Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 05 November 07 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Quake II engine#Ports. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qfusion[edit]

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

No sources or apparent notability. Was previously AFD'ed and redirected to Quake II#Quake II engine. Then recreated by Slacka123 in 2012. IgelRM (talk) 23:53, 6 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 23:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gamvas[edit]

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

No sources or apparent notability. As seen by GB fan, Odie5533 and Dgpop both tried to PROD the article in 2016, but these were disputed by creator God64 and 78.69.249.162. IgelRM (talk) 23:45, 6 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 23:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Regional Leagues of Spain[edit]

2021–22 Regional Leagues of Spain (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, not notable and not even in accordance to the division's name (Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol). BRDude70 (talk) 23:32, 6 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. While this is leaning delete, there isn't sufficient consensus here to execute a delete (largely driven by low participation). No prejudice to immediate re-nomination if desired. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers (Jukebox the Ghost album)[edit]

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

BLAR was undone, but the article doesn't look any better. The Washington Post interview (not a review so also inappropriately placed in the ratings box) only mentions the album for two sentences, and other than that and the PopMatters review, I'm unclear that any of the sources are reliable (I've particularly seen Prelude Press called outright unreliable before). If, ultimately, that means the article is basically relying on just PopMatters for notability, then that'd be the same grounds that I BLARed on in the first place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Washington, D.C.. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One song reviewed here [1], I don't think that's enough. I can't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NALBUM, did some editing and added a review, plus previously present notability through other online articles. Also, why is this in AFD for Washington, D.C.? Koopastar (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the new sources you added:
    • Hashtag Magazine is a single-author page which is essentially a blog except by name, and that page in particular looks like a press release.
    • Melodic.net has potential given it has multiple writers, but without an about/staff page showing if there's an editorial team, it's hard to give an automatic pass.
    • On The Soundboard Reviews, I could only find one review out of the couple dozen I checked which weren't written by the site's founder. That's only a small step above Hashtag, and not the most promising.
    • And Throw the Dice and Play Nice is explicitly a single-author blog, so that's a no.
    I'm still not convinced this isn't just stretching for notability, something most notable album articles shouldn't have to do nearly this much. As for the Washington, DC question, sometimes it can be useful to tag AfDs for their subject's country of origin because there may be local coverage which is only accessible locally. In cases like this, I wouldn't usually bother including it because US coverage tends to be more widely available, but there are some editors who will show up and add it anyway just because they can, so I put it there when I remember just to preempt that. It might still be useful in some cases, though I can't say I've ever seen it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining the DC thing. As for the article, Melodic.net does have a staff page, and I've removed Throw the Dice and Play Nice as it sources an already cited subject. Hashtag Magazine is replaced with an antiMusic article, and although both are identical in contents, the newer source has somewhat of a staff compared to a single author so more reliability can be established. Koopastar (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That does help Melodic.net's case. I thought I clicked on the contact button but I guess I didn't.
    The reason the text in Hashtag Magazine and antiMusic's articles is identical is because it's an unedited press release, which is all that antiMusic posts. With this one in particular, you can see the "(BMG)" at the start of the article giving credit to the band's record label for writing it. That makes that a primary source which does not support notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source for that part of the article wasn't intended to establish notability, simply confirm a release date that could be questioned. The source for the next sentence does show some notability of one of the singles though, and with the current state of the article it seems there are about 8 or 9 independent sources about the album with a good level of reliability (going off the staff page criteria as the other sources do not have this instantly accessible). Would this amount of coverage be adequate for notability? Koopastar (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would be made quite sad if this weren't notable ("Victoria" is an absolute bop, and I quite like the band's music), but I do largely agree with the nominator here. The WaPo piece may well provide significant coverage of Jukebox the Ghost as a band (and even of the HalloQueen tour), but it's a bit marginal on coverage of the album itself. Looking for other sources, there was a 30 minute radio segment, but much of it is taken up by JtG's music or by Ben Thornewill's own speaking, and that isn't exactly an independent source on the album. More on (HalloQueen can be found; there's a nontrivial change that it's notable, but that isn't the article here).
    The PopMatters review seems to contribute towards notability; PopMatters is listed as generally reliable at WP:RSMUSIC. The problem is that WP:NALBUM#1 would require multiple independent RS to significantly cover it, and I'm a bit iffy on most of the other sources that are claimed contribute towards notability. There's a ginormous article in Atwood Magazine on this album, but I'm not 100% on its independence, and it's not listed at WP:A/S. It does, however, seem to have a good number of writers, so I don't want to discount it. If it's sufficiently independent, I would lean towards keeping. Otherwise, however, I'd be unconvinced.
    Aside from sources that are in the article, there's Glasse Factory, but it's on the single rather than the full album. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde [trout needed] 22:46, 30 October 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! 23:40, 6 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 00:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shere FASTticket[edit]

Shere FASTticket (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 GNG. Many of the sources provided fail WP:SPS and my BEFORE search revealed more of same. This is rail cruft. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from article creator) I have access to a great deal of specialist offline sources, but not sure I can get round to updating the article within a week. If possible, please send to my userspace if I haven't done anything within a week. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per article creator. The article in its current form is not fit for mainspace, and does not demonstrate notability of any kind. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoërskool Noordheuwel[edit]

Hoërskool Noordheuwel (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)

upon checking WP:BEFORE, clearly fails WP:NHSCHOOL microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 16:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The school made the news last year when the school achieved a 100% pass rate and coming out at number 5 in Gauteng (high schools), came out atop in 2021. Seems like "Hoërskool" has branched and expanded a lot because there are lots and lots of schools with that name in South Africa. dxneo (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment "Hoërskool" is just the Afrikaans word for "high school", it's not brand name. Park3r (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, did not know. Been seeing Laerskool and maybe Hoerskool in Polokwane. Leaning towards delete if no coverage cannot be presented.dxneo (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Coverage seems limited to sporting results which is not enough for a school article. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 10 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 Randy Michaels. (This is the equivalent of a soft-deletion redirect.) Daniel (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive, LLC[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that would lead for this subject to meet WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 23:35, 6 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! 02:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Escovedo[edit]

Javier Escovedo (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 obvious notability independent of the Zeroes, refs are junk like Facebook Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He is a founder of two (somewhat) notable bands, which might -- I repeat MIGHT -- help him qualify for #6 at WP:NMUSICBIO, if he had any notability on his own, which he doesn't. Let's avoid an argument over which band to redirect to, which is likely to end in a pointless "no consensus" as has happened a lot lately. There is no harm in simply deleting Javier Escovedo's article because his presence in both bands is adequately described at their articles. I will also point out that many of Javier's media mentions are in articles about his more famous relatives. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 6 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 12:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Folderly[edit]

Folderly (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)

PROD declined. My original reason was "No reliable sources found in my search, none used in the article discuss the software at length. Forbes Contributor pieces can't be used, press-releases are not reliable sources, user-generated ratings sites are not reliable sources.". Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The PROD was removed by an IP with the comment "looks reliable with enough good sources in Cyrillic sources I guess, some ratings have to be excluded from the page". The references are routine start-up coverage about Belkins launch of this product for avoiding spam-filtering of mailout campaigns, along with founder interviews, lists of available jobs, etc. Neither these nor anything found on my searches demonstrate attained notability for this product or Belkins, whether under WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:25, 11 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! 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhiana Griffith[edit]

Rhiana Griffith (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)

Cant find suficent information on her that isnt just various databases Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Good save by duffbeerforme. Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New citations by duffbeerforme show notability. Llajwa (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY per duffbeerforme (nice work). Cabrils (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Anderson (businessman)[edit]

Chad Anderson (businessman) (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 by a single issue editor about an American businessman. Citations seem to be largely to Anderson's work and/or primary sources. The only news sources appear to be about the Great Islay Swim which he took part in. Appears to be a wholly promotional CV/resume. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:20, 6 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. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Biolik[edit]

Anna Biolik (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)

Prod declined in April but marked for notability concerns 10 years ago. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 6 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project Stealth[edit]

Project Stealth (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 article was created in 2009 by an editor who was involved with the game's development (see article talk page), and has been notability-tagged for almost six years. Besides being included in two user-voted top-100 lists on Mod DB (explicitly marked unreliable) and Indie DB (not mentioned in VG/S but has the same parent company), the only sources I could find were all under five paragraphs. QuietCicada - Talk 21:51, 6 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 23:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Christian Academy[edit]

United Christian Academy (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a school, and added two references. It had previously been tagged as unreferenced since 2021. These are local references, however, and I don't think the school meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. It has been tagged as possible conflict of interest since 2011. Tacyarg (talk) 20:46, 6 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! 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheyla Anagua[edit]

Sheyla Anagua (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 has earned at least six caps for the Bolivia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage, failing WP:GNG. The most I found was 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 6 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! 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Lewkowicz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. No coverage in secondary sources, prodded shortly after its creation in 2015. SparklyNights 18:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources for K. S. Lewkowicz. Here is an article on the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2011/nov/29/goodbye-barcelona-review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.222.21.210 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need more than just one source. Besides, this guardian article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. Also, you geolocate pretty close to London, are you associated to Lewkowicz in any way? SparklyNights 23:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No sourcing found for this person, even using the full name given in the article. What's used for sourcing are trivial mentions and non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing much to find other than the above mentioned theguardian.com source which fails SiGCOV. dxneo (talk) 21:13, 6 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. Daniel (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BIGOT list[edit]

