, I also sought out Sveriges kyrkor by Bergman. It mentions Palmroth only a few times. One is in an index of figures on page 594. Another is on a spread, where four drawings are attributed to him in two separate captions (pages 346-347). These drawings are describe briefly in associated text (pages 344-345), in a total of two paragraphs. Palmroth is barely mentioned. He's also mentioned in a three-paragraph description of a 1796 church in Venjan on page 561. The description is an extremely bare-bones description of the church, with Palmroth only mentioned in passing as the architect. Finally, he is mentioned once on page 591 in an English language summary, which appears to translate the three paras from page 561 verbatim, which just demonstrates how bare-bones the description is.
My Swedish is rather rudimentary, so it's possible I missed something, but based on what I saw I consider precisely none of this helpful in terms of GNG. Ljleppan (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i wanna thanks to Ljleppan. Appreciate.I understand exactly what you are saying: work so much hard about sources and read them. but as a user who wrote this Article, still believed WP:NARCHITECT#3 per for the subject.--Patricia (Talk) 12:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting rather frustrating, with all the vague hand waving and poor sources presented so far. What sources do you base this on? What are the multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or [the] independent and notable work required by WP:NARCHITECT#3? Ljleppan (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Above keep !votes put forwards two arguments: either the subject passes WP:GNG (which is equivalent to the "basic criteria" of WP:NBIO), or that the subject passes WP:NARCHITECT#3. I cannot see any supporting evidence for either position.
    In terms of GNG, the references presented in both this article and the fi.wp article are all either bare bones database entries (e.g. Structurae, Kringla), database entries that only mention the subject in passing (e.g. kyppi.fi), passing mentions (Sveriges of Norges statskalendar), self-published (kauvatsankarjalaiset.net, upplandia.se) or combination thereof (pohjois-savonmuisti.fi). This also applies to the sources presented above during the AfD. For example, having looked up physical copies in the local archives, Finskt Museum is two passing mentions. Sveriges kyrkor is not any better. See above for extensive descriptions of my attempts to validate the proposed references.
    A search for Finnish sources, including historical archives of newspapers and other works published in Finland whether in Finnish or Swedish going back to when the subject was alive, reveals no further sourcing that would raise to the level of GNG (or WP:NBASIC or WP:ANYBIO, for that matter).
    As for WP:NARCHITECT#3, the above !votes all conveniently ignore the second sentence of that very point: In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). No such coverage is evident on the linked Wikipedia articles, and no such coverage has been presented in this discussion.
    The fact that Sveriges kyrkor - a compilation of literally 200+ books taking up several meters of space on shelves and discussing quite literally every Swedish church ever - barely mentions the subject or his works speaks volumes.
    In total, none of the keep votes have put forward the references required by the guidelines they point to. As such, I see no other policy (or guideline) based option but to !vote delete. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could I gently suggest consideration of WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:BLUDGEON now? The man is 200 years old. He is the (well) documented architect of many, many churches and public buildings in Finland and Sweden. The present clear consensus here is that he is presumed notable per WP:ARCHITECT. Let's leave it to other contributors, if any? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree . With full respect for all users.--Patricia (Talk) 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb: As someone who had argued keep, I disagree. I think that Ljleppan makes a reasonable case, with reasonable arguments, and that no one else is seriously engaging with the discussion about lacking sources. I looked up Palmroth in what I'd describe as the major work on the history of Swedish architecture in modern times (Den svenska arkitekturens historia by Fredric Bedoire), where he's once mentioned in passing because someone else's plans passed through his hands working at the superintendent's office, but there was no mention of his work as an architect. /Julle (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Julie Julle. To engage with the discussion about lacking sources, since the start of this discussion, it clear to me we now have a WP:HEY for WP:BASIC/GNG for the subject via sources now in the article. Consider, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. We now have that. I appreciate your source, and if you feel it helps I would appreciate you adding it, but I understand if you choose not to. Earlier, the discussion got a bit away from us, and that's completely fine, but I think that's why Alexandermcnabb raised their suggestion. —siroχo 02:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: I'd be happy to !vote keep if you just point out which sources in specific support such a position. But I'd also point out the sentence immediately following what you cited, as well as the explanatory footnote attached to it: trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. and Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing. See also the rest of the explanatory footnote about database sources. In this case, all we have in reliable sources is trivial mentions such as directory entries or mentions in passing. (Ps. it's "Julle" with two Ls, not "Julie") Ljleppan (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for misreading the other editor's name! —siroχo 09:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck and remedied it, thanks for pointing it out. —siroχo 09:26, 16 July 2023 (UT
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. Joyous! Noise! 19:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

College of Fine Arts (University of Tehran)[edit]

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

NN campus of a university. Fails WP:NORG. The U is itself notable, so a merge/redirect there as an WP:ATD is fine. UtherSRG (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muojärvi[edit]

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

NN lake - fails WP:NGEO. UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Finland. UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage of watershed, etc. Meets GNG [32][33][34] —siroχo 11:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considerable coverage in sources:Meets GNG very clear.--Patricia (Talk) 12:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GEOLAND is quite a low bar and this easily meets it. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Also worth noting that other Wikipedias have this article: Swedish, Finish, French, German and Egyptian Arabic. Existence on other Wikipedias is not binding here but it is telling. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:GEONATURAL. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HiDE Kawada[edit]

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

Previously deleted (soft delete after minimal participation at AfD), declined subsequent G4 because of soft deletion, this article remains problematic - subject would not appear to pass WP:GNG, there is minimal sourcing on offer and no more RS presented than last time - and finding anything out there is problematic both in English and Japanese - admittedly, I didn't get too far in Japanese. Given the tagging and the time given to improve this and the deletion history, I'm nominating for deletion as not notable either as a musician/producer or as a business person. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Music, and Japan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom—I also noticed a possible COI: check out the username on the image uploader. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was the nominator for the previous AfD, and I stand by my rationale from that nomination. I've searched thoroughly for sources, including with the subject's name written in Kanji form (河田秀樹), and haven't found any independent sources that satisfy SIGCOV. This article seems to be the target of an SPA who repeatedly re-creates it whenever it is deleted, so it's unfortunately necessary to put this to bed with consensus here at AfD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unrectifiably promotional in its current iteration. I note that there is no equivalent article on the Japanese Wikipedia, but the first line of ja:FUTURE UNISON (created by the SPA under discussion above) links to the English version of this article as the primary justification of its notability, which probably explains the recreation here. Dekimasuよ! 02:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how he is notable. Fulmard (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Buell Anderson[edit]

