Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 18 November 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Hill, Bienville Parish, Louisiana[edit]

Pleasant Hill, Bienville Parish, Louisiana (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 still a "Pleasant Hill Church" here, but that's all that appears in older topos. Somewhere around 1980 someone decided the spot needed to be labelled as a town, in spite of a lack of other buildings other than what turn out to be two very decrepit barns. Again, I'm not convinced this was a real settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I went to the Bienville Parish Assessor's Office's GIS page. Using their "S-T-R" (Section-Township-Range) search option, I accessed the GIS viewer for section 10, Township T17N, Range R7W in which "Pleasant Hill, Bienville Parish, Louisiana" lies. The property lines and property owners shown are those of typical farm and timberland and there is a complete absence of the small commercial and residencal plots that would be associated with a hamlet, village, settlement etc. There is a complete absence of the roads, buildings, and other infrastricture that would be associated with a small settlement. The infrastructure seen are logging and access roads and numerous oil and gas well pads. There is clearly no settlement of any type associated with the Pleasant Hill CME Church. Paul H. (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The burden should be on the editor creating articles like this one to demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GEOLAND and general notability before it can posted instead shifting the burden to other editors to determine either that it does or not or even is completely imaginary. Paul H. (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kumaran[edit]

Kyle Kumaran (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:NOTABILITY. Driver has started less than 10 races in entry-level motorsport with no notable results. MSportWiki (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 31
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 00:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG – significant coverage of the subject is present in several independent and reliable sources cited. Tollens (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per sources found [1]. They seem to be over the bar. Weak only because I don't know much about Indian sources or racing so I don't deeply trust my judgement here. Hobit (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (weak): Source eval:
Comments Source
Meets SIGCOV 1. "Kyle Kumaran wins Sr National Rotax Karting title, Peregrine Racing claim overall honours". The Times of India. PTI. 29 November 2021. Retrieved 10 October 2022.
404 2. ^ Dutta, Debopam; Kundu, Poulomi (31 December 2021). "Kyle Kumaran- the 'speed junky' making India proud on international racing circuit".
Dup ref 1 3. ^ "Kyle Kumaran wins the senior title in National Karting Championship Rotax Max". thebridge.in. 29 November 2021.
Meets SIGCOV 4. ^ Datla, Anand (15 July 2022). "The F1 dream: motorsport is seeing revived interest in India, but funds and facilities are hard to come by". The Hindu – via www.thehindu.com.
Mention 5. ^ "Wade and Hannam excel at UAE Rotax Max Challenge 7th round". www.gulftoday.ae.
Based on interview 6. ^ "Red-hot Kyle Kumaran reigns supreme in Novice Cup".
From DR
Meets SIGCOV https://www.firstpost.com/sports/kyle-kumaran-steals-show-with-two-wins-vineeth-takes-championship-lead-in-jk-tyre-novice-cup-category-11826711.html
Dup ref 1 https://www.indiatoday.in/auto/latest-auto-news/story/2021-fmsci-national-karting-championship-kyle-kumaran-wins-senior-title-peregrine-racing-claim-overall-honours-1882192-2021-11-29
Mention in results article https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/kumaran-triumphs/articleshow/87992828.cms
No mention https://www.autocarindia.com/motor-sports-news/f1-2023-calendar-revealed-with-record-24-races-425799
I did not look for additional sources beyond the THREE above, and yes this is a weak keep, but based partially on the probability that the THREE above will have more added in the future. Agree there was no prev closure error.  // Timothy :: talk  22:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Grove, Bienville Parish, Louisiana[edit]

Pine Grove, Bienville Parish, Louisiana (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)

So far GNIS seems to be doing better in Louisiana than in some other areas, but here we have an entry copied from a book on post offices. There is a Pine Grove Church shown on older maps, and its cemetery shows up on the most recent maps, but there's no sign of a settlement, and the label wanders around considerably before disappearing, suggesting that they didn't real know where to put it. I don't think this is a real settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing found on this location; there are a few houses in the general area but geotag locates to a forest. Existence of a post office does not establish notability as rural post offices in the United States were often private homes or farms, any place where mail could be dropped off. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bienville Parish Resources and Facilities. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Department of Public Works. Planning Division. 1952. p. 14. Pine Grove Community, near Saline, settled in the 1830's by Thomas Zilks, had a school for many years. The same building served as a church. Coushatta and Monroe were nearest places that roads permitted them to trade with in earliest days. Many families reside in this excellent farming community, today.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable, not even a settlement. By the way, just before I retired, I spent time in Bienville Parish geological mapping with another geologist. While studying the area of the Bienville salt dome, we used the Pine Grove Church at the coordinates given for "Pine Grove, Bienville Parish, Louisiana" as a landmark to cross-check our GPS in morning before starting work. The Pine Grove Church is still alive, well, and active. However, it is only one of many such churches unassociated with a hamlet, town, or other organized settlement. The community consists of residences dispersed throughout the area along local roads. Paul H. (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by WP:GEOLAND show by Uncle G's reference above बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete based on Paul H. comment बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Delete arguments in this discussion have both a comfortable numerical majority and a stronger grounding in policy. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian W. Staudinger[edit]

Christian W. Staudinger (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 was a rough translation by Andrea014 from the same article on the German Wikipedia. It was successfully deleted from German Wikipedia in 2019 for failing to meet the notability requirements and relying on self published sources. Because there is a lack of reliable secondary sources discussing the artist, we defer to WP:ARTIST for notability requirements, and he doesn't meet them. The article is is promotional. Andrea014 also uploaded high quality versions of the artist's artwork onto Wikimedia commons to replace previous versions posted by the creator of the now deleted German article. Looks like WP:COI.

Because of a lack of coverage in any reliable secondary sources, we defer to WP:ARTIST:

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors ☒N
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique ☒N
  • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, 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) ☒N
  • The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. ☒N

Zenomonoz (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my poor english!
This nomination is nothing but an act of revenge. Zenomonoz had insulted me in the deWP, I reported this to the administrators, who yesterday banned him from the deWP infinit.
I find it tragic that the deletion request in the deWP also came from a person who wanted revenge - not on me but on the artist who was persecuted in the GDR and who in real life found out the applicant was a Stasi employee. After telling him this, the deletion request was made. The request came from an IP in Jena and I'm sure I know who that was. If a deletion request here is made purely out of revenge, that seems to me to be a disgrace.
I do not want to say more.--Andrea014 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on topic. See WP:AFDEQ. The deletion nomination is due to notability and citations. German Wikipedia has different guidelines; I was blocked for misattributing a comment to you (which I retracted when I was aware). That is irrelevant here. I took a look at your english articles prior to that, because you linked to the deletion on your userpage. You’re not providing any rationale for keeping the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict with you startet on 1. November! And the reason for blocking you in deWP is different as anybody can see. --Andrea014 (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR argument. I nominated the article because it relies on self published sources and is missing reliable independent/secondary sources. German Wiki came to the same conclusion. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not start the same here as in deWP! I asked for keeping off of my talkpage and you edited again. I do no "assume" bad faith, there is... Everything is to find in deWP. My work in enWP will end with this person. Too much poison in his communication. --Andrea014 (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC) (addition what I forgot --Andrea014 (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • As I stop contributing to the enWP: please have a look to what this person does to the articles I contributed. --Andrea014 (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He now is removing whatever he wants. Andrea014 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Saw this at ANI and it caught my interest. I looked through the refs for this article and found major problems. Refs 9, 10, and 14 are images of government documents posted to the subject's website. Refs 15 and 35 are unclear what they're supposed to be supporting. 26, 27, 28, 43, and 44 are lists or database entries with no actual coverage. All of the rest are either links to Staudinger's own site or don't appear to mention him at all. I was reluctant to say "Delete" because I can't shake the feeling that he may be notable and the language barrier is just making it harder to find sources, but in its current state the article fails to demonstrate notability and huge portions of it are either unsourced or functionally so. Squeakachu (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also here from AN/I. I found the deleted de.wikipedia article archived at Wayback (and a similar German article at Everybodywiki) and used references cited there to supplement my own search. I agree with the nominator that he does not appear to meet the notability standard for artists. I also find insufficient evidence of notability under WP:GNG.There is interview-based coverage from 2013 and 2014 of his experiences fleeing East Germany and how it is reflected in his art, including a Bulgarian article that was mentioned in the text of the German article. Other coverage is mere mentions, and the majority of the article can only be sourced to his own website, m-lk.de (although there are several statements on that site about things having vanished without trace including not having Wikipedia articles when I did in fact find Wikipedia articles to link). I rewrote the article removing unsourced content (and the largely irrelevant material about his parents' and grandparents' politics) in case it is kept, because some of it was a BLP violation, and to enable focusing on his claims of notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject is a sourced author, filmmaker, painter, sculptor, and performance artist who has shown in many exhibitions and successfully escaped from East Germany. Active in these many areas of expertise and experience, the interviews and the rewrite by Yngvadottir using page sources rounds up to his being more than just an artist. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the artist wants to be deleted as he told me.
This is an article not only about an artist, but also about a contemporary witness to events in GDR and Bulgaria before the fall of the Inner German border, a person having been imprisoned in GDR after failing Republikflucht and tortured in Bulgaria with agreement of GDR. In 2005 he was invited as a contemporary witness by Hildigund Neubert. There was a contemporary witness interview with the historian and journalist Jochen Voit, current director of the Memorial and Education Centre Andreasstraße (here).
His life story was subject of both a report on German television (material about this you will find here, open "Fakt-MDR 2008") and an award-winning book by Kapka Kassabova, which has been published in english and german (Kapka Kassabova: Border: A Journey to the Edge of Europe, ISBN: 9781783782147). That the figure of Felix in this book is the person of Staudinger can be heared in a German audio at Bruno Kreisky Forum here.
Various newspapers in Germany and one in Bulgaria reported on staudinger (you will find copys on his website, see link above).
From Oktober 2014 to Januar 2015 he was part of an exhibition in his former prison and now the Memorial Andreasstraße, see under 03. Oktober 2014.
He published three historical interesting videos on YT: he succeeded in winning Albert Hofmann, a very shy person, for an interview, made a video about the first free elections in Waltershausen/GDR with a scene that makes the election invalid (in germany it is forbidden to film the opening of ballot boxes, but the people and the artist did not know), and made an interview with a person having knowledge about skydiving in GDR.
He was one of about 500 participants in the competition and exhibition for the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe.
His exhibition about Adolf Hitler took place under police protection.
Andrea014 (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrea014, please clarify. Does Staudinger want this article deleted? That would surprise me, since this page is still listed in the sidebar of his page about himself on the English version of his website. But if so, it is relevant to this discussion; en.wikipedia has a policy of deleting biographies of marginally notable living people when they request it. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking. You are right. And no, he doesn't really want the article to be deleted. He was hurt by the deletion request and it was just an initial angry reaction. After the deletion request in the German Wikipedia he wanted to destroy his works and didn't do it after all. Andrea014 (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was tortured when he was 19. The problem with these extremely traumatized people is that the wounds never really heal. With nineteen he was afraid they would kill him and he experiences an article deletion as being erased. I am sure he will calm down again. Andrea014 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no RS for the biographical information presented in the article. I am not finding evidence of significant coverage, or exhibitions or collections. Fails WP:ARTIST. No reliable sourcing for other criteria for inclusion. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding reliable sources on this artist. The above commentary about the artist being "a contemporary witness to events," having "published three historical interesting videos on YT (YouTube?)" and "was one of about 500 participants in the competition" do not provide significant coverage on this topic. Elspea756 (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. A request at the last relist asked for more views on drafting, but none were given. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Hendrix[edit]