AfDs for this article:
BIGOT list (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 does not seem relevant enough to warrant its own page. It should be deleted or merged with Sensitive Compartmented Information. Its name is also close to the term, bigot, which has nothing to do with this article and can create misunderstandings. Brandon Nimmo (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Information on this page does not seem notable or relevant by itself. It may benefit from a merge and redirect to Sensitive Compartmented Information, but I see no merit in doing so because of its lack of importance. Also, the name is too close to the word, bigot, and the page could be mistaken for a list of bigots rather than an article about people with “appropriate security clearance.” 76.117.162.190 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that it appears that User:76.117.162.190 appears to be an IP with a extremely limited editing history and a very strong editing overlap with the nominator, User:Brandon Nimmo. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Alansohn:, it seems that this and the deletion discussion for Ketel Marte’s 20-game post-season hitting streak are the only pages that the IP and I have both made an edit on, and it appears that we have differing opinions on that matter. Brandon Nimmo (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because I have a limited editing history, does not mean that my opinion should not be considered. Also, the similarities in opinions between me and the nominator on this particular matter hardly signifies a “very strong overlap.” 76.117.162.190 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, United Kingdom, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The us of the term is documented in the article under discussion using nine separate sources including in book form from 1) the Dictionary of Jargon, 2) Spy Book: The Encyclopedia of Espionage, 3) Spycraft, 4) An Unplanned Life and 5) United States intelligence: an encyclopedia, as well as in articles in 6) National Geographic, 7) the BBC / The British Museum, 8) The Guardian and 9) Imperial War Museum. These are strong independent sources (including two encyclopedias) that document the use of the term and demonstrate that the term is genuinely notable, as is its use in multiple Wikipedia articles about subjects related to the BIGOT list and individuals included on it. A Google Books search for "BIGOT list" finds many other historical texts and works of fiction where the term is used. The proposed merge target of Sensitive compartmented information is a specific American intelligence term and is an unreasonable article in which to combine this information. Rather unremarkably "Bigot" is not the only word in the English with multiple definitions and uses, and the fact that this is a very different usage makes it relevant for inclusion. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the article, BIGOT, in this capacity, is functioning as an abbreviation. In addition to that, it comes from another abbreviation from the article, TOGIB (To Gibraltar), backwards. In my opinion, reversing an abbreviation pertinent to the article is not very encyclopedic and can be confusing, especially if the reversed abbreviation is also a derogatory word. Brandon Nimmo (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the logic here - Wikipedia is not reversing an abbreviation, but instead is explaining that the term in use (BIGOT) may have been created by historical actors reversing an abbreviation. Neither this nor the derogatory nature of "bigot" in its more common meaning are relevant to whether the article should be deleted or not. Llajwa (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or, alternatively, Move to Wiktionary As a historical term, this seems to be notable, and fascinating. Merging with SCI would be a mistake, since BIGOT list seems to be primarily a British usage and SCI an American one. However, since the citations are primarily lexicographical, maybe this is better suited to Wiktionary than the encyclopedia. (The fact that "bigot" has another, much more common meaning does not seem relevant to this deletion debate one way or the other.) Llajwa (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The topic clears GNG on all counts, with considerably more RS than we normally see on short articles. It's also rather fascinating (not a policy-based argument, I'll admit, but it has to be worth something), Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this - it is interesting and more importantly it is sourced. Keep. ResonantDistortion 08:12, 12 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. Already deleted through Speedy deletion CSD G11. Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yunike[edit]

Yunike (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 evidence of notability. A google search for Yunike does not give any hits for this individual. The only source is his Spotify biography. This is also very likely an autobiography based on the username of the author. Bensci54 (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bensci54,
I hope this message finds you well.
I'd like to express my gratitude for your attention to the article I created about the artist "Yunike" on Wikipedia. I understand your concern regarding the notability of the article and I'm willing to provide additional information that may clarify the significance of the artist "Yunike" in the music community.
I acknowledge that a Google search may not have returned many relevant results about "Yunike." However, I'd like to highlight that the notability of artists is not always easily verifiable through a web search. "Yunike" is a talented artist who has been steadily gaining a growing audience and has been diligently working on his music career in Portugal.
Despite my username, "Yunike1337", on Wikipedia, I understand that you may have concerns that I am the artist and have created an autobiography. To clarify, I did seek and obtain permission from the artist "Yunike" to create an article about him. My username, "Yunike1337," may suggest otherwise, but it's essential to note that I am not the artist, and my goal is to provide a balanced and informative article about "Yunike".
To support "Yunike's" notability, I am in the process of collecting independent and reliable sources that can corroborate his significance. Currently, the biography on Spotify is the primary source available, and I intend to expand the article with additional information, detailing his career, achievements, and impact on the music industry.
I kindly request that you consider postponing the deletion of the article to allow me to work on a more substantial and well-referenced version. I am committed to ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.
Furthermore, I invite you to contribute suggestions or information that may be helpful in improving the article. I believe that, together, we can create an informative and valuable page about "Yunike" on Wikipedia.
Thank you for your understanding, and I am available to collaborate and discuss any concerns you may have. Please let me know if you need any additional information or have any specific guidance. Yunike1337 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also, I searched on my browser and I can give you a direct link.
https://g.co/kgs/ngtWFz
Regards Yunike1337 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are entirely social media links, none of which are useful. Having a website doesn't mean you're notable here, we need articles that talk about the person, proof they've won a major music award or things of that nature. Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 6 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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Consensus is against a standalone article, but I'm not seeing a rationale for deleting before redirecting. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia D. Barksdale[edit]

Patricia D. Barksdale (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 does not meet either WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee and judge of a non-statewide court. Perhaps this can be redirected to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Let'srun (talk) 17:50, 6 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiak Coil Tubing[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Being acquired does not mean the company does/did have notability. Nagol0929 (talk) 17:39, 6 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Left at Gilgamesh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and no sources found in before check. Nagol0929 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable sourcing that I could find online. There was a mention of this play in a book on Gbooks, but the mention was relatively insignificant and does not provide significant coverage upon further inspection. The Night Watch (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I found a German wikipedia entry for the author, Rory Winston (Ronald Winter is, apparently, his pseudonym), but it does not give any citations about the play (and his entry there ought to be AfD'd). The two the citations/ links in the article were IMDB pages about Winter, not about the play, so I deleted them. Our article indicates that this play, which is already more than 30 years old has never had anyone notable involved with it and was only performed once professionally, at an off-off-Broadway theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 6 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draw Pictures[edit]

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

Article about a music video production company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP criteria. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they would pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them in media and/or books -- but this is "referenced" entirely to the company's own self-published website about itself, with absolutely no evidence of notability-building coverage about it shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 6 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. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lara M. Schwartz[edit]

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

Article about a music video director, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for filmmakers. As always, filmmakers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to show evidence of passing one or more criteria for notability -- significant awards, evidence of third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books, etc. -- but this literally just says she exists, lists a bunch of jobs she did, and sources all of it to a single directory entry.
This is not enough in and of itself, and she needs either a significant volume of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about her, or a stronger notability claim than just her work's existence. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Largely OR, as nothing is cited. One source used doesn't possibly contain this much info... The only source I can find is a one-line mention [3], confirming the person exists, but that's not enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Normal Gsearch turns up Amazon and book publisher links, for a recent book the individual is selling. I can't find reviews of the book, so no chance at AURHOR either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:54, 6 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. Following a request for a procedural close after a near unanimous opinion to Keep these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish (rower)[edit]

Ashish (rower) (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 articles fail WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS (WP:NOTWHOSWHO), WP:ROUTINE, and most also fail WP:BLP1E.

I am also nominating the following related pages (most are rowers, but there are a few from other sports):

Ashish Goliyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Naresh Kalwaniya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jakar Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neetish Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Punit Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dhananjay Pande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lekh Ram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bheem Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jaswinder Singh (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Parminder Singh (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Satnam Singh (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sukhmeet Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Babu Lal Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neeraj (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bajrang Lal Takhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dushyant Chauhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rohit Kumar (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pramila Prava Minz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Om Prakash (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pratima Puhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sukhjeet Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanjana Bathula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karthika Jagadeeshwaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aarathy Kasturi Raj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heeral Sadhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The main argument put forward by those in favour of keeping these articles is that these people were medallists at the Asian Games, and that somehow even the top 8 finishers are supposedly eligible for their own articles on that basis alone. However, per WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline.

Per WP:GNG, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I contend that these people are not notable, because:

  • They do not have significant coverage. If they are mentioned in a source, the source is discussing their medal win as part of a team and perhaps tangentially talks about individuals, all within the scope of routine sports coverage. Indeed, per WP:SBST, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage.
    • Further, most of the sources used are WP:QUESTIONABLE as they occasionally use incorrect terminology (e.g., "Skulls"), which shows a lack of fact-checking/vetting before publication, and even though these sources may functionally enable the verifiability of some content, per WP:ONUS, it does not mean that this content should be included. Indeed many of these details are trivial, which I contend is a case of WP:MASK#Building a biography/WP:BOMBARDMENT (specifically Gish gallop). Therefore, these sources may not be used to support a claim of notability.
  • Many of the links are dead or do not contain any information to support the statements made in the articles.