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

We seem to have had this article since 9 April 2005. Err... look at it. A previous AfD in 2006 prevented me from using PROD in this case. —S Marshall T/C 08:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only get hits on anyone with the Anderson family name, but it was good to see what Pammy's been up to. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magical (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG - and WP:SERIESA to boot - routine/incidental coverage presented for this browser extension startup. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per media coverage in TechCrunch, LifeHacker Australia, Android Police, Mashable, Business Insider... It appears this broad coverage in multiple reliable sources demonstrates browser extension notability. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, "media coverage" includes PR, announcements, interviews, etc and is not a criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are either not about the company but about a product (which is not the topic of this article) or are based on company announcements or funding announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing++ 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per WP:ORG. While there is coverage in TechCrunch, there isn't much substance there. Some of the refs like Bloomberg and WSJ don't even mention the company. The rest of the refs are non-RS and articles that just mention Magical along with a lot of other businesses. APK whisper in my ear 08:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per table below. This article is mildly refdumped, and there isn't even enough for GNG let alone WP:NCORP. —siroχo 09:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
lifehacker Yes ~ [35] No not about company, short entry in list ✘ No
android police ? valnet No valnet No not about company, short entry in list ✘ No
mashable Yes ~ No not about company, short entry in list ✘ No
TechCrunch Page No relies heavily on interviews by founder and investor ~ Yes ✘ No
TechCrunch Wiggers (listed twice) No relies heavily on interview from founder ~ Yes ✘ No
TechCrunch Lunden ? ~ No no mention ✘ No
WSJ Yes Yes No no mention ✘ No
product hunt ? ? No barely about company, minor product "#1 ranking" ✘ No
Business Insider No "Relationship: Investor" ~ No ✘ No
bloomberg Yes Yes No no mention ✘ No
fast company Yes Yes No not about company, short entry in list ✘ No
chome web store No company published No ugc/company No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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 04:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Seppelt[edit]

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

No independent sources, lacks notability. The sources are either from organisations she works for, or an article she wrote. Looking for better sources only produced a short list of similar sources, and some passing mentions. Nothing in Google News. Her function of "deputy leader" is an internal job in the party, not a position in a parliament. Fram (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not appear to have been significantly covered by GNG sources, the articles linked in the article have the problems identified by the nominator, there's no German language article to easily check to see if we've missed sources here, and a quick search brings up nothing else of note. Since I may have missed German sources and this was a Women in Red stub, I have absolutely no problem having the article recreated if it meets GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she's got more coverage. Deputy leader of a political party is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees automatic inclusion in Wikipedia per se, but the referencing here is far, far too heavily dependent on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all — we require reliable source coverage independently analyzing her work in media and/or books, not content self-published by her own party or other organizations she's been directly affiliated with. And if she's already held the role for five months, then the possibility of more media coverage appearing in the future isn't enough to overrule the lack of any media coverage already existing now: the time to start an article about her will be if and when that possible future media coverage actually happens. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per above. Okoslavia (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Swords, Dublin. While consensus is to delete rather than merge this, this is a viable ATD with the history preserved should consensus change. Star Mississippi 02:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Swords[edit]

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

A lot of this article was based on an argument that despite what the CSO might think, Swords is in fact Ireland's largest town. I removed this POV, but I'm left wondering if the article is worth salvaging. It's now two censuses out of date. Will it realistically be maintained, and is it the level of detail suitable for Wikipedia? I don't see a benefit in mirroring the CSO data tables for a given town for this level of specific demographic detail, when pertinent ones can be referenced and footnoted on the Swords, Dublin page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • With appreciation to the nominator for fixing the NPOV issue and raising the quality concern, Keep as a reasonable WP:SPINOFF as the combined articles would be well over 7000 words including the tables. As for out of date, it's marked as 2011 and verifiable, and we can consider WP:PRESERVE. I'm not sure at what point I would be willing to ignore all rules with such an article, but I don't think deletion would improve the encyclopedia at the moment so I'm not there yet. (Also keep in mind deletion removes history, a WP:BOLD merge that improves the main article by linking effectively would be preferable for future editors who might want to remake this article, but for purposes of AFD I'll just stick with my keep !vote above) —siroχo 10:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Swords, Dublin. This is barely an article, it's an infodump of mostly irrelevant numbers that belong in a government census, not Wikipedia. Permanent private households by sewerage facility? Number of households with a personal computer? Really? 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ireland. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. I would recommend linking to the cenusus websites and merging the most significant datapoints, but this is not the sort of statistics we need to compile here, let alone in a stand-alone article. Reywas92Talk 12:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS , are we going to have an article like this for every town in Ireland? Spleodrach (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. I do not see the argument for having a page/"article" on Wikipedia which is effectively a republication of a table (or set of tables) from the CSO census records. As noted by Festucalex above, the granularity of a majority of the raw data ("Carers by sex and number of unpaid hours per week", "Number of households with a personal computer", etc) is entirely unsuited to the project and its scope. Guliolopez (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Swords, Dublin, it would make a good demographics section. However, per the immediately above, we shouldn't merge every single part of it. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per siro. Too much good info to merge, no urgent reason to get rid of the article. Last1in (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a repository for a massive stat-dump like that. Joyous! Noise! 19:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Cuevas-Mohr[edit]

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

This is a new one to me, a "poet, writer, and family remittances expert".

Does not pass WP:GNG, no RS presented and no enduring record of creative impact or literary review/recognition. Own website, PR Newswire and a divers mixture of sources about poetry and the remittances business. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Kasim[edit]

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

People should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In the current content of the article, all of the sources aren't such. Edit.pdf (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep. There's a Google scholar result for an Indonesian journal that has sigcov. Given that various other sources are able to independently corroborate very basic facts like "editor-in-chief for National Geographic Indonesia", I lean keep. It would be nice to have a second independent source that was sigcov on its own, though. —siroχo 07:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist because right now, this looks like a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the explanation above. I can't find much for sourcing, but it's likely in the native language. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus is sourcing & citation volume is sufficient. Content/conduct issues can be handled elsewhere Star Mississippi 02:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmaiah Manchikanti[edit]

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

This article has been disputed since its creation to due fake references and a massive conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard in addition to little outside and third party sources for the existence of any claim made by this article or organizations related to this article. See User talk:Saidul123 - AH (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, are there additional sources that could demonstrate GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is evenly divided among those who argue this article, in some state, is worth Keeping and those who are adamant that it be deleted. Would Draftify be a compomise solution?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've updated my !vote above in response to relisting, seems a prudent course given the history of this article, the work still needed to improve it, and the possibility of more discussion on COI noticeboard . —siroχo 07:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of author publications per David Epstein. I used the Wikipedia Library to search for refs. I found several on newspapers.com which I listed at Talk:Laxmaiah Manchikanti#More refs. After awhile, I gave up filling out citation templates. Dr. Manchikanti appears to be the go-to doctor when major newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal) are looking for someone to opine on pain management medical practices.
Among other things, Dr. Manchikanti was also the owner of a failed for-profit law school for a few months.
A ProQuest search turned up numerous papers authored by Dr. Manchikanti. He's written at least one professional-level book and contributed to or been cited in others. 150+ hits on this Wikipedia Library search. Google Scholar lists hundreds of his papers (I stopped at 540) and and they're cited 100s of times.
This guy is the real deal (even if he did pay some writer).
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject almost certainly meets WP:N. The reason I switched to draftify is the history of issues with the existing article around independence, V, NPOV, and related COI. —siroχo 02:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century. Joyous! Noise! 19:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controlocracy[edit]