Dead Hendrix (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Started in 2020 and I see no charted music, albums release on major record labels, or significant coverage. There is a good article in The Source but one article is not enough to establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. CNMall41 (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This is a reluctant vote because the rapper surely has an overactive hype team swamping the internet with promotional junk like how he's "taking over" (e.g. [2]). But he has gotten some real notice from reliable magazines, including The Source (already cited), which contrary to the nominator's statement, is not the only one out there and is instead just the only one currently in the article. Here are some more appearances in the reliable or semi-reliable music media: [3], [4]; while the collab with Levi Zadoff has gotten a fair amount of attention: [5], [6], [7], [8]. It's quite early in his career and coverage is limited to just a couple of releases, but he may have enough for a stub article here under a lenient reading of WP:SIGCOV. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources you link to are clearly marked as being written by a publicist. The rest is about a collab and not in-depth about the subject of this page. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the vote more carefully. I said the first link was unreliable hype, and described the second as "semi-reliable" and it is now dead regardless. I don't think you're correct about the collab-related sources not covering Dead Hendrix, but my vote is a reluctant "Weak Keep" anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did read what you wrote carefully. The problem is that I did not state clearly what I meant and apologize for such. I was referring to the first two sources that you stated were reliable (one of which you stated semi-reliable). Both links are working and both were written by publicists. Hope that clarifies.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the coverage that you feel shows notability per either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source article is certainly good, but the collab articles (esp. 5, 6, 7) look convincing, as they are non-trivial, more than Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates. But, if needed we can send back to draft, as coverage can indeed be further developed overtime. NotAGenious (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. This strikes me as a bit of a WP:TOOSOON case, but one for which future developments lending to notability are at least plausible. BD2412 T 19:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as was the case until recently. This is no reflection on NotAGenious, as there is slim credibility in some of the sources provided, however I concur with concerns around the origin of some of the source material. I am also not seeing how this is passing WP:MUSICBIO at present. Sending back to draft not only affords a little more time to see if stronger references surface, but also respects the weak keeps as the article isn't deleted outright. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahidayit-e Shandak[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. It's a different excel file now but still not notable. Hongsy (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Reference #1 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#11 in this case), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Ganj Konar listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whilst simply being an abadi does not give a pass of WP:GEOLAND, in this case the population is large enough that the abadi should have been converted into a proper village. The issue is that even if this happened, it may not have this name (the name apparently translates as "You are martyred" according to Google Translate, though I wouldn't necessarily read too much into this). Looking at the table, it actually does not include an exact match for this village-name, but line 1390 includes 'شهيدايت شندك which I understand is similar in sound/meaning and has the same number of people/families as in the article. Personally I'd lean towards just redirecting this to Gowhar Kuh Rural District per WP:NOPAGE since there might at some point actually be a real article about a real village here. FOARP (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is a notable place (WP:GEOLAND)
बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Baugh Allen[edit]

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

Nothing much on the page which shows notability, does not appear to be much else which could be added. WP:NOTGENEALOGY JMWt (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, England, and Wales. JMWt (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG, AUTHOR and criteria 3 of ANYBIO. Significant coverage in books and periodical articles. There are obituaries/biographies/profiles. Biography in Boase's Modern English Biography: [10]. In particular, there is an obituary in the Illustrated London News of 26 November 1898, p 806. Multiple book reviews include, in particular: [11] [12] [13] [14]. He was considered to be one of (and the last of) the greatest special pleaders ever. (A search for "last of the great special pleaders" in Google Books brings up various publications for this). Consider for example "still for some forty years no name has more often appeared in the records of common law actions than that of this famous Special Pleader": [15]. He was was involved in the drafting of the law that created the rules and forms of pleading used in the courts, and was the co-author of a standard work on the subject. The article does not violate NOTGENEALOGY, as the article already includes details of his career as a lawyer and government official, which is part of what he is notable for. James500 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If kept, this needs to be expanded to provide much more detail on his career, rather than just his family. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a lot of obituaries in 1898, ranging from the London Gazette through professional journals to The Elizabethan, magazine of Westminster School. I cannot read any except the last one, and it actually says less than this article does, because it's only interested in this person's school and university qualifications. The ODNB matches turn out to be a mention in a relative's biography. 3 out of James500's 4 books reviews are substantial, though, and indicate scope for expansion. The fourth is 3 sentences. Uncle G (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A question: can we use book reviews as a sign of notability for the author? Unless they substantially cover the author - rather than the book - how can they be considered a RS for notability here? JMWt (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea is that a biographical article is about someone's life and works. So as long as the sources are suitably good, journal reviews by fellow experts being preferable (although they do have a tendency to talk about themselves rather than what they are reviewing, sometimes), one can fill out a biography with verifiable reliably sourced content about the person's works. Taking the The Law Magazine and Review review pointed to, for example: This tells us what's discussed in the book, and it's not some entertainment magazine. Its editor is Thomas Pitt Taswell-Langmead. I could probably get a moderately sized paragraph out of that if I were writing. Uncle G (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leerom Segal[edit]

Leerom Segal (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)

Most of the sources for Segal are either self published/unreliable/press releases or otherwise affiliated. 40 under 40 awards are generally pretty lackluster in establishing notability because many, many orgs and "magazines" give these out, so they aren't suitable on their own. Before gutting it, it was just straight up PR gibberish as well. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It's a businessman with a career slightly in the public eye. There is space between that and encyclopedic notability. gidonb (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors please review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the new sources, it's still !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there is some coverage, notability seems not fully reached. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if more sources can be brought up that are not just self publishing then it shouldn't warrant deletion. However if this is not met then perhaps deletion is indeed warranted. On the whole I'm learning more towards Delete. If proper sources are brought and notability better proved then I'll switch to Keep. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considering that it doesn't seem to have sufficient sources to prove its notability, then it is hard to be kept, unless with adding more related sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 10:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Belgrade Faculty of Civil Engineering[edit]

University of Belgrade Faculty of Civil Engineering (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 fails W:NCORP and GNG. Efforts to restore redirect have failed and redirects are costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 4404[edit]

Southern Pacific 4404 (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)

Almost all of the sourcing here is non-independent. Feather River Rail Society is the operator of the Western Pacific Railroad Museum, which formerly held the locomotive in its collection. A bill of sale is a primary source which also does not contribute to notability. The Diesel Era source is not enough to meet GNG. This should at best exist as a redirect to the museum. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It’s obviously notable but very underrated 27.33.233.138 (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 27.33.233.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Another non-notable train REFBOMBed through AfC. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Originalism. ✗plicit 23:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original meaning[edit]

Original meaning (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 references; covered at Originalism GnocchiFan (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jullien Ramirez[edit]

Jullien Ramirez (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 Joeykai (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 I'm not sure: I think that this would rest on whether the references to [[16]] suggest presumed notability... I don't see any other inherent notability issued on this article. AriTheHorse 01:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Charcoal feather (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J-Popcon[edit]

J-Popcon (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)