There are dozens more BLP articles of a similar nature not listed above; this AfD is merely scratching the surface. Rowing007 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Sports, and Sportspeople. Rowing007 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ●Keep- WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra-WP:TRAINWRECK Procedural keep – Nominating about 30 articles on Asian Games medalists, each created by different users ranging from 2008 to 2023, and each of which have varying notability, and compete in different sports, is a terrible idea. Some of the reasons are incorrect as well, e.g. WP:BLP1E states In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event. Additionally, some of these do seem to have significant coverage in accordance with the general notability guideline, e.g. [4], one I randomly clicked on. No opposition to individually re-nominating ones that have merit. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
● KEEP! - These articles are BLPs of significant achievement and naturally all the Newspapers carried their achievements, winning an Asian Games medal is a significant honour. Naturally, when a team wins a gold, all the team members will be mentioned, that does not make it any less significant than an individual medal. I oppose the deletion process. thanks! Davidindia (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:ANYBIO. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Winning a medal at the Asian Games (note that Asia has a population of 4.75 billion) is considered a major and significant achievement. Winning a medal at the Asian Games is a part of enduring historical record. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Being an Asian Games medalist is a significant honour. Their achievement were covered in most of the national medias including many newspapers as well. Many of them had detailed coverage. I don't know whether we are having any policies to include coverage from newspapers to help establish notability. Like DavidIndia said, it is quite natural that most of these atheletes were mentioned in a group as they competed as a team. This does not make them insignificant. The nominator have not even looked at some articles. For example Bajrang Lal Takhar is a winner of Padma Shri, which is India's highest civilian honour. 103.200.45.125 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator has looked at each of the articles up for nomination. The full rationale which refutes your argument has been explained above. With respect to Bajrang Lal Takhar, all of the links are dead. Side note to correct misinformation: Padma Shri is India's fourth-highest civilian award. Rowing007 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    2 of the links for Barjrang Lal Takhar can be accessed through the Wayback Machine.(1 reference & one external) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, the only link that is retrievable is this one: [5] and it validates pracitcally none of the information contained on the page. It is far from "significant coverage". This examination can be repeated for each of the other nominated pages. Rowing007 (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever it is, being a Padma Sri recipient passes WP:ANYBIO. 103.200.45.125 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned below, per WP:ANYBIO, meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included; indeed, there are tons of Padma Shri recipients who do not have articles. Winning that award and/or winning a medal at the Asian Games are not sufficient for article inclusion. As mentioned above, per WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Rowing007 (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO.Asian Games is the second largest multi-sport event after the Olympic Games.Winning a medal in the Asian Games is a well-known and significant award and is a part of enduring historical record.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:ANYBIO, meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included, and, as mentioned above, per WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Rowing007 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ANYBIO specifically says any biography. So there is no point in bringing WP:ATHLETE here. 103.200.45.125 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first part of my comment on its own directly refutes the argument. The language from WP:ATHLETE is still applicable, as it is not in contradiction with WP:ANYBIO. Rowing007 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per WP:TRAINWRECK without prejudice against future individual deletion discussions. Before those AfDs, however, I recommend an RfC on the Asian Games and notability as opposed to hashing that issue out by AfDs with 30 different discussions and inconsistent outcomes.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. No way a meaningful discussion can happen with 30 subjects up for deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice of this AfD posted at Talk:India at the 2022 Asian Games. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep too many articles for a wholesale AfD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep with no prejudice against individual nominations. Nominating 30 people at once, who may have varying levels of notability, can not allow for meaningful discussion. Frank Anchor 18:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, there are too many people nominated for deletion. Just spot checking a few articles showed several with multiple sources which would be better to discuss individually and the number nominated here is to large to ensure WP:BEFORE searches are done for each person. Suonii180 (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz requesting a procedural close 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yaar Vichre[edit]

Yaar Vichre (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)

WP:COI creation on the back of a massive push from two editors to get an article for Binder Pal Fateh on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binder Pal Fateh for more context. Binder Pal Fateh himself has made edits to this article. Does not meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. The Daily Post source is not enough to be considered non-trivial, it simply just states that Amrinder Gill has a good voice and that the song is about the pain of separation from family. PTC Punjabi, to me, just comes across as a routine song announcement rather than a detailed review or analysis of the song. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete for all the reasons listed above. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:59, 9 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 23:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Bashirov[edit]

Ruslan Bashirov (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)

Semi-pro player with no indication of passing WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. There is a Russian businessperson with the same name but this DP article means that he is about 32 years old now so clearly cannot be the same person as the Bashirov subject to this AfD. The best that I could find in Russian and Belarusian sources was Sport5, a very brief announcement of his departure from FC Maxline Vitebsk, and Daily Storm, which mentions him a few times and has a very small quote from him about an infamous incident involving Pavel Mamayev and Aleksandr Kokorin. The article contains no information about Bashirov other than to say that he is on the books of FC Leningradets Leningrad Oblast. I could not find even one independent article with detailed information about this particular Ruslan Bashirov. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 6 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 without prejudice against renomination if the guideline should change. My personal view is that having two articles on the same subject is a rabbit hole we should not go down; but there's no arguing with the fact that the TECHNICAL guideline as present allows for it, and those arguing to keep maintain that this article fulfils the purpose described in that guideline. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to M-theory[edit]

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

Seems like some early days of Wikipedia artifact, well intended perhaps but from today's perspective - bad idea. They (they, because It seems we have an entire set of "Introduction to..." articles, although they are not even categorized) fail WP:GNG, they are effective dupes (WP:CONTENTFORK) of proper articles (here, M-theory), are inherently problematic (who decides what belongs to the "Introduction"?) and sound like something that could belong to Simple English Wikipedia, Wikibooks or Wikiversity but not here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems like a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which may have been normal in the past but seems hard to justify in 2023. JMWt (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article that is less technical is not redundant. Two articles on the same subject at the same level of technicality would be, but that's not the situation here. Any questions about what should go in which page can be resolved by ordinary editing; deletion is not necessary. An "introduction to..." article belongs on the encyclopedia project if it is written encyclopedically, rather than in the style of a textbook. Again, any excessively textbookish parts can be resolved through ordinary editing without removing the whole page. The guideline on making technical articles understandable advises us to create these pages when the circumstances are appropriate. Should we deprecate that guideline now? XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question. I think we should, because right now we have a policy contradiction with the one I and @JMWt linked, and common sense as well. We don't want forks. See also what @OwenX wrote below. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no contradiction with WP:CONTENTFORK, because "Introduction to..." articles are not POV forks. They're spinoffs. (Even if a particular "Introduction to..." wasn't created by copying text out of another page, the upshot is the same.) The statement below that WP:TECHNICAL is not about creating a fork for readers of different technical levels is literally untrue as a matter of fact. It explicitly suggests doing so when topics are unavoidably technical but, at the same time, of significant interest to non-technical readers. It provides advice on when to try and when not to try doing this, but it definitely puts the possibility on the table as legitimate in principle. As to whether "common sense" weighs against "Introduction to..." articles, well, all I can say is that they seem pretty common-sensical to me. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unfortunately true that the 'introduction to' articles get 1–2 orders of magnitude less traffic than the main articles about the same topics. If the 'introduction to' articles are going to stick around indefinitely, I wonder if there's a more visible way we can cross-link between them so that readers are more likely to notice both variants. –jacobolus (t) 21:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Creating introductory articles for highly technical subjects like M-theory is part of our guideline Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable. We have featured articles like Introduction to general relativity and former featured articles like Introduction to evolution in the "Introductions" space. So deletion on vague general grounds like "we don't do this in 2023" would actually need an RFC on the whole class of such articles; AfD is not the venue for adjudicating such broad policy issues. Assuming the continued existence of this class of articles, I don't see any particular issues with this article that warrant deletion; the references show multiple reliable sources suitable for a summary discussion at the non-specialist level. The article could use better citing and improved prose, but these are matters of ordinary editing. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while I find "Introduction to " articles good for the community I find this one lacking and more of a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Introduction articles should be based on textbook or other educational content that also tries to teach this topic, but this article sources are just popular news articles. This problem could be improved with time, but my experience on how students/laypeople tend to get overexcited of this topic without first covering the math or physics required makes me think that the title hurts more than help. --ReyHahn (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a dupe given the level difference; editors decide what belongs in an "introduction", like they decide all content questions; not a topic suitable for the other venues. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets policies and guidelines. Introductory articles are allowed even encouraged for complex topics that require advanced technical training.
I can understand Introduction to M-theory but not M-theory. For some perspective, I have a B.S. in a technical field plus postgraduate coursework. I enjoy reading non-mathematical physics books for laymen. I know my hadrons and leptons. Special relativity is not a problem but I don't do tensors so general relativity is murky.
Does this mean:
  1. People like me should not read stuff about M-theory?
  2. Our Introduction to M-theory article is defective because intelligent non-physicists can understand it?
  3. Our M-theory article is defective because it is too comprehensive?
  4. Wikipedia is doing a good job presenting complex technical information at different levels.
I'd argue #4.
I'll also note that the Simple English Wikipedia is not written for stupid people but rather for non-English speakers. Furthermore, sending this article off to Simple English Wikipedia Wikibooks, or Wikiversity means few people will read it since few people know about those 3 projects.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: nobody reads Simple English Wikipedia... it's about as useless as those "Introduction to..." articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - Simple English turns out to already have an article -- M-theory.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this article could be a cross wiki redirect there. Problem solved. It may even result in a few more views for Simple, which would not be a bad thing (it is a nice idea that is just effectively invisible). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining a topic in "simple English" is not the same as explaining a topic at an introductory level of scientific understanding. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The simple english article simple:M-theory is written in a weird mishsmash and I can't figure out who the intended audience is or what the intended goals are. Parts of it read like condescending to a young child, but other parts are filled with jargon. My takeaways from the article are:
  1. the standard model involves 20 unexplained numbers but string theory has only 1
  2. string theory has 6 "basic directions" curled up in a spiral but this is just a mathematical trick that has nothing to do with the world
  3. M-theory is "vague" and "not pinned down"
  4. "by taking a Type IIA string theory that has a size R and changing the radius to 1/R the result will end up being what is equivalent to a Type IIB theory of size R" (whatever that is supposed to mean is not at all explained)
  5. "M" might stand for any of Matrix, Magic, Muffin, Mystery, Mother or Membrane.
I don't think it's an appropriate place to send readers of either of the articles under discussion here. –jacobolus (t) 06:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adding to the above, there is a reasonable basis for the aforementioned editing guideline: the first pillar notes Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias. This topic is one where an article in a specialized encyclopedia is going to differ substantially from one in a general encyclopedia, and the "introduction to" approach seems like a reasonable implementation. —siroχo 05:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of thought and discussion, I'm going to rebut the !keep votes. This isn't just about your !vote, just that it was a convenient place to reply..
    The format you describe isn't one used in the vast majority of en.wiki, even where complex ideas are described. Usually we aim for the main page on a topic to introduce it and then we use various daughter pages to explain further if the sections get too complicated.
    In this case I accept that the format is old and merging with M-theory is going to be a difficult task, however I don't think the argument that "this topic is one where an article in a specialized encyclopedia is going to differ substantially from one in a general encyclopedia" holds much water.
    To assess notability we normally need substantial independent reliable sources. There are of course going to be books which cover aspects of this topic and which could be used, but we don't normally take the existence of a textbook called "introduction to.." to be a RS of notability for a page called "introduction to.." JMWt (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to this: Usually we aim for the main page on a topic to introduce it and then we use various daughter pages to explain further if the sections get too complicated. OK, but that ends up being the same thing as what's happening here, apart from possibly a choice of article title. M-theory has a lengthy "Background" section. So, by the practice you describe, we could have a {{main}} tag at the top of it and link to a more complete backgrounder on M-theory, titled Background to M-theory or Motivations for M-theory or something like that. The contents of such a page would be pretty much what would go in an Introduction to M-theory. In short, what you describe is not actually inconsistent with what we've got.
    The notability of M-theory is established by the wealth of technical literature on the subject. Introducing the subject is just part of writing about it; we don't need references with the exact title "Introduction to M-theory" to warrant an article called that. XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your last sentence. We don't need this page at all as you've admitted. So if we are not going to use the notability criteria to determine keep/delete, what are we going to use? JMWt (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not "admitted" that we don't need this page. I am saying that it is an aspect of a notable topic, and an "Introduction to..." (or "Background to...", "Motivation for...", etc.) article is morally no different from spinning out a long "History" section into a "History of..." article. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguing about "notability" seems completely off topic to me; the topic is self evidently notable, and judging by the number of pop science books mentioning/discussing it, is of nontrivial interest to both physicists and a more general lay audience. The issue here is one of organization: specifically, what inter- and intra-article organization of explanations and technical details is the best compromise for helping the full range of plausible wikipedia audiences to learn what they are trying to learn / answer the questions they want to answer. Any arguments pushing for the merger/elimination of this article should be describing concretely how an article M-theory can be rewritten to be made accessible to a much wider audience without ballooning in size or becoming harder to read for a more specialized audience.
    The most convincing case would be made by someone actually doing that work in a sandbox someplace, e.g. in user space, and then explaining why they think their unified version is better for most audiences than the current split version. Even if it were decided to keep 2 versions, that effort could probably help make both articles more accessible and/or complete, so wouldn't be a waste, but it would take significant work reading sources, synthesizing material, figuring out explanations, drawing diagrams, etc., i.e. the real work of writing an encyclopedia. I personally think this proposal is too hand-wavy and flimsy to consider seriously until that work has been attempted, or at least put into some kind of concrete form with someone volunteering to dedicate time for it. The original rationale presented here: "well intended perhaps but from today's perspective - bad idea", "effective dupes of proper articles", "inherently problematic", "sound like something that could belong to Simple English Wikipedia, Wikibooks or Wikiversity but not here" amounts to more or less a string of cheap insults and WP:IDONTLIKEITs, without even a cursory attempt made to engage with the subject or any details. –jacobolus (t) 19:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The articles are not redundant, they have very different audiences. --hroest 20:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:TECHNICAL is all about making the article have a wider audience, not about creating a fork for readers of different technical levels. If M-theory is too technical for many readers, let's improve it. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have started Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Should_the_section_on_"Introduction_to"_articles_be_deprecated_(removed)?, where another editor now mentioned this ongoing AfD, so I am linking the discussion back as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The material in this article seems useful to a broad audience, and is not redundant with the material in M-theory. However, reading both I still feel there's quite a lot of missing background and several other aspects of the M-theory article which are not accessible to a lay audience, and which are not covered here. This article could possibly be extended with further material. For example, the concept of "duality" is not mentioned in the "introduction" article, and neither article linked to string duality, which is a more accessible overview than either S-duality or T-duality. –jacobolus (t) 19:17, 9 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 Single Island. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 15:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dodson Rocks[edit]