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

Clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:DICDEF applies here. Given lack of sources, I'd also go for WP:NOTNEO on this one - one man's use of a word doesn't a word make. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per WP:NEO. I only see a few mentions in RS, but it's not the primary topic, except for the opinion piece in Modern Diplomacy. APK whisper in my ear 07:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The South China Morning Post seems to use the word often enough ([37] as an example), as does the Guardian [38]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And quite a few hits in Gscholar using the term [39], seems ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 07:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lerato Mahole[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is from her university and this is from her prep school. JTtheOG (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I cannot find a reason for notability. --Loewstisch (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Sufficient sources in the article and discovered during this AFD to support notability under WP:CREATIVE. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Van Powell[edit]

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

This article on an American screenwriter is almost entirely unsourced and presents very little evidence of notability (or indeed, for virtually any of the content in the article) - the only verifiable source is the Motion picture news studio directory, which confers zero notability. Although clearly pre-internet, and so harder to source, the presumption of notability is nevertheless absent - a minor figure with a minor role in minor productions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Though the life details of Powell are scarce, his contributions in the early film industry and the popular genre of youth adventure books make him an important figure (and one previously almost forgotten). Let us hope that others will contribute more (and perhaps other sources) to this article. There are many pages with fewer sources and less information that remain on Wikipedia. Strong keep. Jcholaday (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. Firstly, the page is not "almost entirely unsourced", only the citation style is unclear. Secondly, I am not certain what "minor role" means in the current nomination, but Van Powell is a screenplay writer and I don't call this minor at all, personally. Finally, Van Powell is a very notable personality in at least two domains, cinema and literature: Ardon Van Buren Powell, frequently credited as A. Van Buren Powell, for The Marriage Speculation for example; his contributions are verifiable; for most films credited for screenplay or story, for other for "picturizing" a story (or this kind of catalogues for a 1st check of his 47 film works); he is also a very notable young adult fiction author: easily verifiable ; example or here or here. Last but not least, his Photoplay Synopsis (1919) is also an important book.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 09:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed! Jcholaday (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Joyous! Noise! 19:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Okwuosa[edit]

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

Available sources are promotional puff pieces in reliable sources. The entry itself, is written as an advertisement. Also, Ajifohils and Hilspress seems to be the same person. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best I could find was an interview [40], rest is pure PR fluff. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You had me at 'serial businessman'. Puff, fluff and stuff. Mildly interested in the "24 heart surgeries successfully conducted on 23 Nigerians" - wondering what one poor person did to get two surgeries. Everything else is humdrum with a strong whiff of UPE & fails WP:GNG... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft Please I understand that the article lacks proper structure and sources, so I am requesting that the article be moved to draft in other to resolve the issueS. The subject is a notable topic, and I have no relationship of whatever with the subject only for the sake of contributing on wikipedia. I am new to wikipedia and only ask other experience editors from the same Wikimedia Fan club to assist me when I need help. Thank you.Ajifohils (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yohann Tihoni[edit]

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

Four appearances for the Tahiti national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Vero[edit]

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

Five official appearances for the Tahiti national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Joyous! Noise! 19:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Gonzalez (storyteller)[edit]

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

This prolific storyteller, poet, playwright, musician, public speaker, actor, and producer has had a long and varied relationship with the performing arts and undoubtedly has worked with some notable people and across a number of performances and venues. I confess I hummed and hawed about this nomination because it felt as if he should, indeed could be notable. However, when you boil it all down, there is no record of sustained or exceptional notability under any of these labels - coverage is interviews or non-RS; there is no "well-known and significant award or honor" or multiple nomination. Ultimately, while undoubtedly widespread in his interests, I believe the subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST (and its multiple associated creative guidelines). Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Received coverage in multiple RS including NYT, WaPo (original link), The News Journal, Star Tribune, etc. Although he didn't win, a nomination for a Drama Desk Award seems noteworthy. APK whisper in my ear 06:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep between the existing sources in the article, the ones found by APK and these sources that appear to be not otherwise used/found from various newspapers, some of which contain significant biographical coverage of him and not just his work: Animal Magnetism, David Gonzalez teaches, entertains with 'Sofrito!', David Gonzalez's 'Sleeping Beauty', A River of Dreams, It All Comes Down to the Story, Program puts spotlight on Latino tales. Skynxnex (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't know if you (Alexandermcnabb) must wait until he is dead. David Gonzalez is an artist with an amazing career and dedication to his craft. Just look at Ralph Blumenthal's (unpaid) review of him in the New York Times. In it he describes step by step the life of this multi-disciplinary artist. Previously Lawrence Van Gelder, also a NYT critic, praised Gonzalez's work. He is a doctor in music therapy with many years’ experience working with underserved communities. He has written more than a dozen plays that have been presented many of the best American theaters. He has received numerous awards, grants, and commissions, and is respected by other well-known artists who collaborate with him in his productions. There are many, many artists on Wikipedia with a much lower profile. Their articles have been created, on many occasions, by a cousin or a friend or someone who runs social networks for them. Let's be serious, David Gonzalez is a great artist and his work, and his life enrich Wikipedia. This article has been done in an honest and professional manner. I hope there is some consistency in Wikipedia, and it will not be deleted. As for the text, I will give it an overhaul, trying to improve it.--Ursulabela (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolai Andrews[edit]

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

Three official appearances for the Guyana national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. His first name is also spelled "Nicholai" in a lot of sources. JTtheOG (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this was created by me at a time that there was WP:NFOOTY. However, since it no longer exists, this cannot be used as an argument. This player quite clearly fails WP:GNG, although if just a little bit of coverage is found, that should be enough, since we are talking about the low-coverage Guyanese football league. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anani Mohamed[edit]

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

Three appearances for the Guyana national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 05:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Reunification Association[edit]

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

Does not meet notablity guidelines. Almost all the references are primary and not independent. Also fails WP:GNG. KSAWikipedian (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Bread Company Factory[edit]