Stub article that is not backed up by any sources. Also fails WP:GNG. Proposing Delete. Powerplay44 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no Disagree, I've been able to find some seemingly independent sources to back up some of the article. Moreover, this seems to be a pretty major event and this article significantly benefits readers in my opinion. AriTheHorse 01:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Updated Nov. 22. There are now non social media sources present to back up this page. Still not sure about the notability, but it can stay for now. AlleghenyPA (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve added several non-social media citations to it. AriTheHorse 02:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I’ll gladly alter my thinking! AlleghenyPA (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential sources I could find: I can't speak Danish, but there could be enough sources to justify a keep vote.
  1. Non-paywall - The Copenhagen Post: Turning Japanese, we really think so! https://cphpost.dk/2017-04-16/things-to-do/turning-japanase-we-really-think-so/
  2. The Copenhagen Post: About Town: Going Japanese and we like it! https://cphpost.dk/2018-05-19/general/about-town-going-japanese-and-we-like-it/
  3. Ekstra Bladet: Letpåklædte kattekvinder indtog Øksnehallen - https://ekstrabladet.dk/forbrug/Teknologi/article4685782.ece
  4. Ekstra Bladet: 'Sensation' er for amatører! https://ekstrabladet.dk/forbrug/Teknologi/article4131694.ece
  1. Paywall - Mangafest: Derfor går de unge rundt med blåt hår og ninjakostumer i weekenden Politiken: https://politiken.dk/ibyen/byliv/art5914373/Derfor-g%C3%A5r-de-unge-rundt-med-bl%C3%A5t-h%C3%A5r-og-ninjakostumer-i-weekenden
  2. Politiken: Udklædt som skolepige: »Folk forstår ikke, hvad det er, vi har gang i« https://politiken.dk/kultur/art5508816/Udkl%C3%A6dt-som-skolepige-%C2%BBFolk-forst%C3%A5r-ikke-hvad-det-er-vi-har-gang-i%C2%AB
  3. Politiken: 2000 manganørder mødes til Japan-messe https://politiken.dk/kultur/art5706890/2000-mangan%C3%B8rder-m%C3%B8des-til-Japan-messe Esw01407 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources in Danish, from reliable sources, appears to be significant. Not having sources in English does not equal non-notable. Wes sideman (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stradr[edit]

Stradr (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)

Promotional article yvanyblog(talk) 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. yvanyblog(talk) 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, google hits go first to their website, their web support site, then a reddit thread, I'm going with not notable. There is no sourcing for me to review in the article either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nothing, just a website with very little information, no press hits, nothing on scholar. Seems this was launched in early 2023. Perhaps just too soon, but quite possible it's just irrelevant.
    Possible undisclosed COI as well. The account that created this page declared a COI for a draft page called "FloatingPoint" which appears to be something created by Samuel Keller[17].
    Oblivy (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Says (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:GARAGE band with only user-generated websites (AllMusic) used as a source. Tryin to make a change :-/ 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 19. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 21:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Allmusic is a WP:RS, not UGC, and the band had three hits at rock radio over two major-label albums. Flies over WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems that WP:ALLMUSIC shows no consensus as to whether it is a WP:RS. I thought it was UGC, looks like it isn't, though. Still don't think it's notable enough for an article though. Tryin to make a change :-/ 05:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's actually news to me - because of Allmusic's comprehensiveness, editors have been trying for years to casually prove it unreliable, and somehow they succeeded. I consider that a tragedy for this site, because Allmusic is really the backbone of its musical knowledge, and it has proven to me to be reliable time and again. Allmusic published multiple edited books of its biographical information; they have editorial control over their content, and I disagree that there is general cause to suspect the site's prose writeups. The biographical information and capsule reviews of the two albums on AMG have in-text attribution, so they meet the most stringent standards that the consensus asks for in considering reliability. In any case, meeting several other bullets of WP:MUSIC makes AMG alone unnecessary for the article to be retained. Chubbles (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bylined bios on Allmusic are not UGC. And more coverage is available on newspapers.com accessible through the Wikipedia library. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as AllMusic biographies are considered reliable sources per WP:MUSICRS. Darling (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faruk Buljubašić[edit]

Faruk Buljubašić (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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cash (Youtuber, Musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Steve Cash (Youtuber, Musician) (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 a notable YouTuber or musician. Fails WP:GNG with not enough significant, in-depth, secondary source coverage. Different title needed if kept as well, but I believe should be deleted. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, United States of America, California, and Idaho. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is the second AFD nomination for this person: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Cash (YouTuber). Unclear to me whether this is eligible for speedy deletion WP:CSD#G4. Wikishovel (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I read the original AFD nomination, and I can understand if this gets deleted, since most articles on him are related to his death. Although I'm not entirely sure about Paul's point about "not enough significant coverage," as there are plenty of popular news channels that reported on him. He also owns a fairly popular YouTube channel with millions of subscribers and almost a billion collective views, so I think that he could honestly pass as notable enough for Wikipedia. XanderK09 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his only reliable coverage was about his death. Nothing before about him or his channel. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Esolo Mach61 (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: People mag is the only RS used per source tool, and reports of his death are in the usual celebrity magazines/sites, none of which are RS. New York Post is about the most mainstream press one I can find and it's not a RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One decent RS here in the NY Daily News [18], not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: alright yeah after reviewing all the comments i'm open to deleting this XanderK09 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing has changed regarding notability since the first AfD, and this newer version of the article is probably an attempt to get around community consensus via the desperate trick of a new page title. His death got a little media coverage, his lifetime YouTube pursuits got even less. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Barba[edit]

Liliana Barba (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)

She exists and has had some success. Not enough to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iain MacKintosh[edit]

Iain MacKintosh (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)

Had some success, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Cottage[edit]

Ian Cottage (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 subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NDIRECTOR. Neither of the sources in the article meet the threshold for notability. The article itself has been tagged with {{BLP sources}} since October 2012.

I've attempted to search for reliable sources on the director and his works, and while I can confirm the works exist, I've not been able to find any reviews of them nor of his work more generally. The closest I was able to find was a potential interview in a now defunct publication (Boolean Flix) that is now offline and not archived anywhere.

Finally, someone claiming to be the article subject attempted to nominate this for deletion back in June. While I can't verify if this editor is the article subject, if they are then it seems as though WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would apply in this circumstance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Television. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sourcing found for this person, even confirmation that his films exist is sparse. Does not appear to have earned critical attention. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I am unable to find sourcing on Google and The Wikipedia Library that demonstrate a GNG/NBASIC pass. The films he has directed do not appear to have sourcing that would substantiate a WP:NDIRECTOR pass. VickKiang (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well, the movies he directed can be seen on a simple search but he him self lacks credible sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Holley Performance Products where it's already covered, rendering a merger unnecessary Star Mississippi 03:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holley Motor Car[edit]

Holley Motor Car (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 appears to be verified WP:V and there does not appear to be enough RS to indicate notability standards are met JMWt (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retain as there are independent sources about the article subject, though it was originally poorly written. I'm going to rewrite it within the next few days. AriTheHorse 19:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though you could possibly merge it with Holley Performance Products AriTheHorse 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disagreeing with myself. All of the relevant contents of this article, except for a small description of their first car, is contained within Holley Performance Products. Agree that this one should be deleted. AriTheHorse 03:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AriTheHorse, if you no longer hold an opinion that you've bolded, then please strike it out like this. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip!, will do. AriTheHorse 05:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chikondi Gondwe[edit]

Chikondi Gondwe (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 subject, a Malawian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was passing mentions in squad lists (1, 2) and match reports (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akbarpour[edit]

Ali Akbarpour (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 notability, this page has been deleted once as Ali Akbarpour (athlete), he won some medals but I don't think they are notable enough. also you can see lots of medals for him in the medal table template all of them listed in 2019 which can't be right! I checked one of his achievements and he won a medal in "World Masters Championships" (competition for older guys) which is a complete different than a World Championship but the page creator failed to mention that (most probably intentionally) Sports2021 (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Non-notable BJJ championships. Lethweimaster (talk)
  • Delete He's definitely had success in JJIF tournaments. However, his world title came in a masters (older) division with only 4 competitors [19], which is not enough to show WP notability. I've been going through the many references given, but they seem to be simply reporting results of the Iranian national team. If someone can show there is significant independent coverage I'd be happy to vote to keep this article. Papaursa (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ whether to keep or merge and none is likely to emerge out of this discussion given the changing facts of his employment. As there is no scenario in which this is going to be deleted, a merger discussion can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 20:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI[edit]

Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI (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)