Dodson Rocks (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 geological feature in an uninhabited part of Antarctica. Lacks sources which would give notability as only existing sources are names on a map. Could be merged with Single Island but there is little to suggest that is notable either. JMWt (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Single Island.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - These are tiny rocks, redirecting them to the island article, which is about something much larger, is undue. Agree that there is nothing here really showing Single Island is notable either, but at least it's more conceivable that it could be.
Every feature, everywhere, is named after something. Just because we can source a brief single-sentence description of what something is named after, does not mean we need to mentioned it on Wiki. FOARP (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Single Island Djflem (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Single Island and replace the more limited content already in that article with this, including co-ordinates. Who a feature is named for is encylopedic info. even when there's a red link to the person. Rupples (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chanthavixay Khounthoumphone[edit]

Chanthavixay Khounthoumphone (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 PROD was added by the creator but not sure if this was intentional so WP:G7 might not apply. The concern here is around WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The best sources found in non-Laotian news sources were Okezone, which is a passing mention, and Suara, which only contains minimal information - his age, position, club and number of caps. Such info goes no further than Transfermarkt and Soccerway. Laotian searches yielded Media Laos, a squad list mention, and Lao Daily, which confirms that he and one other player became the first Laotians to score in the U-23 Asian Cup. This, by itself, is not enough to justify a stand-alone article on the subject. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:31, 6 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 Hordern Gap and merge encyclopedic content. I'm not seeing any rationale for a standalone page here, and I'm not seeing a strong argument against including a few sentences of information from this page at the target. I'm aware that the target I've listed is also at AfD, and I may get around to closing that as well; if that article does not remain as a standalone, this article should be upmerged to the next logical article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gap Nunatak[edit]

Gap Nunatak (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)

Only a database/map ref on the page for a long time. It appears to be a feature (essentially a summit) in a gap in a mountain range in uninhabited Antarctica. We could merge or redirect to Hordern Gap but I'm not convinced that is notable either. Features on maps in Antarctica are not inherently notable. JMWt (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Merged it into Hordern Gap. Even if that wasn't notable either, we'd merge it into the nearest feature which is. I wish you'd start using common sense JMWt that merging these Antarctica stubs is the way to go, not deleting mention of them. Yes, if the USGS renders them worthy of mentioning then we should, but that doesn't necessarily mean all will need their own article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't appreciate you telling me things, thanks User:Dr._Blofeld.

      You created all these stubs which are obviously not notable, you have to take responsibility for redirecting them if you don't want them deleted.

      Maybe use a bit of common sense you seem so keen to ask others to use. JMWt (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • At an extreme, the information would all be merged into a section on David Range. Yes, it's common sense to do it. The encyclopedia is not better off eradicating mention of these features.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy of this encyclopedia is to include things that meet the notability criteria. You've chosen to include many geographical features which not only fail to have the requisite coverage in Reliable Sources, cannot ever meet the standard because they are minor features in Antarctica that only feature on a map. That's it. JMWt (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are documented, even if briefly by a US government source which renders them worthy of mentioning. So we should do the same. It's just a case of merging information. Back in 2010 there was no way of knowing how much information would become available for these features. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just having been mentioned by a government source does not mean we have to mention them anywhere. For example, all of the street-names, post-codes, and place-names (and indeed, house-names, which can be seen in the census) in the United Kingdom are recorded in government documents, but it would be ludicrous to create lists of streets/post-codes/named locations under each article dealing with the area into which they fall. Some things are simply WP:UNDUE to mention, being aspects of a larger thing that are too minor to mention. FOARP (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These bot/bot-like created articles do not sustain any notability. In this case, the standard is WP:GEONATURAL, but there is clearly not enough content here for an encyclopaedia article, which would necessitate multiple sources. Hordern Gap is also non-notable so no point merging there.
    WP:BEFORE has to be proportional to the effort put into creating articles in the first place, otherwise an immense amount of work is required to check the notability of mostly-failing locations. In this case, we can see that on the same day Dr. Blofeld created this article, they created 1,122 other articles. In these circumstances, WP:BEFORE can be minimal. As I've said many times in the past, I don't see any reason to admonish Dr. Blofeld for having done this as it was more-or-less accepted behaviour in 2010, and they have expressed regret on numerous occasions for this. However, I have to say that redirection just isn't a solution in this case since there is nowhere credible to redirect to here, and the idea that these places should be converted into redirects is a massive impediment on doing anything about them. FOARP (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If for some reason Hordern Gap doesn't have much coverage, then we would merge the information all into the "Features of the David Range" section on David Range. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The locations are already mentioned there. Nothing to merge. FOARP (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Mentioned" in name only. There is some information available about them worthy of mentioning. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is there to say about them other than their name? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or database. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Physical data and a brief history of the exploration/cartography. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • But that isn’t summarising secondary sources (which is what we do in an encyclopaedia). It is simply copying content off GNIS. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've long said that creating short stubs enmasse without a lot of data isn't the way to build the encyclopedia. But back in 2006-2010 it seemed the most productive thing to do for the project to function like a bot simply identifying topics and I think the project has benefited from a lot of the stubs which have been expanded on numerous subjects. You'll find that the vast majority can either be expanded or merged as I tended to create traditional encyclopedia subjects. The Antarctica geo stubs would likely all benefit from merging, perhaps there is a way to use a bot to merge many of them into parent articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. Then perhaps you need to focus yourself on dealing with the problem - given by your own admission you are the origin of many of the problematic pages. JMWt (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have the time needed to devote hours to Wikipedia I had 13 years back unfortunately. I would be happy to propose a bot to merge many of the stubs on lesser features into parent articles, but I think you would find that the community would expect an assessment of the notability of each article to be made first. This is why I actually proposed to nuke all of my stubs in about 2015 and it was rejected. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well there it is then; you don't have time to undo the problem you've created but you do have time to bad-mouth others who are addressing their notability.