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

Seems to fail GNG, No evidence of passing SNG for buildings too. Cited sources seem to be user generated (see read the plaque). Wikipedia:Before does not revealing anything. Wikipedians please comment. Okoslavia (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The designation under the Ontario Heritage Act is equivalent to designation as a National Register of Historic Places in the United States. The text on the plaque was provided by the city, not the building's developer, and appears to be independent. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain Can you please point out any editorial board there. The Submit option there making me doubt on its reliability. Anybody can submit content there. Okoslavia (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Okoslavia As far as I can tell, Read-The-Plaque and Toronto Plaques do not have editorial boards. Both sites show plaques that either they have photographed or that someone else has photographed. The editorial decision-making for the text on a plaque like this is made by heritage professionals at the City of Toronto, the same ones who wrote the statement of reasons for designation attached to the city by-law that designated the building as a heritage property, BY-LAW No. 464-2003. So the plaque is a summary of the statement of reasons for designation, and Read-The-Plaque is simply showing what the City of Toronto staff wrote. I added some references about the building after it was converted to lofts. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So the provided sources are not contributing anything for Notability. Okoslavia (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The by-law is the notability. There are nothing else that can be said. Oaktree b (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I only linked to the photo of the plaque on that site. It's not the site we're using for notability, the contents of the plaque. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.[41] -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Buildings in the Ontario Heritage Act register are notable, as are those in the NRHP. The plaque is used to ad context to the story of the building. There is a three page history of the building in the relevant by-law, I figured the plaque was a nice summary of it, it's only a few sentences so can be quoted under fair-use laws. This is a notable as any of the other hundreds of buildings under the Heritage Act with articles. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also mentioned here for the fusspots [42], and a brief history by the City of Toronto about the building [43], some mention in a book here [44]. I think we're fine for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Covered in a period source/magazine [45]. Oaktree b (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing mentions do not count for notability. This book is a clear example of Passing mention. Okoslavia (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again the magazine is passing mention. Okoslavia (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This source is again a passing mention or not about factory itself. Okoslavia (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GEOFEAT. Certainly more than just statistics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got the Toronto Life article, the two Globe and Mail articles, the by-law with the heritage study and various historical records on file. What more are you looking for? Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use passing mentions to build up the article, that's the whole point of wiki. Get some strong sources as your base, then hang facts and other interesting tidbits on the base you've built. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. There is absolutely no case for deletion. Please nominate carefully and stop the WP:BLUDGEONING. It wastes even more WP resources!!! gidonb (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gidonb stop making nonsense comments as no-one is enjoying it and prove how GNG is meeting here. You might want to read AGF. Okoslavia (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also as far as your lecture of carefulness. You need to be more careful per this, before nominating articles for deletion, As situations come when you have to withdrawn the nom. Okoslavia (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b Torontolife article is also passing mention. Frankly I can't see any source which is beyond the passing mention. Please come back with better sources. Okoslavia (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said all there is to say. Please stop pinging me. The heritage act register makes it notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally that was my first ever ping to you. Okoslavia (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then please stop replying to everything I say and review Bludgeon as above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the historic record, as stories easily get born and start living their own life, I'm mighty proud of the referenced AfD and my own withdrawal. Both were totally called for by the situation in the article. It also tells the story of what we should focus on: service and sound analysis, not on winning an argument. The improvement of WP is all the winning we should pursue! gidonb (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you should be proud, gidonb. Your nomination and subsequent behaviour were a model for AfDs done well.
- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Joyous! Noise! 05:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex McCurry[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO KH-1 (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for PROMO. I think this is about the same person (who is aged 19 in this article): [NetNewsLedger - Who is Alex McCurry? Inside With the 19-year-old Thats Rocking the Digital World] for some reason it won't let me copy the url... Click the "news" above, it's second from the top, rest are all as fluffy. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Michel[edit]

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

One appearance for the Bonaire national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chad S. Johnson[edit]

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

As was noted in 2015, the subject may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. In addition the article asserts a lot of information about its subject that has never been backed up by citations. Should this article be deleted? Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Foreign relations of Georgia. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Kiribati relations[edit]

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

Marked for notability concerns 1.5 years ago. The interactions are minor, one meeting of the President and minister at the side of a UN meeting, one minor memorandum of understanding agreement. Lacks aspects that would make these relations notable like significant trade or migration, resident embassies and state visits. Fails GNG as most sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete with partial merges. Some information can be comfortably merged into Foreign relations of Georgia and Foreign relations of Kiribati. It's likely that there are more non-English sources out there, so I am willing to be swayed, but as it stands now does not meet GNG on its own. —siroχo 04:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful content. Doesn't appear to have any major relationship. APK whisper in my ear 06:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the table cell in Foreign relations of Georgia that currently links to this article (as the substantive information here is Georgia-centric, which makes sense given the historical context). There is an interesting story to be told about Georgia's 2012 diplomatic push in Oceania after Nauru recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which led to diplomatic relations with a number of countries, but we don't quite seem to have the sources to support this level of coverage. (It's discussed a bit here but without much info on Kiribati.) I wonder if there might be Georgian-language sources that would have better detail on the topic, but for now there's probably not enough to be useful. -- Visviva (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Editors arguing for deletion identified issues with the verifiability and comprehensiveness of sources for damage costs. signed, Rosguill talk 04:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of costliest tornadoes in 2023[edit]

List of costliest tornadoes in 2023 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A niche topic that seems to fail WP:N. A more condensed version of this information can easily be included within Tornadoes of 2023. A previous AfD a few months ago for List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 resulted in an unanimous merge. United States Man (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Perfectly acceptable per the RfC which this nominator wanted months ago. RfC’s conclusion was editors cannot say a tornado was Xth-costliest without a reliable secondary source. For tropical cyclones, $1 billion was an acceptable minimum for List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes, so why would $1 million for a tornado (noting that with the List of costliest tornadoes in 2022, only 41 tornadoes out of over 1,100 made the $1 million cut) is perfectly acceptable. Over 800 tornadoes already in 2023, just in the US, and only 27 made the cut. Not a “niche” topic nor minimum for the list. Nominator already expressed desire to not use NOAA-related damage totals at all in costliest lists (hence the RfC back in March 2023), so this seems to be a target at tornado-related costliest totals as both this list and the 2022 list was nominated at the same time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yes, clearly not a niche topic. If there is doubt about any of the citations, that should be flagged on the citation. If there is doubt about the costing methodology, that should be mentioned in a paragraph.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See reasoning here.
ChessEric 23:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no reason to have this article. 2023 was not a year of substantially high damage costs (in regards to independent events.) We should not make variant list articles for every year and every category people can think of. --Wikiwillz (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See relisting comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 (2nd nomination) only the arguments in this AFD are not lengthy as in the other AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Damage and cost of repair figures seem arbitrary. source pertaining to them seem iffy at best. That aside, this doesn't need to be it's own article. Anything covered in here can be covered in other articles. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article reads as WP:LISTCRUFT and does not reach WP:N. Secondary sources meeting the same or similar cost totals are required to justify this article's existence. Conyo14 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-This can be easily put into the article of Tornado of 2023 Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Joyous! Noise! 05:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Ann Camunez[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has no secondary sources. WP:BEFORE check comes up with no WP:SIGCOV Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from participants about the quality of the specific sources in the article and those that exist off-wiki. Neither saying simply "Fails GNG" nor "Meets GNG" is very persuasive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