Violates WP:NOTNEWS and does not meet WP:NEVENT. BangJan1999 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and California. BangJan1999 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral — I disagree with the argument that this article is not news, given that articles such as dismissal of James Comey exist. The nascency of an event does not determine its notability. There are sufficient references to sustain an article, but the question remains if an article is necessary at all. This is a question I mulled over several times before determining that this is an event with reaching implications and sustained coverage, including extensive coverage in The New York Times, Bloomberg News, and Axios; the jostling for information contributes to this article's vitality. It remains to be seen if this will be resolved within days or hours, which will help reach consensus here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - I would like to mention that, according to this article, Sam Altman has been reinstated as OpenAI's CEO. Thank you for your mentioning of the event's coverage by the New York Times, I simply would wish to contribute what I find is contradictory to the entire article as a whole. -- Typedex01 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I disagree that the page violates WP:NOTNEWS. The page is a collection of well sourced references to a developing situation at an consequential company. – NirvanaTodayt@lk 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just note that the very acknowledgement this is a "developing situation" is precisely why WP:NOTNEWS applies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site (regarless of how well-sourced). --ZimZalaBim talk 22:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get your argument, the {{current event}} template exists for a reason. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that template is best used on an existing article with lasting notability, but happens to have a developing event occuring related to it at the moment. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as an article is created it exists, and the template is most often used on new articles. In fact, two out of three of its current transclusions are new articles. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that Wikipedia is not a news site. The page isn't developed as a news source. The page contain a timeline of developing situation at "$80 billion" company and firing of its CEO – NirvanaTodayt@lk 21:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Sam Altman. Per WP:NOTNEWS - a lot of readers, if not most, won't even know who he is. This is internal tech news specific to Altman, and shouldn't be a stand-alone. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: When almost every employee of a major tech company/non-profit threatens to resign, this is definitely way beyond “niche tech news”. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep or Redirect: Now that Altman & Co. have returned, this indeed fails SUSTAINED a bit. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are not real estate; we are not making comparables whether one should exist based on the existence—or lack thereof—of another. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into both OpenAI and Sam Altman. I agree that this doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS, but I don't see why it can't be written about in the OpenAI article. Unless we get a significant amount more news, those articles wouldn't become too long either. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I am now satisfied that there is too much content to merge into the OpenAI and Sam Altman articles. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:ASZ? Size doesn't matter, bro. Policies matter. — kashmīrī TALK 20:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The claim that this article violates WP:NOTNEWS is not justified. There is sufficient sourcing to exemplify this event from standard oustings à la Travis Kalanick. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to OpenAI. Agree with BangJan1999 that the creation of this entry "Violates WP:NOTNEWS and does not meet WP:NEVENT." Cfls (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article contains substantial content that would not be well covered as a subsection of another article [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 06:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Agree with everything here AI coolTIM (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to OpenAI. The thing is, this is a comparatively small event in relation to OpenAI and/or Sam Altman. It is likely that with the current state of affairs, there will be only a few additions to this subject. Also this event was already covered in detail in the OpenAI article, although I also believe that this information would be relevant to Sam Altman as well. Zenulabidin2k (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event has stunned the tech world and is notable, especially as it relates to such a powerful technology. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as historical event that affects much more than Sam and OpenAI. I agree that it won't be well covered if merged with other articles. I disagree that lack of article about Steve Jobs’ removal is relevant here, as pace and short-term aftermath of these two events is not comparable. RussianNeuroMancer (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since no one has mentioned it yet, the guideline at WP:PAGEDECIDE seems directly applicable and may be useful in the discussion. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OpenAI and Sam Altman as above. Obviously both OpenAI and Altman are significant players in the tech space, especially given the involvement of others like Microsoft, so the decision to remove him will have wide-reaching implications; however, I believe much of those implications in turn stem from the implications on Altman and OpenAI, and those should (at least at the moment) be merged into those respective articles. (Separate comment: The WP:FULL protection on Altman's page definitely complicates the matter, and I hope that the situation with that page can be resolved quickly without needing to keep that protection level for as long a time as it's been set.) Andrew11374265 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a notable event that merits its own article with deeper detail, added as the story develops. There are more details that would be appropriate to discuss at length outside of the OpenAI or Sam Altman articles. My only suggestion would be to rename the article to something like Dismissal of Sam Altman rather than "removal." –Avigl (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is too long to fit comfortably in either of the two main articles, so a separate article is appropriate. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS, it is not routine at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Routine coverage is just one of the examples given by NOTNEWS. The crux of that policy is that not everything that makes it to newspaper headlines should have its own article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NOPAGE, WP:10YEAR, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. This will all blow over, everyone will go back to their lives, and this topic will no longer be relevant. Corporate drama happens all the time. There's nothing here that couldn't be merged into OpenAI and Sam Altman. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The arguments for notability and significance have been established. The question is, and remains, if a separate article is warranted. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i think there should, there is a lot of content regarding the removal, and the nature of this firing is definitely highly important so I think this should be keep — Karnataka talk 20:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ElijahPepe Can you clarify whether you want the article deleted, kept or merged? By the way, notability has not been established – most commenters here have challenged the notability claim as not fulfilling WP:NEVENT. — kashmīrī TALK 10:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ensuing drama will not be relevant in a few weeks. Keep this in Altman's and OpenAi's articles. Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an article loses relevance over time doesn't mean we should delete it, else half of the articles on this site would have to go PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NTEMP. 2.100.129.89 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose deletion: no opinion on keeping, but this should absolutely be merged or redirected somewhere. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 00:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into OpenAI. An investors dispute related to staffing in a company is precisely the type of news that we do NOT run. To be included in an encyclopaedia, standalone events must be permanently notable per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTTEMPORARY, whereas here nobody will recall this short-lived staffing news in five years from now. — kashmīrī TALK 00:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too much info to be included into other articles, too big of a company, too big of an issue, too big of consequences. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, you say it's too big for a deletion? Volumes can be written about a single event or a hire/dismissal. Yet Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a celebrity gossip or diary. — kashmīrī TALK 10:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, Altman's removal is unheard of and its consequences are still continuing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) No such words in the listed source, and (2) we disregard opinion pieces anyway. — kashmīrī TALK 16:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would you analyze an impact outside of an opinion piece? While the piece does say the exact opposite of unheard of, it also claims the impact will be great Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion, in turn, is that the impact will be negligible, as I believe that several dozen implementations of AI will be on the market in three years from now, the scene will grow exponentially, and nobody will care about internal staff management problems in one of their developers of years ago. As you can guess, my crystal ball has precisely the same value as Peter Coy's crystal ball. — kashmīrī TALK 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent, we have no choice but to crystal-ball for recent events nominated shortly after creation. So long as 1) we definitely want to keep some events (e.g. an earthquake killing thousands); 2) we definitely want to delete some events despite meeting GNG (e.g. an individual game between two sports teams during the regular season with nothing special happening); and 3) there is no objective standard for how much an event needs to go beyond GNG to qualify for a standalone article: we have to draw the line somewhere, and that somewhere can only be determined through guesswork and subjective evaluations of impact. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into OpenAI per WP:NOPAGE. An ousting of a CEO does not necessitate a separate article, regardless of the news reporting. Natg 19 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into OpenAI, at least for now. It will probably be notable enough to qualify as an event in the future in all likelihood, especially of OpenAI implodes because of it, but until those major knock-on effects actually happen it can't be it's own article just yet. And, as of now there are still rumors that Sam will just join back with the company and make this all a blip. G5bestcfb (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As it appears this event has concluded, the information on this event will be able to be summarised into the main OpenAI article Mr vili (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reinstatement of Altman does not assume a conclusion to sourcing or information, and there is still plenty of information that has yet to be included in this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to OpenAI. Keep redirect and categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - With Altman now reinstated this 5 day incident isn't notable enough for a dedicated article. The background section overlaps existing pages, aftermath is largely obsolete, and reactions are now less notable. If not merged this will likely morph into an article about the resulting board shakeup as news coverage shifts focus. Jamedeus (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into OpenAI. Looks to be something temporary since it's been reported that he has been reinstated to OpenAI, therefore per WP:SUSTAINED it doesn't warrant its own article. Hzh (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the articles as stated above. WP:TOOSOON at best, and the amount of immediate splash an event makes isn't necessarily the best determiner of notability; after all we don't have an article about Will Smith being slapped. Fermiboson (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do: Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident. Natg 19 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Artem S. Tashkinov PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into OpenAI and Sam Altman per all above. At least currently a WP:RECENTISM. Brandmeistertalk 15:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Pretty much just a investors dispute. This really only merits maybe a two sentence mention in Altman and OpenAI's articles. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely warrants way more than two sentences with the Microsoft danger and almost all employees nearly resigning. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, maybe, but that's the sort of fluff CYRSTAL-ish stuff that we don't exactly need. Altman never became a Microsoft employee and those employees didn't in fact resign. Personally, I think this is a complete nothing-burger as it appears now. Altman is still the CEO and we can't deduce if the board composition changing will have any real impacts. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The US almost defaulting wasn't a nothing-burger either Aaron Liu (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NOPAGE, which aptly notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; it was a moment when Altman was removed from OpenAI's leadership for what appears to have been less then a week, and employee reaction was notable. But Altman's been reinstated, and it may well be better to simply cover this in the history section of Open AI, and/or in a new section on the company's unique corporate governance structure. But I don't see a need for a standalone article at this time, particularly when context on the broader corporate pages would help readers better understand this incident. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Major notable event with lots of coverage. The article has considerable length and will make the merged page too long. Anyway if merging is suggested a merge request with a specific target should be made rather than a request for deletion. In general pages that are merged cannot be deleted, see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. 2607:FEA8:E31F:D2C6:D015:105D:EDE4:A952 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While it indeed has a lot more detail, the meat of it is in the § Removal and § Reinstatement efforts. Maybe also mention the changes in share price and the reactions listed under § Technological industry. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into OpenAI per WP:NOTNEWS. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into OpenAI per NOPAGE and NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable enough to be a standalone page. Supergrey1 (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into OpenAI and Sam Altman. This article should never have been created, much less nominated for ITN. Significant corporations certainly deserve to have their stories told here, but we don't need a separate article just for this one event. This is suffering from editor myopia to a noteworthy level - this would not be happening if the company in question were Nike, Lego, or Cadbury. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into OpenAI per WP:NOPAGE. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to OpenAI, same argument as Red-tailed hawk. DFlhb (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — As more articles continue to be written about Altman's removal, I am shifting my position to keeping this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Open AI and Sam Altman. Traditional and ordinary business drama without even a medium-term impact. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to OpenAI and merge content there, with no prejudice against splitting it back out at a later date if it turns out to have been a historically significant event. Getting a lot of coverage doesn't really indicate that something is significant as a topic in its own right, and OpenAI is a very hot company so there's going to be a lot of coverage of whatever random crap happens there. We could, for example, have Sam Altman in 2021 and Sam Altman in 2022 and Sam Altman in 2023 etc etc, there's coverage of that, but it's not clear that there is really that meaningful of a difference between the topics. jp×g🗯️ 23:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now). This article needs a heavy rewrite, but it is the most significant breaking tech news story in over a decade. One might consider renaming the article, since (for now) he seems to be back. Also note that as of Tuesday night, they had only reached an agreement in principle (perhaps because of the pressure of the Thanksgiving holiday). Also, there is still backstory to come out as to what caused the board to remove Sam Altman, which may be noteworthy (see the Q* news). Even as time passes and the events settle, this will likely be considered a seminal event in the history of Artificial Intelligence, Silicon Valley, and corporate governance. Long term, perhaps in several years, it can be merged, but that is not current state as we still figure out what the fallout is. Jenny8lee — Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are reasoning backwards -- it doesn't make sense to write huge articles about breaking news stories on the hunch that they might at some point end up having mattered a lot. If that happens we can restore the article from the old revision in five seconds. But it might not happen -- what's to say OpenAI doesn't reach scaling limits, or that open models don't catch up quickly, or that none of a million random things that would stop this from mattering randomly occur? jp×g🗯️ 03:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it is the most significant breaking tech news story in over a decade... Poor me, I thought that the first working quantum computer, functional AI, Starlink or 6G were amongst the most breaking IT stories of the past decade. Alas, it was a human resources crisis in an American nonprofit. ROTFL. — kashmīrī TALK 10:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's getting wall-to-wall coverage because many see this as among the most consequential battles in history, as it revolves around OpenAI achieving AGI and AI safety / avoiding globally catastrophic AI aftermath scenarios. Deletion will soon seem about as appropriate as deletion of Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand or Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. --RudolfoMD (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds very crystal-ball... Neither OpenAI nor Microsoft have created any AI in control of infrastructure yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re your assertion that "this as among the most consequential battles in history", please consdsier WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article, and it is completely against the nature of an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there are two camps. 1 is "very significant", which includes this !vote; 2 is "notable already and too long to merge". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It must have been an oversight that you have missed the largest camp by !vote numbers: those Wikipedians who believe that this article runs afoul of several Wikipedia policies and who have therefore advocated for a merge. — kashmīrī TALK 20:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two camps for the support side, if that somehow wasn't obvious enough. ZimZalaBim said This sums up much of the arguments here for keeping this article. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To compare this boardroom scuffle to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is an absurd hyperbole - a classic example of the small reference pools and narrow frames of reference that often trouble this site. But even if it somehow proved to be so in the future - you can't demonstrate that right now. That's what WP:CRYSTAL is about. It's not reasonable to argue that we should preserve this extremely specific treatment of the topic because it might one day be of earth-shattering importance is silly. Maybe this event brings about - or prevents - some unthinkable far-future robo-basilisk empire, but we can't know that. We can only go with the situation as it is now, and as I said above - we simply would not be doing this for a similar contretemps at many other larger corporations with much wider markets. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. Major and complicated event best covered in one article rather than as an indigestible fork to two other articles. Ultimately, it might become a section to another article but for now we should keep it. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @Pere Orga skakEL 13:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Red-tailed Hawk. I don't think any of the four bullet points at WP:NOTNEWS apply, but ultimately there's not that much new here once you strip out all the context. Mach61 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete given that this has calmed down since a lot of these responses were made, I think its now pretty clear this will go down as an unusual but relatively trivial bit of corporate nonsense. I see no reason this would gather long term coverage or have an ongoing lasting impact that would have it need a standalone article. EoRdE6(Talk) 04:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Cultural nationalism[edit]