            Anyway, I'll continue marking the most blatent of the non-notable stubs you created for deletion and in return I'd hope that you never, ever suggest I'm lacking in common sense again. JMWt (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gap Nunatak is in the same two encyclopaedias cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hordern Gap, page 268 in Alberts's and page 368 in Stewart's. Uncle G (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioned, yes. How is that significant coverage? JMWt (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to David Range where I suspect more of these neighbouring Antarctic geographic features will end up after further AfDs; so we may as well omit the interim merge to Hordern Gap. Agree with Dr. Blofeld it makes no sense to eradicate these features from the encyclopedia, but it would improve the encyclopedia to present the material in an enveloping article, where more context could be given. As an aside, I don't see any of these Antarctic geofeature stubs causing problems for the encyclopedia so long as the data is verified. Notability guidelines have tended to become stricter over the years and it could well have been the norm for this type of article to merit a standalone page when created. Rupples (talk) 01:25, 13 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 12:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Rite[edit]

Pennsylvania Rite (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 can't find any sources for the "Pennsylvania Rite", the first source for this brand-new article gives a 404 error[7] and nothing on that site seems to actually support the claims made here. The "Ancient York Rite" seems to be claimed by Rhode Island[8][9] or to be a more general American thing (masonry splits seem to be only matched by communist party splits, in that there are countless minute fractions all claiming to be the only true ones). But in any case there is as far as I can tell no evidence for a so-called Pennsylvania Rite[10][11][12][13]. Fram (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There is definitely a Pennsylvania Rite, as the article state it is the Ritual that the Grand Lodge of PA has adopted, which is completely different that the rest of the USA. Which is why it's the Pennsylvania Rite as opposed to the American or York rite. The books and articles in the sources talk about this; such as: [1][2] and this one [3] but you do not even need these sources to confirm that, look at the definition of a rite in Masonry,"A rite, within the context of Freemasonry, refers to a comprehensive system of degrees that hold the capability to initiate and advance a newcomer through various stages of Masonic knowledge and experience", case closed, this article has its place on Wikipedia. HyperSite (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.skirret.com/papers/pennsylvania_freemasonry.html
  2. ^ http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/pennsylvania_freemasonry.html
  3. ^ https://ia800200.us.archive.org/16/items/cu31924015547668/cu31924015547668.pdf
  • Delete If it's only practiced at the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, I'm confused why this would need a separate article. It's almost entirely sourced to the Pennsylvania Lodge, so I don't see independent notability. You may put relevant content in the main article. Reywas92Talk 14:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT The sourcing issues here and in the creator's other edits make it pretty well impossible to trust anything here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: only the first source referenced above (Yeager) mentions the “Ritual” (the word rite occurs in none of the three AFAICT), saying that it’s communicated only orally, and that even the attendant doctrines or lectures are never committed to writing. If true this creates an obvious problem for sourcing anything beyond the fact of its existence, which accordingly deserves at most a sentence or two in the GL/Pa article. The second source (Vicente) says nothing about practices of any kind; the third (Barratt & Sachse) describes an installation “ceremony” but I can find nothing about the content of the degree initiations. (There is one mention of an occasion at which certain individuals were re-initiated in the “antient” manner, apparently because the “modern” degrees they already held were not considered valid in this jurisdiction.)—Odysseus1479 23:50, 10 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. WP:HEY – nominator also stated they were happy to withdraw based on the improvements and new sourcing. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beegum, California[edit]

Beegum, California (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 GEOLAND due to lack of evidence of being a legally recognised populated place.

The sources provided in the article are:

  • GNIS, which is unreliable for whether a place was populated or not per WP:GNIS.
  • Jim Forte's Postal History site, a blog. The listing there states only "Beegum (1895-1917)". Not reliably-sourced per WP:SPS, not significant coverage. Even if this can be reliably source, a post office can be situated anywhere, and were especially in the 19th and early 20th century - they could be in wayside stores, farm-houses, mines, and need not be linked to populated communities at all.
  • Tehama County Place Names by Hislop and Hughes - this is a self-published book and thus unreliable per WP:SPS. That it is self-published is evident from the fact that no publisher is identified in the book, nor does it have an ISBN despite being written in 2007. Whilst the editor who added this source identified it as being published by the "Tehama County Department of Education", in fact it was simply previously hosted on their website, likely because local school children contributed research towards it (see the acknowledgements section).
    The coverage in the source consists of two paragraphs - one discussing Beegum Peak/Creek and the post office, and the other discussing the various locations shown for Beegum in different maps. This is not significant coverage of Beegum as a community. It is notable that the fact that Beegum is described as being located in both Shasta and Tehama counties in our article appears to be due, not to the boundaries of this supposed community, but to different maps showing it in different location miles apart. Notably two of the maps discussed did not show the location.

As part of my WP:BEFORE search I searched Newspapers.com for Beegum+Shasta and Beegum+Tehama, however all of the results I found were related to Beegum creek or Beegum road, not to any community. If there ever was a community here, it does not seem to have attracted any coverage from any of the newspapers on newspapers.com, or if it did I have not found it.

Looking at the location given in the article, what appears to be a farm can be seen, and perhaps some ruined buildings - of what nature it is hard to say - on the other side of the Beegum road. There is not any obvious evidence of an inhabited community there, still less a legally-recognised one.

In terms of ATDs, redirecting to the county is problematic due to it not being clear which county this location is supposed to be located in. The articles about Beegum Creek and Beegum Peek do not appear to be any better in terms of notability, so redirecting to them seems dubious. Of course I'm open to suggestions but deletion seems the only obvious option unless there is sourcing I've missed. FOARP (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. FOARP (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Hard call. The place definitely existed; the Red Bluff Daily News had a "Beegum Notes" column in the 1910s, listing local gossip. And I can find several references to a "Beegum district", so likely more of a rural school district than a town per se. This kind of thing was once common in the American West in the pre-automobile age, rural areas organized into loosely-defined communities or districts without formal boundaries or legal definition, all sharing a church or post office or grange hall. I hate to see such places deleted from the internet, but we need better sourcing and more information to have a respectable article. (To me, the problem with Hislop and Hughes isn't that it's a SPS but that it's primary; I might accept the sources if there were other primary sources pointing in the same direction). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FOARP is still putting about xyr bunkum about a source written by two credentialled historians with advanced degrees in the subject associated with the Tehama County Genealogical & Historical Society being "local schoolchildren". I debunked this try-anything tripe, because it has ducked and weaved from angle to angle across AFD discussion to AFD discussion, at greatest length in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Camino, California. This argument is utter drivel. If we read the acknowledgements, we also find, for example "the staff of the Tehama County Assessor’s Office" acknowledged, but that doesn't make as nearly a convenient way of dismissing it as the patronizing "the great kids at Red Bluff Union High School and their teach Mr. Osbourne who I'm sure did a great job at their class-project for US history". We should not trust FOARP's source analysis here. The craziness of reading the acknowledgements section, not the title page where the authors actually are along with their degrees (which are indeed in history, as one can find elsewhere), and repeatedly (it has been across 4 discussions, now) trying to make out that this is schoolchidren authoring something bespeaks of a wilful mis-reading of a source. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, seriously. I literally never said the kids authored the book. I only said that school kids contributed to it, which is true.
    • Also, speaking as someone with a Master's, let me be the first to point out that an MA is not an "advanced degree" and that having one does not make you a "credentialed historian".
    • This is a self-published source. You've made all sorts of accusations against me, but this is a self-published source. It would be great if you could engage with that. FOARP (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course you did. "the great kids at Red Bluff Union High School and their teach Mr. Osbourne who I'm sure did a great job at their class-project for US history" — you patronized these people for their class project, and they aren't even the authors of the work. An M.A. is in fact an advanced degree. "a university degree (such as a master's or doctor's degree) " — both Merriam-Webster and Oxford. These people got bacclauereates and masters in their fields, and then worked and published in them, and even got cited on occasion by other historians. This whole attempt to discredit a source with the whole "school kids" — "kids — false narrative is quite ludicrous. Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Uncle G - Of course I didn’t: I’m merely pointing out that they contributed to it, which is a point against its reliability. This is evidently true and demonstrable from the source itself.
        My main objection remains that Hislop and Hughes published this themselves. Again, this is evident from the fact that no publisher is identified in the source and it has no ISBN number.
        I have no idea why you have become so fixated on this issue of this source being contributed to by school kids, to the point of repeated incivility and personal attacks. I hope you will reflect on your conduct here. I am sorry to see an admin I often agree with and whose contributions I often value behaving in this fashion. FOARP (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, @Uncle G, please back off FOARP. Let's just talk about the article.