She is already on two Wikipedia and Wikiwand pages,

She is also referenced by Stanford Law School in their Women's Legal History Project. The biography fulfills WP:GNG guidelines. Starlighsky (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2023

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 MasterChef Australia (series 10). Mojo Hand (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Lemon[edit]

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

Subject was an unsuccessful contestant in a television cooking competition. Nothing notable in the article. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Most references are tabloid puff pieces or self-published sources. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, and Australia. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 10) where she is mentioned. LibStar (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MasterChef Australia (series 10) per LibStar and the nominator. And just to review WP:NBASIC, the sources need to be "substantial" in coverage. Neither the headlines nor the contents of the articles focus on the actual person, Jess Lemon, in detail, merely describing her in the context of non-notable events. Such pieces exist covering an incredibly large number of people, but it isn't practical to have an article on every non-notable TV contestant. The sources used by the creator indiscriminately publish streams of such stories, so referring to them as "puff pieces" isn't incorrect. The creator should also refrain from accusing the nominator of having a "sexist" opinion because they hold this view. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me it's a weak Keep. The Who piece is certainly a puff piece, but they do have editorial oversight, and it's sigcov. The first Mammamia story, same. The Yahoo news story is shortish, but I think it gets her over the hump. I think the fact so many of the sources mention her popularity with fans probably explains why a 4th-runner-up got so much coverage. It's the kind of celebrity bs coverage I hate to use, but it's independent, reliable, and significant. Valereee (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Valereee. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 23:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Sourcing is inaccessible to most editors here, rendering a judgement a challenge.I don't see a relist changing this. Star Mississippi 02:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (non-governmental organization)[edit]

Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (non-governmental organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been the subject of low-intensity edit-warring for years. From what I understand, it's basically a sham and keeping the article is giving it undue importance. The counter-argument is that it's a notable sham, but I think an AfD on the matter makes sense. Pichpich (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry I missed that! So the consensus was that it was indeed a notable sham. I suppose consensus can change, so I'll let this run its course unless it becomes a case of WP:SNOW. Pichpich (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is a Ukrainian article on the subject but English coverage does not meet article quality. Whether the subject is a "sham" or not is also not clear from the English article currently, it uses ambiguous and unencyclopedic language such as describing "funny" "structures" based on a couple foreign language sources (which potentially may not be reliable). - Indefensible (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Nothing has changed since the last discussion. " the consensus was that it was still a "notable sham" and should be chronicled as such. " Wanderer777 (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have no ability to search on this in Ukrainian, but as the only result that turns up in an English source is this Wikipedia article, I have to conclude that we do not have sufficient sources to include it here. As it is, the article is weak on content and therefore is not providing much in terms of encyclopedic information. Lamona (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources don't have to be in English so to resolve this we need source analysis of non-english sources too
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Editors remain divided after two relists: keep arguments point to ample present references, while delete arguments argue that despite the references, the amount of encyclopedic content does not amount to more than a dictionary definition. signed, Rosguill talk 04:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gate crashing[edit]

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

Seems like a pretty clear case of DICDEF to me: note, in the history, the usual celebrity mentions of gate crashers, but these incidents cannot elevate this to an encyclopedic topic. Nor, of course, is there serious discussion of the concept as a term, and it is thus not an encyclopedic topic. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems fine. I had to double-check WP:DICDEF but I don't see anything there that would seem to apply to this article. The citations in the article, which include several articles specifically devoted to gatecrashing, are probably ample to demonstrate notability. But just in case, here are some more: Gatecrashing: an exploration of community attitudes and experiences (contains considerable background on gatecrashing at outdoor music festivals), Gate-Crashing the Stage (1934 reflections of an actor on the importance of [individual] gatecrashing for one's career), Swarming and the social dynamics of group violence (criminological study of group gatecrashing and related phenomena), 'Ducktails, Flick-knives and Pugnacity' (sociological study discussing group gatecrashing as a form of antisocial gang activity in postwar South Africa). The phenomenon of organized gatecrashing at OMFs in particular seems to have attracted a lot of attention in the popular press, e.g. [51]. The heavy use of gatecrashing as a metaphor makes for difficult searching, but there is definitely ample coverage of actual non-metaphorical gatecrashing to support an encyclopedic article on the subject. -- Visviva (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has many important references, and the issue itself is already a part of culture, so meet GNG--Wyndhan Han (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original draft is better than the current article and as references. [52] But, would this run afoul of Wikipedia is not a Dictionary WP:NOTDICTIONARY? Denaar (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, took some time to read and research criteria. I don't believe "list of gate crashing events" would be notable either. Denaar (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The references to NOTDICTIONARY are bewildering to me. This is a documented social phenomenon, the subject of multiple RSs that I have linked to in this discussion. I wonder if anyone can explain the dictionary objection? -- Visviva (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning (not wanting to speak for others) is that it just flatly defines a term, without adding any other nuance or context. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point that I hadn't considered: while notability does not depend on article content, unencyclopedicity arguably does. (I would still argue that for deletion to be justified an article would need to be irredeemably unencyclopedic, which is not the case here, but I guess the better outcome is simply for me to depart from my no-ransom rule and do some work on the article.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Eh. There look to be enough sourcing to satisfy GNG (and there was more than just a definition immediately before this was nominated), but I don't know what would be appropriate content for such an article (and I'm not advocating restoring the removed content). A lot of the sources are anecdotes and how-tos, which have limited value here. Erring on the side of keeping because it's such a well known phenomenon. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tippett, Nevada[edit]