Cultural nationalism (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 (possibly irreconcilable) verifiability and notability problems. The text is largely unsourced and it isn’t at all clear what it’s even supposed to be talking about. I have tagged in the past, but it appears the literature on a phenomenon known as “cultural nationalism” is incredibly vague in what it’s even attempting to define. John Hutchinson appears to be one of the only scholars to engage the term in and of itself (and Kai Nielsen), but does one (or two) scholars’ conceptualisations really meet our notability criteria? My feeling is what he has to say can go in Nationalism. Yr Enw (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I would like to see this article remain and be improved. It can be a helpful addition to the article in the German-language Wikipedia because the term Kulturnation is an important and well-documented historical concept and is still used and discussed today in Germany.--Baekemm (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That raises an interesting point as to whether article translations can (sometimes) constitute different phenomenons? I’m not saying that’s an argument for or against deletion of this one, but a sidepoint Yr Enw (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is underdeveloped, but a quick search shows 48,000 books which use the term. Many of the books use the term as part of chapter titles ie. in-depth. We are only waiting for someone to improve the article. Based on the very wide usage, the term is notable. It may have differing POVs about its meaning, but multiple POVs is how Wikipedia works. Just quickly browsing those sources here is one that says
Moving beyond the cultural nationalist period has not been easy, and despite the many civil rights glories associated with the 1960s and 1970s, the fact that a new cultural logic has slowly made its way into our daily lives makes some matters (urbanization, immigration, and education) ever more pressing. Even as a critique of cultural nationalism began to emerge following its heyday in the 1960s, the limitations of cultural nationalism as a public social discourse encountered resistance from women and men alike. [20]
This is good info, we now know when it had a "heyday", it's no longer in fashion, the context of use "civil rights" era etc.. All this could be incorporated. And that's the first source I randomly picked from the 48,000. -- GreenC 18:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I largely agree with everything GreenC had to say, the term definitely has wide usage. Through just doing a preliminary search on google scholar, I see a lot of research using the concept as a guiding point for their research, including research from just the past year or two. When looking at articles published since 2022 that were on google scholar, 5000 used the term cultural nationalism. Obviously, this is just a preliminary search but the fact that it is still being used in research adds to the reasons it should be kept as an article in my opinion. Sillypilled (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term, like many others in sociology, is indeed ambiguous, as the nom claims. That would make expanding this article more challenging, but not a reason to delete it. Ample references and frequent usage establish notability. Owen× ☎ 19:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ by Kuru as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 13:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajveer Deol[edit]

Rajveer Deol (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:NACTOR. Only in september did Deol make his debut. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 17:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Morrison (disambiguation). RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of organisations with Morrison in their name[edit]

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

These fail WP:PTM, anything known as "Morrison" can and should be listed at Morrison (disambiguation). -- Tavix (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tynedale FM[edit]

Tynedale FM (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 cites no sources and has been tagged as having no sources since 2009. A WP:BEFORE search brings up only trivial mentions of the station in local blogs of the 2008-09 era but no significant coverage in the press or reputable media news websites. The broadcaster appears to have been defunct for some years so it is unlikely that new significant coverage will appear. Flip Format (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace: Flip Format is right to question this article's viability. However, it is likely that there will be references available in local media. Therefore, I feel that this article should be moved to draftspace to allow time for these references to be located and if no new information is added in the draftspace period, or any new additions do not satisfy notability criteria, the article can naturally be allowed to disappear from Wikipedia upon expirary of the draftspace period. Rillington (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify until sources can be found. Owen× ☎ 19:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DCAP-BTLS[edit]

DCAP-BTLS (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)

Wikipedia is not an acronym dictionary. PROD was contested without explanation * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it already exists on Wikitionary and while some acronyms are notable enough for their own wikipedia page there really isn't much information on this particular one. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Portland and Western Railroad#Locomotive fleet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portland and Western 1801[edit]

Portland and Western 1801 (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 subject fails GNG. The article contains no claims that this specific locomotive is notable. One source provides some extended coverage, but only discusses a paint scheme that was applied. All other sources (including one SELFPUB) only mention subject in the context of a list of many locomotives to be scrapped or upgraded. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per the nomination. Fails WP:GNG. Unsigned response from TarnishedPath (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2023‎ (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge (a summary of)( the parts that can be verified to Portland and Western Railroad#Locomotive fleet. There is no evidence of independent notability, but equally there is no reason this cannot be included as part of the broader article per WP:PRESERVE. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like someone already merged the relevant content to the article in September, which saved me a couple minutes! Agree on the PRESERVE element, but it looks like there's really nothing else that can be merged. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case we need to keep the edit history here and a redirect is the best way to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf, if it's already been merged should you be perhaps suggesting a redirect? TarnishedPathtalk 10:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted directly above, if content has been merged already then we must keep the redirect for attribution purposes. A !vote for merging can be taken as automatic support for a redirect if a merge has already happened. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Portland and Western Railroad#Locomotive fleet as an ATD, and since the content has been merged there. No need for deletion in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 07:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Cobo[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman who sold a non-notable company. As the tag says, it is probably the result of paid editing with side portions of promotionalism and COI. Despite the attempts of the creator to convey notability, the sources do not bear the assertion. The sources provided are a mixture, primarily, of blog and oped pieces, press statements, advertorials and passing mentions. The subject fails WP:ANYBIO and BLPSOURCES: there several mentions of him across the web, mostly social media. There is almost nothing in reliable news outlets. Likewise, he has won no major recognition or award, nor has received coverage in national literature. ——Serial 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is COI. I really don't know that much about Cobo, which is why the article is that short. If I were truly paid to advertise him and his business on Wikipedia, it would have been far more detailed with all kinds of autobiographical trivia that you couldn't easily find online. I don't even know which city or town in Spain he was born in. Please also take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:DONTBITE too. I know that you deal with a lot of spam on Wikipedia, but please don't accuse everyone of being a bad guy. Just because some of us write about random businesspeople does not mean that we are all covertly paid to promote them. I only read about Cobo in the news and really don't know that much about him. I used Unfold before and was simply interested in finding more about where and how that app had originated. This why half of the article is actually about Unfold, which I'm actually more interested in. There's still a lot more information about him that I'd like to find out. I'm sure that their PR team would make this article far more promotional and advertorial than I would have made it. In any case, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sendero99 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Sendero99 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The Fast Company link used is green per sourcetool. Rest arent, but I can't open it behind the paywall. I find this [21] and this [22]. Enough to give context, but minimal coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like there are conflated issues here 1) is the subject notable? 2) is the editor an UPE? Let's separate the two. As far as the subject itself, there's more enough for me that he satisfies WP:GNG. As for the second - I don't know. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Is there anything we can do other than take his word for it? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Independent coverage by Forbes and CNBC more than establishes notability. The issue of COI/UPE should be handled by a topic ban imposed on the related parties, while others rewrite the page, not be deletion. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 19:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Chase[edit]