      --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • Let's talk about the source cited in the article. Wait! We are, and how its authorship has been egregiously mis-represented in 4 AFD discussions over and over, as being the work of schoolchildren. Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is that by the same token one could equally credit the work to two history magazines and a county assessor's office, by this bogus method. They get thanked by the authors, too. But the reality is that the authors are right there on the title page. They are in fact two professional historians, with advanced level degrees, writing in their field of long-time expertise. (Hislop has other stuff that goes back to the 1970s.) Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Uncle G - “professional historians”. Citation needed here. As far as I can see neither was an academic. Hislop was a high school teacher apparently - is that what you mean by “professional historian”? FOARP (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing there. Google Earth satellite imagery shows nothing but three homes, several outbuildings and two old foundations.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we cover ghost towns, right, so long as they were notable in their day? jengod (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A ghost town is physically recognizable as a formerly real communities. So yes, once notable, always notable. The absence of any ghostly remains (besides 2 foundations) is one reason I don't think this was a community.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you do this in several AFD discussions, A. B., base your opinion on one current Google Earth image. Certainly that provides zero historical context that can be found in sources. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, so don't use Google Earth then?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A. B., of course, everyone is welcome to use whatever tools you can find. But it seems like you are basing your entire "vote"/opinion on a current snapshot and many other editors are digging into old newspapers, historical society journals, etc. I think when we are considering places, a current photo from a satellite would provide limited information on the history of any location. I know a Google satellite image of where I live wouldn't reveal what existed in this place before the 1970s and, for all I know, the land was probably used for agriculture or a settlement or a marketplace or school or something besides the apartment building that sits in this spot right now. I just don't think it provides enough information to take a Keep/Deletion argument on. That's just what I was thinking. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my money is on the settlement (once) having existed by name, but maybe it doesn't any longer. I've found some very slight possible indications including this one by Gudde which talks of it being a settlement in the 1960s. [14] is not so clear but seems to imply a place called Beegum near the state highway. It also appears as a listing in the Times index-gazetteer of the world as a place. I think there may be more if one looked harder, and fwiw I accept the source which was under discussion above. However I don't see that there is enough information here to include it as a page. Possibly we can confirm the location, but what else can be said about it from the sources? They all say practically nothing about it. JMWt (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, I have also found in the newspaper archives references to a Post Office at Beegum - and also tangential references to it (a fire on a mountain near Beegum). My read now is that it was a collection of dwellings associated with the Platinum mine. It wouldn't surprise me if the location of the dwellings/buildings had moved over time and it's entirely possible that it consisted of the Post Office and not much else. JMWt (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sources brought up (satisfy WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Wikipedia guidelines). बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To satisfy GNG would require significant coverage of the place in multiple reliable sources, but no source gives it that. To satisfy GEOLAND requires evidence of legal recognition, but again no source gives it that. New sources mentioning Beegum have been found, but as @JMWt points out, they say practically nothing about it. FOARP (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For me the situation stands like this: we know there was a mine and a PO there. We don't know for certain there was ever a dwelling. Even if there was "Beegum" may have just been the name of a house or a farm. Until/unless we have something which shows it was a dwelling (of more than a single house), I think it is delete. JMWt (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I think Beegum Creek is the border between Tehama and Shasta so it's like El Paso/Cuidad Juarez, kind of one place in two jurisdictions.
  • are we just trying to prove it was a populated place?
    • application for post office in 1900 said PO would serve 45 people
    • 34yo housewife Carrie Goodrum died in Beegrum in 1908
    • 80yo stockraiser Wm Budden died died "Beegum P.O., Tehama Co., California' in 1911
    • J.N. Cantrell "died at Beegum" in 1905
    • "They moved to California in 1887 first settling at Maxwell Colusa county where he followed farming He then purchased the Beegum properties now owned by the family and conducted a freight depot and roadhouse there for many years until the days of freighting by team into the mining sections became thing of the past...survived by Mrs Frank Ball of Beegum" Apr 7, 1930
    • "ON TRIAL FOR MURDER Geo D Wheeler of Beegum on Trial at Redding The trial of G D Wheeler of Beegum on a charge of murder commenced in the Superior Court at Redding Tuesday Wheeler it will be remembered killed David Frederick Smith near Beegum in the extreme southwestern part of Shasta county on the 25th of last June...A goodly number of witnesses have been summoned from the Beegum and Harrison Gulch sections" Sept 1902
    • "mountain mining town"
    • "copper found near Beegum...the McClennan boys who reside at Beegum

jengod (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take these sources in turn:
  • The application for a post office. This is a prediction (i.e., WP:CRYSTAL) and there's no indication these people all lived in the same permanent community.
  • Births/deaths. Such notices typically just give the closest named location, are sourced to family members, and don't necessarily demonstrate anyone living there.
  • On trial for murder: This rather reinforces the point that this is not a distinct community. The references are to the "Beechum section", Beegum will have been simply used as a reference point for the residence of the accused etc.
  • "Mountain mining town" - The issue here is nothing further is said to validate this "town" which would normally imply a fairly large community. It seems to reinforce the point that this was really a mine. At most there was a garage that two brothers had a dispute over, not an actual community.
  • "Copper found near Beegum" - This reinforces the point that this was probably a mine.
And generally all of these are WP:PRIMARY sources, and we should not engage in original research by piecing them together to create a WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing original local histories assembled from run-of-the-mill news paper stories. To get a WP:GNG pass we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, but these sources do not say anything about the actual community of Beegum. They instead hint at various things that might have been true about it (e.g., that it was a mine, that people mined copper there, that there was a garage here, etc.) without dealling with the topic "directly and in detail" as required by WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, man. Anyway, at the present time we might consider a redirect to Shasta-Trinity National Forest since they have this Post Creek Lookout rental above Beegum Gorge, and Beegum Gorge Campground. Cheers, jengod (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It makes more sense than any other redirect I can think of anyway, other than the Beegum Creek redirect discussed below, though ideally the target page should at least mention Beegum somewhere. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Beegum Creek. The most salient feature of the Beegum area is its history in mining. Thus most of the article will end up focusing on the area's geology rather than about its history as a populated community. So, rather than continue expanding the article on Beegum, California, we should expand the article on the creek (also to avoid kicking the can down the road by requiring a merge). In light of the various pieces of coverage found so far, there isn't really a strong case for keeping two distinct articles. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked in to this, I think there's SIGCOV out there for Beegum Gorge (e.g., [15], [16], [17]), which the creek flows through, so I'd agree that a redirect and then maybe a expansion at Beegum Creek and maybe renaming it to Beegum Gorge makes sense. FOARP (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a LOT of coverage on Beegum Basin (distinct from Beegum Gorge). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That could work also. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See this is what confounds me: There was a general location that people know as "the vicinity of Beegum" that has a lot of history and physical geography associated with that one tag, Beegum. Does it need to have been a populated hamlet with 15 people and 3 houses, now or in 1915, if "Beegum, California" would serve as a handy catch-all destination for information about Beegum Creek and Beegum post office and Beegum Mining District and Beegum Gorge and Beegum Basin and the history of the dispersed people who lived in the remote and rugged area around the border of Tehama and Shasta counties? Like just delete the latitude and longitude and the "populated place" or "unincorporated community" and finesse the lede and done and done. jengod (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually this is something I could get behind. But then you are actually arguing for WP:TNT it seems to me. JMWt (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My current thinking is:
    • Beegum Creek article should include content on Beegum Basin (as well as mining history and even the post office if better sources are found)
    • Shasta-Trinity National Forest should include more content on Beegum Gorge
    Cielquiparle (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me that this is out of scope of an AfD discussion and should probably be a merge discussion on a talkpage JMWt (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I might just add that I'm leaning opposite for Red Bank, California and Red Bank Creek. Although "Red Bank" the human settlement is also often referred to as "Red Bank Creek", and the history of the two is obviously intertwined, in that case there seems to be enough content on the historic human settlement, such that it merits a standalone page in addition to the page about the creek and its surrounding area. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking previous !vote. Found more coverage on the town and slowly adding it to this article. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think it meets GEOLAND and the sources found in the article at this point are probably above the WP:N bar too. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree with above too. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this looks like a pass of the notability criteria with the expansion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY as the article has expanded: Beegum, California. Three articles providing an overview of various aspects of the history of the Beegum community include: "The bygone town of Beegum" (2009); the 1930 obituary of Beegum pioneer Isaac Selvester; and "For First Time in Half Century Beegum School Fails to Open" in Red Bluff Daily News (1943). Beyond that, the highway between Beegum and Peanut – a topic discussed repeatedly between 1913 and 1933 in the California state legislature – helped to put Beegum "on the map" at the state level. (And, for the period it had state highway status, helped the local economy...until California State Route 36 finally bypassed the town/hamlet completely, leading to its eventual "abandonment".) Cielquiparle (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per excellent work done by Cielquiparle. Interested in why the nominator's search did not find these sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reading, @Espresso Addict. FYI – I also found it very difficult at first to find the sources we needed to contextualize all the "bits" that everyone was seeing, especially because there was so much noise – Beegum Creek, Beegum Peak, Beegum Gorge, Beegum Road, and Beegum Basin. What cracked it for me finally was searching for Beegum town, and going from there to ask more specific questions. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And...it turned out that back in the day, the spelling "Bee Gum" was interchangeable with "Beegum". Cielquiparle (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Request reconsideration by previous commenters @Jengod, @JMWt, @Uncle G, @WeirdNAnnoyed in light of current state of article. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable location. Great job improvers! jengod (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Happy to withdraw based on the new sourcing. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget the Beegum Mining Company from the 1955 Minerals Yearbook, Cielquiparle, part of the chromite mining in the 1930s/1940s, with its truck road to Beegum. (See Chromite in the Klamath Mountains, California, and Oregon, by Diller and various other reports.) Uncle G (talk) 13:37, 13 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 12:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Aviation Heritage Foundation[edit]