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

The few sources that cover this location in detail [53][54] describe it as a sheep ranch that included a stagecoach stop, general store and lodging. This really doesn't amount to significant coverage, they don't describe it as a community and there's no official recognition that would meet GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Google Earth shows that today, this is just a spot on a rough dirt road. There's a farm nearby. Nobody else lives within several miles.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Demonstrably a populated place (one Lincoln Highway guidebook gives the population as 10, which probably undercounts the effective population, as newspapers show quite a few folks who were "from" or "born in" Tippett; like many fourth-class post office communities, Tippett would likely have served as a locus of identity for the surrounding area). Has significant coverage with many encyclopedic details in Romancing Nevada's Past (Shawn Hall, Univ. Nevada Press, 2016) and probably also in The Lincoln Highway: Nevada (Gregory Franzwa, 1995, appears self-published but by an unquestioned SME in Lincoln Highway history). Widely covered in ghost-town blogs, although probably few of those are RSs. I think this meets the WP:GNG: there is ample material from which to build an article that provides encyclopedic value to the reader. But in any event, as a bona fide populated place with a significant form of government recognition, it passes WP:NGEO. -- Visviva (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While not IMO essential to the question, the following White Pine News clips might be useful in getting a sense of the community once here: (1) a front-page story on an obscure battle over control of voting and mining in the Tippett district, (2) a description of the star routes serving Tippett and neighboring communities shortly before the post office was snuffed out, (3) a report on mining prospects in the Tippett district, (4) a representative Tippett society column. There may be nothing let of Tippett now, but this was no mere mapmaker's fancy. -- Visviva (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A more rigorous policy-based rationale for my !vote follows:
    First, the rules: Under WP:NGEO, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, while Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Thus, even where a community has received no legal recognition at all, the GNG provides a path to presumed notability. And the GNG of course requires that the article subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, where "significant coverage" must be sufficiently on-topic and detailed that no original research is needed to extract the content. Therefore, regardless of legal recognition, a community is presumed notable (i.e. suitable for a stand-alone article) if it is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
    Next, the sources. We have an information-dense paragraph (looks like 50-60 words) with fairly dense information in this Lincoln Highway book from Stackpole Books, and a full two-page profile in this book published by the University of Nevada Press. Numerous more glancing but informative mentions can be found in other secondary sources, such as this 2013 Lincoln Highway article in Nevada Magazine, and this 1916 Lincoln Highway Association guidebook. An early cross-country travelogue devotes two (small) pages, about 100 words, to a description of the Tippett community and its "interesting lot of people".
    Conclusion: Even without considering the questions of legal recognition, self-published sources, or contemporary press coverage (all of which would weigh, if at all, further in the article's favor), Tippett merits an article under the GNG because it has been the subject of coverage in independent reliable sources, and that coverage is sufficiently detailed and on-topic that no original research is required to extract the content. -- Visviva (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Visviva above. We're just trying to meet WP:GEOLAND here, and notability still exists even if the settlement does not. Came across this report that mentions the post office as being a recordkeeping house. AviationFreak💬 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably a section of the country, not a town.
Nothing in the Online Nevada Encyclopedia. It does not have specific articles for towns but is mostly historical. The Las Vegas newspaper archives from 1909 to 1927 have nothing:[55]. (After 1927, I got 1800+ hits; I went through the first 100 and only found Tippett used as a last name.)
Visviva's first article talks about Tippett as a "district" of White Pine County, not a town. It spells it two ways: "Tippitt" or "Tippett". It says that county officials voted to merge it into the Pleasant Valley district. Article 3 about mining once again uses the word "district". These hard rock metal ore mines take up a lot of space and aren't something normally found in a town (there are a few exceptions). Article 2: old-time U.S. rural post offices are not proof a town once existed -- they could just be a low volume "distribution node" of sorts in someone's farmhouse or store.
I think Tippett was a section of a very large county, not a town.
Here's the Google Earth link for the USGS coordinates in the article. Please look at it.
I'm really trying but coming up short. I still say delete.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may not have been clear as to my intention in providing those links in my self-reply: I was trying to provide a taste of the various goings on at Tippett, not to use those particular clippings as a basis for notability.
To my misfortune, I am prone to focusing on the arguments that I find most interesting, which are usually much more tendentious than the boring arguments that actually have a chance. In hopes of fixing my blunder, I have added a more formulaic policy-based rationale as a second self-reply above. In sum: my arguments about NGEO are beside the point because this (former) community passes the GNG -- and does so, ironically, thanks in part to the fact that nobody lives there anymore. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a ghost town!
(But since I can't help myself, I'll add that I think it speaks volumes to a little-considered aspect of Wikipedia's systemic bias that we don't yet even have articles on open-country community or fourth-class post office, institutions without an understanding of which it is almost impossible to make sense of the lives of the majority of US residents in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Imagine a world in which any contact with the outside world (including newspapers) comes through the post office, which is also the only place you are likely to meet any neighbors who live beyond hollering distance. No surprise that these places became the locus of identity for the communities around them, the place people were "from", even when no commercial center developed. And no surprise that, as here, these places often became centers of political activity (as Tippett for example came to serve as a voting precinct, seat of a mining district, seat of a school funding district, and site of mass meetings). I might try to build a userspace essay on the subject since this sadly seems to come up with some frequency lately. To leave rural communities -- which are quite different from small towns -- out of our coverage would be to abandon a vast swath of documented human experience for no particular good reason, which to my mind is entirely contrary to our mission. But, again, no matter how much this argument interests me I don't think it really has any bearing on the outcome in this particular case. The GNG suffices.) -- Visviva (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep mentioned in several books on the Lincoln Highway and in a book on ghost towns in Nevada: [56] SportingFlyer T·C 13:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Visviva and his book refs.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visviva and others. Okoslavia (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second American Revolution[edit]

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

A common bit of hyperbole, which makes the article more or less a list of such usage. It's not as bad as Second American Civil War was before it was redirected here, but since both suffer from defect that neither event has happened; the various usages of both jump between alarmism, overstatement, and failed aspirations, but there's no common subject. And with that, I do not think it is appropriate simply to catalogue a figure of speech. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE hodgepodge. From "Find sources" on the deletion notice: "Second American Revolution" happened when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It's also Pres. Reagan's tax plan. Or it was the politics of entertainer Paul Robeson, the women's movement and/or the civil rights of the 1960's, etc. etc. John and Yoko are on the list, as is Rosanne Barr. The other article recently deleted was focused on the January 6 continuing news items. This one has had 186 individual editors adding their perspectives. — Maile (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's impossible for the concept to meet GNG because it's just a slogan with no consistent use across different contexts. As Maile said, the article is just a pile of different incidents that were described as a second American Revolution, with nothing connecting them but WP:OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG and is simply a list of events which have no tangible connection to each other. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopaedic aggregation of fringe theories that don't satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For a moment I thought we should turn it into a disambiguation page like Second War of Independence, but then I checked potential link target pages and found that the term "Second American Revolution" doesn't occur at all in War of 1812 and 1985 State of the Union Address, and only in the title of a reference in American Civil War. Looks like the term is rarely used in relation to these events. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTNEO: Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most events on the list are not at all related. The use of this term in these sources is meant to be a hyperbole for most of the time, serious or not, and doesn't mean anything other than that. I don't see the article passing WP:GNG because of this. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per - WP:CRYSTAL محرر البوق (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to L3 Technologies#Products. Joyous! Noise! 05:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OMNI (SCIP)[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion back in September as No references since 2005 and none found; the article also makes no claim of notability for this product. This was contested with the addition of a "Manufacturer's Brochure", which is in no way a notability-establishing source, so the original PROD reason stands. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since it verifiably exist(ed) and has a logical merge target available, I'd go with merge as a single bullet point under L3 Technologies#Products per WP:ATD, WP:DGFA point 4 and WP:PRODUCT. (I would do it now but do not want to preempt the discussion here, since a merge would require non-deletion). -- Visviva (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Editors remain evenly split on whether the assembled coverage meets WP:LISTN, with the main point of contention being whether the listicle-style coverage in NEWSORG RS publications is sufficiently significant. signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been pied[edit]