Clifford Chase (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)

Author of one possibly notable book, another that seems less notable, and editor of volume that got shortlisted for an award... not much here to go with with regards to WP:NBIO/WP:NAUTHOR, I am afraid. My BEFORE is not giving much. This was likely WP:TOOSOON in 2006 when the entry was created, and it hasn't changed since, which is not a good sign. WP:ATD to consider might be redirecting this to the article about his possibly notable book (Winkie (novel) - the article looks meh but the reviews likely suffice for that entry to meet NBOOK). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, found one more [24], should be ok for notability now. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are reviews of his books, not works about him. Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERIT). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Author, reviews can be used to establish notability for an author. So "notability is not inherited" is not correct here b/c reviews can be used to establish than an author has "won significant critical attention." Finally, "notability is not inherited" doesn't apply to citations, it refers to someone claiming to be notable because they are related to someone who is notable. SouthernNights (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthernNights Are any of the sources found about him? The page you cite states: "A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". The additional criteria for authors are just supplmentary: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under notability for creative professionals, it states such a person is notable if "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." So per the language under (c), the reviews don't have to be about him but his work. And that's exactly what we have here. The reason it states this is because authors and similar creative professionals are usually represented by their works, with many authors even avoiding publicity around themselves. SouthernNights (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. There is a difference of views, but none are to delete the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Super Formula Lights[edit]

2024 Super Formula Lights (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 teams and drivers and no calendar announced yet, so WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. H4MCHTR (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - I would draftify it until the calendar is announced but it would be a shame to delete it since there's already some information on the new car specifications. Formula Downforce (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With the calendar now announced, I retract my original opinion. H4MCHTR (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge notable portion into Super Formula Lights. I don't see the calendar itself as being notable. Owen× ☎ 19:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that the calendar has been announced, and the nom has retracted their original proposal. CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neterra[edit]

Neterra (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)

Reads mostly like an advert. Highly promotional - RichT|C|E-Mail 13:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but revert to the last version without all the advertising. . .Mean as custard (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if the article is rewritten to get rid of the promotional language, I still don't see the topic as qualifying under WP:NCORP. Owen× ☎ 19:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it violates the policy WP:NOT, in particular the passage saying Wikipedia is not Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations. Due to the reference spam in this article, I believe that this WP:policy violation can suffice as a rationale to justify deletion. The specific notability guideline for corporations, WP:NCORP, does not seem to be met either after quick WP:GOOGLE search. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC) ETA: Per User_talk:Rtkat3#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/O-Sensei_(comics) and in the spirit of no bureaucracies for the holidays, re-closing this as a redirect. If folks feel strongly that the redirect should not exist, RfD can address that. However while I don't see a strong consensus for a redirect, I similarly don't see one against one. Thanks and ping me if needed. Star Mississippi 03:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O-Sensei (comics)[edit]

O-Sensei (comics) (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)

Minor comic book character that fails WP:GNG and my BEFORE is not helpful. Plot summary, a short list of appearances in other media, no reception/analysis. The best ATD I can suggest is the usual redirect to the List of DC comics characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I could not find anything that approached significant coverage. Meanwhile, the character is not mentioned in the list, so a redirect would not make sense to anyone who does not know about this obscure character. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Minor character that does not pass the WP:GNG. I am not finding anything in searches that are not either non-reliable sources, such as fanpages, or the most trivial of mentions. As stated by Susmuffin, the character does not even appear in the overstuffed DC Character lists, so Redirecting is out of the question, and as the character is just so incredibly non-notable and there is not a single piece of genuinely sourced information here, merging would not be appropriate. And of course, since O-Sensei redirects to the notable individual Morihei Ueshiba, this specific search term would not be a particularly useful redirect anyway, given that it is a very specific, very unlikely search term. Rorshacma (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that this character fails GNG and is so minor a redirect is not appropriate. Rhino131 (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: O in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. To the closer of this AFD discussion if the outcome is delete, can you see to it that some of his history goes to the page that I just mentioned? --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King (Snow White)[edit]

King (Snow White) (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)

Minor character from a classic fairy tale. We all know the Queen, but who knows that there was a King too? The article is just a very poorly referenced (two footnotes) plot summary (very short, since the character is barely mentioned) and then more plot summary of various adaptations. WP:FANCRUFT trivia, I am afraid, failing WP:GNG and WP:V, which at best can be redirected to Snow White. My BEFORE, for the record, yielded nothing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This character is not notable. The article does not include much information besides plot summary, because it can't. The redirect would not be helpful because Snow White does not mention him and this is a very unlikely search term. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I researched this first, and finding almost nothing, then came to the article to see whether it cited any sources. It didn't. The almost nothing was JSTOR 539520, telling me that "there is only a passing reference to the king at the start of the story". And apart from cast details that are already in the movie articles, this is pretty much what this article says over and over, too. I cannot find any critical scholarship that has taken notice of this character in things like Mirror Mirror. Even the reviews of that movie pointing out its variations from the Disney/Grimm versions largely ignore this character. There really isn't scope for an article on this. Uncle G (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AryKun (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Snow White upon establishing a character section that would list the characters including the minor ones in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Plus, his page was established when other media adaptions have expanded his background like the different movies (particularly Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman) and Ever After High as one of you has previously mentioned. I can't say if the live-action version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs will feature the King like the musical version did. We'll just have to wait and see. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. No valid sources in the article and searches do not provide any evidence that any depiction of this extremely minor character has ever been notable. Agreed that a redirect would be pointless as this is not a plausible search term. Rorshacma (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not pass GNG and I agree that this character is so minor a merge or redirect is not necessary. Rhino131 (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the page discusses his lack of apperences. The character is non-notable I dont think redirecting is necesrry given how minor the character is.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zaeem Zia[edit]

Zaeem Zia (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)

Complete spam, nothing notable about the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Chandler Bringins[edit]

Jensen Chandler Bringins (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:NMUSIC. Promotional and replete with inline exlinks. Sources shine by their absence. Kleuske (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed any promotional material, please tell me what I can do to not get this page deleted! Earniebernie (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Zero coverage even in .nz sources. Could be PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the inline external links are insufficient to establish notability. The subject is young so this article may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.-gadfium 18:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, undoubtedly SELFPROMO, TOOSOON would be an understatement. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    removed all self promotion material Earniebernie (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He looks like an impressive young man and I wish him good luck in his pursuits, but he has not achieved notability per Wikipedia's rules, and this article is clearly a rather desperate attempt at promotion. That belongs on a different type of website, and not one that is intended to be encyclopedic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now no more attempts of promotion now, it is only about his life, music, education and his cerebral palsy! Earniebernie (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That still does not make him notable. Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it is still overwhelmingly promotional, just with language that is a little more subtle than before. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Cogswell (psychologist)[edit]

John Cogswell (psychologist) (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 finding anything that satisfies WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't see anything either. Spiralwidget (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only relevant results for this John Cogswell in Newspapers.com are "Community Calendar" listings for The Walking Theatre Group in the Los Angeles Times. ProQuest turns up a dissertation that cites his 1993 article in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology. But neither of these are sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 19:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zirkeyk[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Hongsy (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this place even searching on geonames.nga.mil Hongsy (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#11), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Zirkeyk listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an abadi, which is a class of rural locality explicitly excluded from GEOLAND as so many of them are not actual communities but instead pumps/farms/factories/etc. However, locations with populations above 100 are supposed to be slowly being converted into actual villages, so it's possible this is a real place. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There's at least a school there, per IRNA (معاون سياسي اجتماعي استاندار سيستان و بلوچستان در سفر يك روزه به شهرستان خاش از مدارس زيركيك و ده قلعه ايرندگان ديدن كرد و مشكلات حوزه آموزشي اين بخش را مورد بررسي قرار داد appears to refer to a زيركيك in Irandegan, which would correspond with the entity in this article). That being said, the IRNA link isn't significant coverage, and my Persian language abilities are quite limited, so I'm having a hard time finding anything about this place other than it exists, has a school, and has some small population. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Wizardman 23:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota Amateur Baseball Hall of Fame[edit]

South Dakota Amateur Baseball Hall of Fame (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 enough WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's coverage that spans from the 1950s through today. Skynxnex (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For review of Skynxnex's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep does seem to have enough local coverage. AryKun (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: new sources seem fine, but the article needs a rewrite to incorporate inline citations. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of EastEnders characters. Star Mississippi 19:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carter family (EastEnders)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Carter family (EastEnders) (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)

It goes without saying the EastEnders is, as EastEnders in popular culture Wikipedia article itself says, with references from reliable sources, a "BBC soap opera [[with ...]] large impact on popular culture."