Air Force Aviation Heritage Foundation (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)

Lack of independent RS on page. Seems to be some refs in media regarding a recent trip to China but it isn't immediately clear that this refers to the same organisation JMWt (talk) 10:55, 6 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. This term is put into context so it is not a mere dictionary definition. Plus there is a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hang noodles on the ears[edit]

Hang noodles on the ears (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)

nonnotable Russian idiom - Altenmann >talk 21:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable? It's been used in English-language news content https://www.independent.co.uk/news/putin-russian-noodles-mikhail-abdalkin-b2288982.html Pecklesteiner (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each language has zillions of idioms. The fact that a newspaper gave an english-language equivalent (basically a dicdef) does not make it notable. You need more than that to be an encyclopedic aryicle - Altenmann >talk 23:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a National Geographic book with this phrase in its title and a book review of it in Wired. I added a few more usages. If there's a "List of Russian Idioms" I'd say merge this content there, but there doesn't appear to be one. And before you !vote delete, remember that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is always watching and would want us all to hang noodles on our ears. BBQboffin (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many usage cases you add, a dicdef remains a dicdef. - Altenmann >talk 16:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But when William Safire in the NYT calls Mikhail Gorbachev's usage of it "the most memorable line spoken" in the 1991 Soviet coup[18], it goes from being one of "zillions of idioms" to one that has sustained notability in reliable sources. Now get these noodles of yours off my ears, or else please bring me a pot of simmering marinara sauce and some garlic bread. Cheers! BBQboffingrill me 23:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please cite the applicable items from WP:GNG and garlic bread is on me. As for me, I fail to see a critical criterion satisfied, namely "significant coverage", beyond dicdef and usage cases. Probably noodles on my eyes :-) Anyway, your efforts to save the article are appreciated. - Altenmann >talk 00:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Per nom, just because a newspaper made an egnligh-language equivalent does not make it notable, it is just a WP:DICDEF. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    also no one would ever search a term like this 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's had sustained coverage in the West since Soviet times, [19], many trivial mentions is often enough to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as creator of this article, I hardly think this is a non-notable Russian idiom. This is quite the kind of article that promotes cultural understanding. It’s been referenced regularly and intermittently as much as one might expect any foreign-language idiom might be. Victor Grigas (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Stable phraseological units in the Russian language. It is reviewed by many sources. See for example [20]; [21]; [22] Книжная пыль (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • First and second books are self-published scrapes from the internets by non-experts, the third one is just a mention. - Altenmann >talk 16:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll find it for you sources:
        1) Радченко Е. В. (Радченко Елена Вадимовна) Русский человек в зеркале фразеологии. Идеографическое описание : Учеб. пособие. Ч. 1. - Челябинск : Изд-во ЮУрГУ, 2004 (УОП Изд-ва). - 55 с.; ISBN 5-696-03044-0. (reviews and explains)
        2) Глухов, В. М. Язык и текст газетной публицистики : учебно-методическое пособие по спецкурсу / В. М. Глухов, Е. В. Брысина; Федеральное агентство по образованию, Гос. образовательное учреждение высш. проф. образования "Волгоградский гос. пед. ун-т". - Волгоград : Перемена, 2006. - 244 с.; 21 см.; ISBN 5-88234-879-X (reviews and explains)
        3) w:ru:Алефиренко, Николай Федорович. Фразеология и когнитивистика в аспекте лингвистического постмодернизма : монография / Н. Ф. Алефиренко ; Российская акад. социальных наук (РАСН), Белгородский гос. ун-т. - Белгород : Белгородский гос. ун-т, 2008. - 150 с. : ил.; 20 см.; ISBN 978-5-9571-0330-1 (examines and explains cases of using phraseological units)
        4) Химик, Василий Васильевич. Поэтика низкого, или Просторечие как культурный феномен / В. В. Химик. - СПб. : Филол. фак. С.-Петерб. гос. ун-та, 2000. - 269, [3] с. : ил.; 23 см. - (Филология и культура).; ISBN 5-8465-0003-Х (reviews and explains)
        45) Суй Сюебэнь. Исследование и преподавание русской фразеологии / Суй Сюебэнь ; Федеральное агентство по образованию, Гос. образовательное учреждение высш. проф. образования Башкирский гос. ун-т, Ляонинский нефтехимический ун-т Китая. - Уфа : РИЦ БашГУ, 2008. - 444, [1] с.; 20 см.; ISBN 978-5-7477-1960-6 (The Chinese know)
        56) Бирих, Александр Карлович. Русская фразеология : ист.-этимол. слов. : около 6000 фразеологизмов / А.К. Бирих, В.М. Мокиенко, Л.И. Степанова ; под ред. В.М. Мокиенко ; С.-Петерб. гос. ун-т, Межкаф. словар. кабинет им. Б.А. Ларина. - 3-е изд., испр. и доп. - Москва : Астрель [и др.], 2005 (ГУП ИПК Ульян. Дом печати). - 926, [1] с.; 24 см.; ISBN 5-17-029253-8 (АСТ) (Александр Карлович Бирих, доктор филол. наук, профессор института славистики. Трирского университета (Германия, г. Трир), Людмила Степанова, доктор филол. наук, профессор Философского факультета Оломоуцкого университета (Чехия, г. Оломоуц), Валерий Михайлович Мокиенко, доктор филол. наук, профессор кафедры славянской филологии Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета (Россия, г. Санкт-Петербург), explains)
        67) Фразеология и паремиология в диахронии и синхронии (от архаизации к неологизации) : материалы Международной научно-практической конференции (г. Кострома, 24-25 сентября 2020 г.) / Министерство науки и высшего образования Российской Федерации, Костромской государственный университет [и др.] ; редакционная коллегия: В. М. Мокиенко [и др.]. - Кострома : КГУ, 2020. - 202 с.; 29 см.; ISBN 978-5-8285-1101-3 (report at the conference)
        78) Нижегородский государственный университет им. Н. И. Лобачевского. Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н. И. Лобачевского = Vestnik of Lobachevsky state university of Nizhny Novgorod / учредитель: Федеральное государственное автономное образовательное учреждение высшего образования "Национальный исследовательский Нижегородский государственный университет им. Н.И. Лобачевского". - Нижний Новгород : Изд-во Нижегородского ун-та, 2007-. 2020, № 1. - 2020. - 230 с. (article) 8) ... and many dissertations that can be found, for example, in the catalog of the Russian State Library [23]
        Книжная пыль (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, as there are sources and precendents; the article explains the history of the significant use of the term in context. Ziko (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "history", just some dubious guesswork by non-experts. "Significant use" is not among our notability criteria. - Altenmann >talk 16:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Above I have given you the work of specialists. The article needs to be revised, not deleted. Книжная пыль (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is no more than a dicdef, with etimologies of dubious provenance, and a bunch of use cases. But I admit this may be one of rare cases of WP:IAR. - Altenmann >talk 16:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep, as native speaker. This is really well known idiom, and widely used too.
As one from recent high-profile cases, directly related with this idiom: news about one from regional deputy, who listened to Putin's message with noodles on his ears and posted a photo with his sarcastic commentary. As a result, he was fined 150,000 rubles (about $1,500) on the grounds of "discrediting the Russian army" (don't ask what the connection is here!). So this idiom seems quite significant. Kaganer (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don’t ignore any rules. This is a stable phraseological unit that has not only a “history”, it is considered by specialists. The article may not be good, but the subject matter is very significant. Книжная пыль (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is deeper than WP:DICDEF on history and journalistic usage alone, but it needs better WP:RS. Whilst I know this part is not policy, the fact that the article is delightful should count for something as well. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erol Kaymak[edit]

Erol Kaymak (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 person Akeosnhaoe (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sivakururaja Kurukkal[edit]

Sivakururaja Kurukkal (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 available information is inadequate to establish the significance of this article. It could be redirected to Koneswaram Temple. Rocky Masum (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 6 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! 06:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bahd[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jay Bahd (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:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Sources on the page are either unreliable, bio listings, or not significant (nothing that goes into detail). A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any better sources. CNMall41 (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 6 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! 08:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seniors Solidarity Party[edit]

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

The party contested one election only, the Howth–Malahide LEA of the 2009 Fingal County Council election, where its candidate was not elected. I would suggest a redirect therefore to 2009 Fingal County Council election#Howth–Malahide, where I have pre-emptively added a paragraph including the references currently on this page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Your pre-emptive edit seems like the best solution for this non-notable party. ww2censor (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 6 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 06:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Japan War Online[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anti-Japan War Online (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 game entirely sourced off of pre-release coverage. Not coming from a place of offense, I'm mindful of WP:NOTCENSORED, but the sourcing is dubious now the article is fifteen years old. The previous deletion discussion in 2008 was inconclusive. Yes, on first appearance there are contemporary reliable sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] All of them are written in 2005 before the game was released. Most of them are clearly basing the story on one single pre-release announcement from the China Communist Youth League. At least in terms of Western coverage, there's no sign that any English source independently played or evaluated this game. If a WP:NONENG argument is to be made, I'd appreciate reliable Chinese sources that have actually played and evaluated the game. Otherwise this strikes me as an article that is not about the game and only about the 2005 CCYL spruiking a title with a controversial premise that wasn't released for another three years. Thanks for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article has no good sources. GameFAQs - already a dubious source - uncritically calls the game a "masterpiece". The GameSpot article is the only good source, but, as mentioned above, was released three years prior to the game's launch, and doesn't indicate notability. The third source is dead, and the fourth one is an add blurb. The article itself also seems to be of poor quality e.g. it claims that the game's Chinese name, 抗戰在線, does not translate as "Anti-Japanese War", and is simply the "correct" Chinese name for the Second Sino-Japanese War. Online translators disagree with that, and so does the Chinese Wikipedia article on that war. Cortador (talk) 21:24, 6 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. and Moving to Killing of Samantha Woll. I realize that this is a judgment call but this is how I read the rough consensus of this discussion. As time passes (and I mean months and years from now, not days or a week), it might be worth reevaluating this article to see if coverage is sustained. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Woll[edit]