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

This is an indiscriminate, crufty list of people who have been pied over the years that has gone to AfD several times, the last discussion being over a decade ago. A good deal of keep arguments then focused on the article having "reliable sources" or being "verifiable". I don't think this applies to the article in a modern context; a good deal of the sources are primary and dead, or otherwise unreliable/not counting towards notability. Most of the examples are people being pied in some video, and then the video being the source. There are a few "pieings" of notable people that have gotten attention and sustained overage over the years; these instances can be mentioned in the main Pieing article. Finally, I think there are BLP considerations here that encourage against maintaining a list of people who have had a goofy object thrown at their face. Thank you, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Duplication of Pieing - same subject, same author. The list was created two days after the article was written. I see no purpose in creating a stand-alone table, but I see the article having the same BLP issues, especially in the "Convicted" section. — Maile (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove any entries that rely on primary sources to avoid aforementioned BLP issues. Indeed, covering only pieings mentioned in a secondary source will improve the value of the list anyways. —siroχo 07:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've now linked in a reply further down, this meets WP:LISTN —siroχo 20:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove unreliable or dead sources. It seems like the living people requirement would only apply to unreliable sources, not the entire list. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it only apples to unreliable sources, though. Take an example from the list, such as Fiona Apple's entry. She was pied by Johnny Knoxville as part of a bit during a live reading with other celebrities. Variety, a reliable source, summarized the live reading and notes the pieing, although the pieing is not the main focus of the coverage of course. We wouldn't include such a trivial joke event that received brief coverage in one reliable source in Apple's article, I don't think it should be noted at all honestly. Just as it's not worth keeping a list of everyone who's participated in a certain challenge (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants) or been stung by a jellyfish. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference, for example, from the ice bucket challenge is that that was something of a WP:RECENT issue where pieing has coverage over 110 years. Maybe in a few years we'll have a reason to make a proper ice bucket challenge list, but it's quite possible we won't. —siroχo 20:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone show me sources that show this meets WP:LISTN? Otherwise I'd support merge with pieing.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a smattering of coverage of groupings of people who have been pied (and I'm leaving out Buzzfeed and equivalents, which do indeed have some coverage). [57][58][59][60][61][62][63] —siroχo 20:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a distinguishing characteristic. Whether an event is covered in secondary sources still doesn't bring this sort of minor activity to be something needing to be catalogued in an encyclopedia – notable people do a lot of different things but this isn't even mentioned in most of their own biographies. Fails LISTN and NOT#IINFO. Pieing already covers significant instances with their purposes, don't think this needs to be merged there. Reywas92Talk 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote from Jimbo: "But "being a useful list" doesn't mean that something is actually an encyclopedia article. I'm not personally super aware of our policy on lists, though. After all, we quite famously have one of my favorite lists, List of fictional pigs, which has been around for - omg I just checked, and thought about how I am getting to be - 20 years!" Chamaemelum (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:LISTN --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's well sourced and already has passed AfD multiple times.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The last one was 12 years ago...WP:CCC... Reywas92Talk 03:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IDONTWANTTOLIVEONTHISPLANETANYMORE. I think Hersfold said it best in the third AFD (sigh), "I beg your pardon, but are you FUCKING serious???" A bit more concretely, LISTN isn't met. A smattering of clickbait-driven listicles doesn't count, and there's just no way any reasonable person can justify the existence of this monstrosity. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go work on List of people who have received wedgies and List of people who have had their shoes tied together while they weren't looking. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a lot of folks in this thread claiming this list does not meet WP:LISTN, so I will try to make a clear demonstration that it does. To quote the LISTN guideline: 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. I couldn't limit myself to three but I stuck to four which should be more than sufficient. There are other references. —siroχo 23:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
CBS, 2011 Yes CBS News, not dependent on any one source Yes CBS News Yes list of many individuals who fit the criteria ✔ Yes
NY Daily News, 2016 Yes Daily News, doesn't rely much on any one source Yes WP:RSP Yes list of many individuals who fit the criteria ✔ Yes
Slate, 2022 Yes Relies on several sources Yes Slate is generally considered reliable Yes details several instances of pieing which fit the criteria, describing the phenomenon collectively ✔ Yes
Book - Bianculli, 2017 Yes Authorship of David Bianculli suggests independence Yes published by Knopf Doubleday Yes One example from a book of a list of multiple celebrities lining up to get a pie in the face ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
That source table is horse manure. Clickbait listicles don't contribute toward notability, no matter the pedigree of the publisher. The last two sources don't even contribute to LISTN either. The Slate article talks about pieing generally (which, surprise surprise, we already have an article about), with a couple anecdotes of specific incidents, as one does when writing about a topic like this. And the bit from the book is all of one or two sentences, about one TV show that did this, and a handful of people that were on it. None of that even remotely justifies the existence of a list like this. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm feeling a bit woozy from all the banging my head against my desk after seeing all this inexplicable defense of this list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two non-listicle/slideshow sources here are great for the main article to discuss the purposes of pieing and some significant instances, but I don't think tha[t makes it encyclopedically notable to attempt to list all pieings of people with Wiki articles. Reywas92Talk 03:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A few of the arguments here resemble WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT — all found at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. A couple are positively WP:UNCIVIL. Let's please do better. – .Raven  .talk 08:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but trim - pieing is an assault, but there are several entries which are just comedians: Lucille Ball etc. People being assaulted by pies (I think of the Rupert Murdoch incident) is notable; comedians being pied is not. So keep the page but trim out all entries related to scripted or voluntary pieing. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is there a reason why this was nominated again after three keep decisions? If something has changed about the article to warrant re-nomination, we should just edit or revert the article instead of deleting it. Chamaemelum (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:CCC. The last one – more than twelve years ago – actually had a 6–5 majority in favor of deletion. The one before that, back in 2008, also had a 12–9 majority in favor of deletion. The no consensus closes may have been appropriate, but that's no reason it can't be rediscussed now. I believe discussion of significant events is appropriate, just listing any and all is not. Rick Jelliffe says the Rupert Murdoch incident is notable – well, Pieing#United_Kingdom actually has more coverage of that incident than this list does! Reywas92Talk 19:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks! I wasn't criticizing the re-nomination, just wondering. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Selective merge into Pieing. I am against the wholesale deletion of this article because pieing is notable as a form of political protest. However, I understand the WP:NOT#IINFO argument may apply here (especially because of the non-political pieings listed, and I must admit I added one such entry), so I would be willing to accept merging political-related entries from this list into the main Pieing article as an alternative to outright deletion. TigressDragonblade (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm sorry to relist this discussion when evaluating this article seems to actually be causing distress to some editors but I don't see a consensus here yet. I realize that I'm not supposed to reflect an opinion for any specific outcome but could those advocating Keep consider the option of Merge and whether that would be acceptable? Also, while there might be some agreement to trim this list, I can not close an AFD with that outcome unless some editor is volunteering to take that job on. AFDs are a blunt instrument with a limited range of outcomes and a closer can not order to the community at large that editorial work should be done on an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete It's just cruft. Pie happens. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the issue is the inclusion criteria, not the subject. Obviously we shouldn't be including a character on a TV show who takes a scripted pie in the face, but that's an editing issue. The subject meets WP:NLIST. There are tons of articles which treat victims of pieing as a group. In addition to the above, CNN, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Buzzfeed, Time, Business Insider, Daily Beast... just google any two or three of the prominent names and "pieing" and you'll find a whole lot more. It's odd to see arguments that in-depth coverage of pieing that happens to include a list contributes to the notability of the main topic but not the list, while at the same time articles that are only lists of people who have been pied don't count because they're just lists. Easily passes NLIST. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed a bunch of the junk (a guest on a nighttime talk show getting pied in a skit, someone literally pieing herself for a gag, people taking various "challenges" to take a pie, etc.). That cut it down by roughly half. Importantly, it's still too long to simply include in the main pieing article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Rhododendrites above for trimming the list. I agree it's still too big to merge, but I've changed my !vote from a hedged k to an outright k (above) seeing such improvements. —siroχo 02:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent analysis done by siroxo and cleanup work by Rhododendrites. Appears well within LISTN. I hate to cite my least favorite Wikipedia essay, but the arguments for deletion are some of the clearest cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that I've seen in some time. -- Visviva (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are grasping-at-stawsy. It’s the same celebrities getting splutted over and over, and that’s not including the questions of protest assault vs. comedy throwing, or the fact that some of these are clearly fluff pieces and listicles from places like Buzzfeed. The most notable incidents (like Murdoch and Gates) can be coveted in prose format; one pie assault is not a defining characteristic unless covered in depth by multiple reliable sources. Dronebogus (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:GNG (on which WP:LISTN is based) says significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe this article, a collation of trivial, insignificant incidents, fits into what Wikipedia is not. Any significant incidents should be (and likely are) covered in their respective BLPs and/or in Pieing. (I first saw this article after the above-mentioned clean-up, and if kept, it still needs a lot more pruning. There's one entry sourced solely to a photograph.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the sources found above discuss the group enough to satisfy WP:LISTN. Trimming out the scripted and/or challenges landed it even more firmly in the "keep" category. Joyous! Noise! 18:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beate Heister[edit]