The 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carter family (EastEnders) discussion was closed based on rationale that "The single niche award" - in this case Inside Soap's 2014 award. The discussion was closed with the participation of only a few editors. To my mind, a second WP:AFD may well be a better way to assess whether this meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article. OK, let's start this off.

Reasons for a keep outcome[edit]

  • the article created in 2013 and deleted in 2019 via WP:AFD - the AFD was based on a quibble about an award
  • the 2023 version of the article now contains new references that the article deleted in 2019 lacked
  • a number of other users have in good faith edited the article - their opinions should be considered before outright speedly deletion

Reasons for a delete outcome[edit]

  • all the new references pre-date the 2019 AFD - has anything changed since 2019?
  • the article deleted in 2019 was created in 2013 by a now blocked user AngieWattsFan - has anything changed since 2013?

As always, more happy than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Raghav[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Atul Raghav (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 player and article seems to be deleted before, never won any Notable tournament. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 10:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable athlete who has not won any notable championships. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Kindly review the sources cited, It clearly proves the notability of a given article, Hence it passes WP:ATHLETE. *Note- Kindly have a basic understanding of Taekwondo in India and sports in India. Do check the World Taekwondo simply compete website for more. He won bronze medal in World Taekwondo G-2 Championship 2020 in Dubai and gold in national games 2018 which are clearly cited by reliable news sources. Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation (Government Body) itself mentioned and posted about him on social platforms.

Do keep in mind, Taekwondo is not cricket. It's growing unlike other unconventional sport and not a single athlete in india qualified or won medal in olympics due to multiple factors but that doesn't mean the athletes are not notable. kindly check D section of WP:BEFORE. Don't be bias and do injustice to the termm Wikipedia Notability by deleting articles intentionally and specifically of taekwondo athletes. Divineplus (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Divineplus Can you please specify which reliable sources supply significant independent coverage? Interviews, simple reporting of results, or statements about competing in upcoming tournaments do not supply such coverage. As for his results, he is not even close to meeting WP:MANOTE. His bronze medal came in one of many G2 tournaments annually, not a world championship. A G2 tournament is a long way from a world championship (rated G12). Papaursa (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Here's the list:
IndiaTv, ANI, The Print, News 18, Firstsportz which are showing significant coverage. Also do check other taekwondo athletes coverage because they are interviews, simple reporting of results, or statements. They should be deleted as well with this logic. @Papaursa They are not celebrities who will get independent coverage on their personal lives just like bollywood stars get but sportspersons who will be covered for their sports interviews, statements or results of a championship. Divineplus (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't consider the sources that say he won a bronze at the taekwondo world championships very reliable when they obviously have the facts wrong. Being chosen for a relatively minor competition (in taekwondo) after failing to make India's team for the Asian championships, a local news interview, and an interview instigated by the subject fail to show he meets WP:GNG. I didn't look at other taekwondo articles since that falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Papaursa (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails in WP:ATHLETE, not a part of any notable tournament Worldiswide (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned above, I do not find the sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I also don't believe he meets the notability criteria for martial artists. His third place finish at a G-2 tournament is considered by the world taekwondo organization to be worth less than being in the top 64 at a world championship (which would hardly be considered WP notable). This is the third time this article has been created since 2020 and he hasn't had any tournament success since the first nomination. Papaursa (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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.

This closure is not based on the observation that "the creating editor was fishy". Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan L. Cohen[edit]

Alan L. Cohen (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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. References are profiles, interviews, PR, press-releases and clickbait. scope_creepTalk 15:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is clearly a motivated desire from the nominator to delete every page I have written. Just look at two of the references (REF1[1] alone is enough), or REF16[2] calling him notable from the NY Times.Stravensky (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to International Four Days Marches Nijmegen. signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valkhof Festival[edit]

Valkhof Festival (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 decade without refs is enough. No secondary sources obvious in google (but I admit to no speaking Dutch). PROD'd twice. History of apparent COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor technical comment: the festival was originally named "de-Affaire" then renamed the Valkhof Festival. I moved the de-Affaire article to Valkhof Festival but when I look at the article, my browser renders "Valkhof Festival" as "valkhof Festival'. At this AfD, the title is properly rendered as Valhof; the talk page title is Talk:Valkhof Festival.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are secondary sources. De Gelderlander for example is a respectable regional newspaper that covers the event, see here.Then there is this, in english. The article needs an update and a facelift, I´d say. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draft; just notable enough, yet would severely benefit from a cleanup. It currently just constitutes some general uncited information and an ugly list of lineups. Maybe move to draft? 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. (chat | contribs) 12:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rewrite, rework, expand. It's still in existence and there is undoubtedly plenty of material to add, though I don't think it needs a complete lineup for every year. Articles for deletion isn't the place for cleanup, I don't speak Norwegian, and somebody who does will need to edit this but it's not appropriate to delete it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do speak Norwegian Dutch and I might look into how to improve this article this afternoon. Anyway agreed, no need for deletion. 𝕎.𝔾.𝕁. (chat | contribs) 15:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsuited for mainspace in its current state, and I can't find sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Of the two sources provided in this discussion - a regional newspaper isn't enough to satisfy WP:EVENTCRITERIA, the crack magazine article is a single paragraph, there is no in-depth coverage. If there is undoubtedly plenty of material to add then where are the sources? Polyamorph (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draft and require WP:AFC reviewer approval for restoration to mainspace. BD2412 T 21:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to International Four Days Marches Nijmegen. Way too detailed coverage for a local festival that is part of a larger series, the Vierdaagsefeesten. If someone wants to create an article on the "Vierdaagsefeesten", as a spinoff of International Four Days Marches Nijmegen, with Valkhof in it, that would be fair game. The current is not set up right and draft will not fix it. For now redirect to the parent of the Vierdaagsefeesten where both the Vierdaagsefeesten and Valkhof are mentioned. gidonb (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stuartyeates, A. B., Ruud Buitelaar, Polyamorph, Bookworm857158367, BD2412, and User:W.G.J., can you all live with this solution? gidonb (talk)
Stuartyeates, A. B., Ruud Buitelaar, Polyamorph, Bookworm857158367, BD2412, and User:W.G.J., trying again! gidonb (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I would add one of the images to the parent article and mention the Commons categoriesCategory:Vierdaagsefeesten - Wikimedia Commons and Category:Valkhof Festival - Wikimedia Commons Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can do both (have a redirect and a draftspace or userspace draft). No objection to purely redirecting, however. BD2412 T 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gidonb - good idea. I support it. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Could editors arguing to Keep this article add the sources they found directly into the article? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Hoang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stevie Hoang (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 through AfD as subject does not seem to pass any of the criterion listed under WP:MUSICBIO. Only this cited source by record label seem to have power. He released "Fight for You" which was later remixed by Jason Derulo and the source to that statement is Apple Music. No review whatsoever on Allmusic, only passing mentions here, and broken links cited on the article. He would pass #5 of WP:MUSICBIO but all his albums were "self-released". dxneo (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and United Kingdom. dxneo (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. dxneo (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete provided sources are not enough to show notability or meeting WP:MUSICBIO.Royal88888 (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Keep he has had at least one album released on Mercury Records, shown here with others on Avex Trax, sold 65,000 copies of one album in Japan and has significant coverage in The Times here and the Guardian source here linked in the nomination is more than a passing mention, its a small but sharp critique, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All that is WP:CRYSTAL, any charting list verifying the subjects "massive blow up" in Japan? Anyone can achieve hits online but still fail WP:GNG, I can give a few examples as a South African who knows an individual called Shebeshxt, he's upcoming and very big (on streaming platforms and TikTok) but yet no news of him online as his recordings were mostly self-released like the subject of the matter. Please provide a national charting list, award nom/win, or even a certified recording, something that can satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not crystal, we've got a reliable source The Times stating that he's sold 65,000 albums in Japan. He's also released three albums on a notable label Avex Trax as well as a release on Mercury Records so he is not self released, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's evidence that one of his albums charted at 29 on the Oricon Album Chart the top chart in Japan here. It is also confirmed in the Japan Wikipedia article here which also has extra references such as Billboard Japan, and Natalie. Changed to full keep due to charting, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on charting in Japan and the album sales. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Recreation as a redirect welcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inform version history[edit]

Inform version history (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 NLIST and WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Appropriate material is already present in Inform. List is an unneeded CFORK. No objection to a consensus redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  05:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. This is the second AFD on this article subject in the past two months. Please do not recreate this article until some decent sources are available. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Rubio[edit]

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

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE show nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found database listings and promo, may be WP:TOOSOON.  // Timothy :: talk  04:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it may be a little too soon, but I just thought since Thalia Tran had a Wikipedia page even if she started earlier, I believed it would’ve been fair since she’s now popular for the role in the film, starring in For All Mankind (film), Unstable (TV series) and possibly more yet to come. BankSforLifez (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TOOSOON, this is about all I could find [29] beyond simple cast lists. The fact that it's published in India, half way around the world, when the actress has not gotten critical notice in her home country, seems fishy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    that was updated on the 20th, a bunch of news articles will say the release date and cast list, [3] [4] even after the movie actually got released, a ton of people adored her, and of course she’s loved in the United States. BankSforLifez (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of which is relevant here, we need stories about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean stories that should only talk about Piper’s life? Can you rephrase? BankSforLifez (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We need feature articles in newspapers, magazines or reputable websites that are about her, not her in context of other projects. [30] this is about the level of what we need. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-22/alan-cohen-the-ad-man-who-molds-tech-startups
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/business/media/accounts-and-people-of-note-in-the-advertising-industry.html
  3. ^ https://www.slashfilm.com/1417186/young-five-nights-freddys-star-loved-murder-bots/
  4. ^ https://screenrant.com/five-nights-at-freddys-trailer-2/
  • I feel like this and Emily Mitchell (actress) above could be merged into some sort of list of child actors of the 2020s. BD2412 T 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s fair, I do understand that Piper just became a rising star, but she did started acting in 2019. BankSforLifez (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about being fair, it's about having coverage or not. Just being on screen isn't an automatic pass for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said just being on screen will get a person an article, I’m saying she’s JUST became a rising star. Yeah it is too soon, and she doesn’t have an article mostly about her, but I believed that until then people can know about her acting career and her filmography. BankSforLifez (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing has changed about her notability since the last AFD in August. Mike Allen 20:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balrampur Chini Mills Limited[edit]