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

Non notable except for the high net worth Qwv (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This of course is not a great incentive for deletion, but people have repeatedly tried to add to the article (as evidenced by the talk page and the edit history) warnings about it being used as part of a confidence scam. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no policy or procedure against this kind of usage. — OttoMäkelä (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any additional support for suggested Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Her Bloomberg Billionaires Index entry provides reasonably substantial coverage from a strong RS. Combined with the sources in the article this seems to meet the GNG. At the risk of stating the obvious, WP:NOTINHERITED does not stand for the proposition that heirs cannot be notable as such. As to the suggested merge, merging biographies tends to be suboptimal as it mucks up things like categories. As we have enough here for a modest article, I don't think a merge is warranted. The use of the page for scammery is IMO an important concern, but maybe more of an RFPP issue. -- Visviva (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, I see no consensus for any particular outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:BASIC as article has been expanded since it was first nominated and there are more sources now offering a bit of substantive information about this notoriously private individual. In a world where "fake German heiress" gets 150,000+ pageviews per month, it seems reasonable to keep the article about a real German heiress, who also happens to be the fifth richest woman in the world, who gets 10,000+ pageviews per month. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage helping to satisfy WP:BASIC (out of what I have seen so far) include: the slightly unfortunately translated CE Noticias Financieras article ("What are the five richest women in the world?"); the Manager Magazin in-depth feature article about the entire family; and the 2021 Focus Online article which devotes four sizeable paragraphs to the two siblings. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to the kind effort of Cielquiparle and Eastmain, the article passes WP:GNG. With 10,284 pageviews in the past 30 days, our readers are clearly interested in the subject, and we should be aiming to produce the best BLP-compliant article we reasonably can. Edwardx (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahlagha Jaberi[edit]

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

Not notable, actually famed by recent "political act" on 76th edition of the Cannes. Also, the article re-created by sockpuppet (both creators YenWitch and Aferoiand are the same). Ireland nat (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only notable coverage of the subject in reliable sources seems to be a very brief one for her protest at Cannes. So based on WP:BLP1E—Not notable. YRhyre (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aerosvit destinations[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of Aero California destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of AeroSur destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Aigle Azur destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Balkan Bulgarian Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Continental Express destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Armavia destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Batavia Air destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Air Vietnam destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Livingston Energy Flight destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Spanair destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As was discussed at the 2018 RFC on lists of airline destinations and quoted in recent related AFDs like this one, the general consensus is that they are not encylopedic content for Wikipedia. To follow up as per subsequent AN discussion, it was discussed that subsequent AFDs may be nominated in a orderly fashion provided the link to the RFC is included and the closer takes the RFD discussion into consideration.

The airline lists specifically nominated for this AFD are largely defunct and are no longer operating services. On their own, the lists fail WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and would largely fail WP:CORP. Some of the airline destination lists for nominated carriers such as Balkan Bulgarian Airlines and Air Vietnam were at one point Government-owned airlines, but would still fail WP:CORP based on the No Inherited Notability guideline. One other nominated airline destination list (List of Continental Express destinations) was part of a defunct mainline carrier (Continental Airlines) where some information could be merged into a few sentences in the article of the (now defunct) mainline carrier.

Per a brief WP:BEFORE check, most of the limited sources in the nominated articles are either from WayBack.org archives of the defunct airlines' websites, Airline blogs such as RoutesOnline or Airliners.net where users are allowed to put in their contributions, or mirror websites of Wikipedia. For the most part, the articles also largely fail WP:V or WP:INDEPENDENT.

As per the past few AFDs, unless if there are any sources that may rescue the articles, I will nominate them for deletion as the nominator. Coastie43 (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_10&oldid=1167002346"