Balrampur Chini Mills Limited (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 to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Giants[edit]

Gulf Giants (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 are not enough independent citations to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NSPORT. Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20. Charlie (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and United Arab Emirates. Charlie (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what "fails WP:NSPORT" means in this context, because WP:NTEAM does not have any specific guidelines. But there is plenty of significant coverage in multiple independent sources (e.g. [31][32][33][34]), so this is an easy WP:GNG pass. StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @StAnselm with all due respect and assuming good faith; it seems like sources 1, 2, and 3 are just basic announcements and they don't provide a lot of detailed information. Also, source 2 and 3 are from Hindustan Times which has a history of mirroring Wikipedia in the past. In contrast, source number 4 originates from NDTV, a media network and team both affiliated with the Adani Group through ownership. In general, I am not rejecting your reasoning or logic, but I think there's a strong requirement for credible sources that meet the standards of significant coverage and depth set by the following Wikipedia guidelines - WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH, respectively. As it stands, the topic seems premature for Wikipedia inclusion i.e., WP:TOOSOON, though I am receptive to further information meeting WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough coverage coming up on a simple search to suggest that there will be plenty of WP:SIGCOV with a more detailed search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through and done some cleanup and tagged some sections. There's clearly enough sourcing, although the article as it stands isn't as well sourced as it could be. So, yes, it's a keep Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Following the improvements it's much better and as they play more, well get even better. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi Knight Riders[edit]

Abu Dhabi Knight Riders (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 are not enough independent citations to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NSPORT. Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20, or merge with Kolkata Knight Riders. Charlie (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United Arab Emirates. Charlie (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The nominator appears not to understand that sources do not need to be present in the article for notability to be established. Either that, or WP:BEFORE was not followed. In any case, the subject easily passes WP:GNG.[35][36][37] StAnselm (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @StAnselm with all due respect and assuming good faith; Source 1 is just an a acquisition news. Whereas, the sources 2 and 3 are all about the notability of an athlete (or a coach) that does not imply the notability of a team or club. Ref: WP:NTEAM. As I have said at the Gulf Giants' AfD nomination - I am not rejecting your reasoning or logic, but I think there's a strong requirement for credible sources that meet the standards of significant coverage and depth set by the following Wikipedia guidelines - WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH, respectively. As it stands, the topic seems premature for Wikipedia inclusion i.e., WP:TOOSOON, though I am receptive to further information meeting WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Cricket. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough coverage coming up on a simple search to suggest that there will be plenty of WP:SIGCOV with a more detailed search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's almost certainly enough sourcing and I'm surprised that a tonne of detail hasn't already been added to the article. As it stands there's very little here and I'm not sure if anyone would notice if it were redirected. That might be an option in the future, but at AfD it's probably a keep based on sources existing Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: How is this even a thing? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plainly notable per sources. Desertarun (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons given above. Bs1jac (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insecurity Insight[edit]

Insecurity Insight (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 multiple issues since 2012, sourcing almost completely self-referential. Preliminary BEFORE does not reveal obvious passing of the GNG or NONPROFIT. No concern to withdraw if adequate reliable sourcing can be demonstrated. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There has not been enough participation to form a consensus. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 04:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Cities Lacrosse Conference[edit]

Midwest Cities Lacrosse Conference (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 doesn't meet either the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. I would guess there is a lot of discussion of the league in local newspapers (which are probably not online). Llajwa (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep but further discussion on a possible Merge can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war[edit]

Islamophobia during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (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 already have Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Islam is a secondary issue. Palestinian Christians are also part of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The central topic is the State of Palestine. And all the listed instances of Islamophobia are directly referred to Palestinians except the last two, which are indirectly connected simply by virtue of having happened because the conflict escalated. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed Violent incidents in reaction to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Attacks against Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims. Goes to show the huge overlap that there is between all these unnecessary articles. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a merge would be in order? I would be open to discussing it after the deletion discussion ends -- if it ends with the decision to keep, that is. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm open to that too. Though I think merging with the Anti-Palestianism article might be better. What do you think about that option? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would work. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Powerplay44 and AryKun, what would you think of the possibility of merging this and the Anti-Palestinianism article? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be fine with that. Powerplay44 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only can this be covered in much less detail elsewhere, it is also not widespread enough to even be considered important. Bottom line: there are not many people (only 4 mentioned in the article) who are committing vile acts against Islamic people because of their support of Hamas. Powerplay44 (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of news articles mentioning Islamophobia from nearly every news outlet I know; the article's currently not in the greatest shape, but not TNT-worthy imo. There's clearly coverage, so personal opinions on how prevalent Islamophobia is seem irrelevant. AryKun (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That link does not work for me. In any case I doubt a case can be made that we can get an article sufficiently differentiated from the Anti-Palestianism one. We currently have two articles about hate against one of the two sides of a conflict. Even if we expand both we will have very similar articles. Only that the Anti-Palestianism can also cover Palestinian Christians who are a small minority while this one can cover non-Palestinian Muslims which will not be the central focus of the article. Now that I think of it maybe a solution could be to merge both into an article called Anti-Palestinianism and Islamophobia during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. If not we're going to have two very interrelated articles with a lot of duplicate info. Three of the six paragraphs (excluding the lead) of this article are already included in the Anti-Palestianism one, and the one about "human animals" could perfectly be included as well. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article definitely needs cleanup, but I don't think it should be deleted. The topic is notable enough. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the information present definetely needs cleanup, and it may be notable in some capacity. However, as stated above, Islamophobia and Anti-Palestinianism are very closely related meaning the two articles, at the very least, can be merged. Powerplay44 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely keep, look Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and "Islamophobia during the Israel-Hamas war" are two different things. In the entire world, not only the Palestinians but the entire Muslim community is being targeted regarding Palestine. How can Palestinian Muslims represent the Muslims of the whole world? Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article is about Palestinians, most of the hatred is towards Palestinians and it started because of an escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not a topic separate from Anti-Palestinianism. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t want to get into the specifics of the war, but there is most definitely a strong and supportive relationship between the Hamas terrorists and many Muslims, as shown by Muslims who acclaim the vicious and immoral atrocities committed by Hamas and openly criticize the Israelis for merely defending their established nation. This proves that Islamophobia and Anti-Palestinianism in this matter are indeed strongly related and can be merged together. Powerplay44 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If most of the article is about Palestinians then it should be merged... Homerethegreat (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More news sources use the term Islamophobia than Anti-Palestinianism, so if you want a merge, it should be the other way. Additionally, I would say the two topics are distinct; see for example this source on how the Indian far-right is trying to use the Oct 7 attack to inflame domestic opinion against Indian Muslims. Racists aren't exactly known for their cultural awareness, they'll be racist to whoever they can.
As an addendum, your personal blog post about how most Muslims are supportive of Hamas' war crimes is irrelevant here. They aren't criticizing Israel for "merely defending [it's] established nation", they're criticizing it for killing over 4000 children as if that's going to lead to a permanent peace after the war ends. AryKun (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s shameful that people who have a differing view from yours are labeled as racists. That aside, it was the Palestinians who incited the violence in Israel, making them consequently responsible for the deaths of Palestinians and Israelis during the war. The best comparison I have is that President Trump is personally held responsible for the January 6 Violent Protests, while those who actually committed crimes are often looked over. If Trump is credited with inciting violence and causing chaos then this should be no different because Palestine also incited violence.
About the actual merge, I’d be absolutely fine with merging it the other way because they are the same issue and there is no need for two separate articles covering the same information and ideas. Powerplay44 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I literally linked a source about Indian far-right media cells that "propagate anti-Muslim hatred" in the previous sentence; Islamophobes are racists, just as anti-Semites are racists, and the people the source discusses are both at the same time. We have many sources talking about how different groups are using the war to drum up domestic Islamophobia specifically, even if they don't have a large Palestinian population. Anti-Palestinianism and Islamophobia are distinct issues here, even if the groups perpetuating both overlap somewhat. As for your second point, I don't want to engage because it's irrelevant to the AfD and will just side-track this whole discussion. AryKun (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your reasoning now. My apologies for the statement regarding racism, I must have not seen it in the source. Powerplay44 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Easily passes GNG:
 // Timothy :: talk  07:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. The subject is clearly notable, but I don't believe readers will benefit by having two separate articles about what news coverage--rightfully or not--often bundles together. We may need to rename the merged article to something more inclusive, such as "Islamophobia and anti-Palestinianism during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war". Owen× ☎ 22:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with all points ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aside from the question of notability, more discussion is needed on whether this article forks content that could fit better elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with no need to merge. There is sufficient distinction of the topics and sufficient reliable sources for both. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree. There seems to be sufficient distinction. If anything, Islamophobia is the more prevalent phenomena globally - one that regularly picks up in relation to Middle East events. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_19&oldid=1187148169"