Samantha Woll (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 non-notable person who was murdered, and her murder is being reported against the backdrop of a current conflict. Textbook example of WP:BLP1E, and her article should be redirected to that of her synagogue. Stephen 22:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and Michigan. Stephen 22:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fails mandatory criteria 2 of WP:BLP1E in that she was not a low profile individual. Woll was co-chair of the American Jewish Committee's ACCESS Detroit Young Leadership Program and founder of the Muslim-Jewish Forum of Detroit. In 2017 she was selected by the Detroit Jewish News as one of their "36 under 36". From 2019 to 2021, she worked as deputy district director on the political campaign of Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin. She also worked on the re-election campaign of Attorney General Dana Nessel. that's not low profile. I think BLP1E is more to prevent victimization of people who are just average everyday low profile people. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "American Jewish Committee's ACCESS Detroit Young Leadership Program and founder of the Muslim-Jewish Forum of Detroit" MIGHT get you an article, working on various election campaign's doesn't. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Anything regarding a Program run by AJC is ZERO notability on its own. Ditto regarding the Muslim-Jewish Forum of Detroit. So, not even a "might". 2607:F470:E:22:F00C:616:C1E6:62E7 (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue: President of a synagogue is basically an office job; they wouldn't get an article had they not died. Notability is only in context of the place of worship. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to "Killing of Samantha Woll". The killing is what is really notable here. The individual would likely not have merited a Wikipedia page prior to their murder. Loksmythe (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I would agree that if there is not sufficient consensus to keep the article, the incident of her death is clearly notable. Panther999 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue. Coverage has been insignificant after the fact, aside from to say the police have found no evidence of it being a result of a hate crime.[1] Nonovix (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some manner. Durindaljb (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Killing of. There's continued national and international reporting about her killing, beyond initial expositionary reporting, that suggests her killing meets WP:GNG: [29] [30] [31]. Longhornsg (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tareen, Sophia. "Police find no evidence of a hate crime in murder of Detroit synagogue leader". PBS News Hour. PBS. Retrieved 23 October 2023.
  • Merge to Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue. I hate to say "routine crime", but now that the killing has found not to be terrorism or a hate crime, it isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article. There is certainly material that could be usefully inserted at the synagogue article, though. Black Kite (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the killing's been "found not to be terrorism or a hate crime". As I read the reports, police just don't know. Dsp13 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What dsp13 (talk · contribs) said. The investigation is still active, and DPD says to expect an update today. 68.42.97.120 (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC) (oops, forgot to log in) --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 13:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless at some later date proved connected to some other notable then revive. As of right now sounds just like any other unnotable memorial.2600:8800:FF0E:300:F91F:EEA6:4E6C:2A7B (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a low profile individual. Woll was co-chair of the American Jewish Committee's ACCESS Detroit Young Leadership Program and founder of the Muslim-Jewish Forum of Detroit. In 2017 she was selected by the Detroit Jewish News as one of their "36 under 36". Yamfri (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Her death is mentioned at Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue#History and that is sufficient. Wyliepedia @ 14:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This woman's death has been the lead story in Southeast Michigan and the Michigan Attorney general was commenting on it before the cause of death was publicly available. That, alone, doesn't establish notability but articles about her from reliable secondary sources may come out in the near future, as the story develops. At such point she would likely meet GNG. While this happened against the backdrop of an ongoing conflict, the police have indicated that they have no evidence that the murder is was motivated by her religious or political activities. If a redirect is in order, it should point toward an article on the incident, since the incident is certainly receiving significant coverage from reliable secondary sources.--Panther999 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM/WP:SOAP. Please stick to how this article is or isn’t necessary on WP policy grounds. The Kip 17:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep The murderous attack on this woman is likely part of the ongoing surge of attacks on Jews, by Muslims, that began during the start of the Biden (Democratic Party) presidency (an example of "liberal" racism and extremism). It is also relevant in the backdrop of the biggest mass murder of people by Islamic terrorists (on previous victims of mass murders, Jewish people, in this case) since the murderous Islamic terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. Commenter856 (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC) — Commenter856 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep or Merge per above. Borderline notability in life, certainly notable in death and comparable to the Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume. I can see arguments for both, and I personally slightly lean keep, but the bottom line is that deletion would be the wrong move. The Kip 17:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The killing of Al-Fayoume is a hate crime. Detroit police (so far) are saying there is no evidence that the killing of Woll was a hate crime. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Killing of" or Delete. Very clear violation of BLP1E. It is possible an article about Woll's death could clear on notability, though I would lean delete at this point given the lack of coverage thereof within the article. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & then move to Killing of Samantha Woll. Even if she probably wouldn't pass WP:GNG prior to her death, she is notable for her death. Nonetheless, given that she had a very weak claim to notability prior to her death, keeping the article separate (as a WP:1E) and having a short bio on her in said article (as is done for many others) is the best solution here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Case of BIO1E that no longer meets notability for own article following the official investigation, and subject's death is duly covered in the Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the synagogue article, I'm not seeing notability at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    @Oaktree b: looks like you've voted twice Longhornsg (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I'll strike one. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. She was not notable for her life prior to her death and while her killing has gotten coverage, it does not demonstrate WP:LASTING notability at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muboshgu, I disagree. Her killing got an international coverage because she was notable; an average Joan Doe would not be mentioned by Independent, BBC, Aljazeera, The Guardian, Daily Beast, Daily Mail and all U.S. national media. To have been a Jewish community leader and at the same time be called "a friend" by Israel hater Rashida Tlaib - that in itself is notable. Yamfri (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It was heavily covered only because it was initially believed to be a hate crime, which we now know was not the case. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Strongly disagree that two people who worked in politics together in the same US state for the same party being friends tells us anything about notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to synagogue article. Police are now saying they believe it likely wasn’t a hate crime [32]. This makes it less likely to meet the threshold of notability. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2B9A (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I tried to find coverage prior to her death to help expand this article and establish notability, but what’s available doesn’t meet the biography notability criteria (almost all of it being from a single local source) and tho it had seemed like the coverage of her death would merit an article about that, info seems so limited that it’s adequately covered at the page for her synagogue. If that changes, I would suggest expanding the section at the synagogue page until such point as it requires a content fork. (Meanwhile, I am not really sure why so many people have said merge as opposed to redirect, as her death is already mentioned at the target page and I’m not clear on what other content would be relevant to the entry for the synagogue.) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - theres enough sourcing for a biography here, and there are sources going back a few years about the re-opening of the synagogue. Possibly retarget to an article on her killing, but between the Muslim-Jewish Forum of Detroit, leading the only free standing synagogue in Detroit, and coverage of her murder, and hopefully eventually trial of suspect, and funeral there's enough here for an article. nableezy - 16:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the synagogue article. For now, the biography is lacking quite a bit and the murder itself likely wouldn't pass the WP:10YT, but unless more information comes out about the victim, the best course of action is to merge. Luigi7255 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This very clearly does not qualify under WP:BLP1E for reasons already explained here by others. Agree that notability here is not the most clear-cut given the sources present, but they are sufficient for me to support keeping the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support merging with the synagogue. Everything notable outside the 1E is associated with it, and redirecting “killing of” to it would be fine. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Forgive my lack of background in coding and, yes, I understand why a nomination for deletion would have followed the determination that Samantha's death was not a hate crime. I write as the former long-time religion editor of The Detroit Free Press and now Editor of ReadTheSpirit.com weekly magazine, which covers interfaith issues. Samantha's entry should be kept because: First, her story now has circled the globe. I work with the International Association of Religion Journalists and journalists in Asia and Europe have asked about Samantha. One reason to retain this profile is that people will be searching for her name for a long time. Some journalists I've spoken with in Europe and Asia were not aware that her death was not deemed a hate crime by police. Including her profile clarifies both her identity and her case. Second, she was not a minor figure. I do agree with other Wiki editors who point out that the details of her resume on their own do not seem nationally notable. However, Samantha filled those posts in a way that she became a nationally known young Jewish activist and interfaith leader. Michigan's interfaith leadership saw her, and continues to see her, as a major interfaith figure. I know this because I cover that leadership as a journalist. Also, before long, some major projects are likely to be named in memory of Samantha and having her basic bio here is crucial for letting people know who she was. Today, for example, my successor and current religion editor for the Free Press Niraj Warikoo just reported: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2023/10/29/samantha-woll-left-legacy-of-interfaith-work-in-michigan/71336170007/ User:DavidCrumm 29 October 2023 — Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge to Killing of Samantha Woll- Per Above 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm having difficulty with the nom for a very simple reason. There seems to be a flaw in proposing !delete on the basis of WP:BLP1E when the subject is, tragically not a WP:LP. In all honesty, I'm sure it sounds petty but I don't think we can use policies written about "living persons" for pages about people who are self evidently no longer living. Maybe it was relevant, now it isn't. JMWt (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy you linked specifically says, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died". Innisfree987 (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is true, however it is part of the WP:BLP which says at the top "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
This whole policy is about the inclusion or otherwise of contentious material about living people which sometimes applies to the recently deceased.
Nobody here is arguing that there is contentious material about this recently deceased person which we should remove - the discussion is about notability.
If we are to refocus the discussion on the notability of a person for only one event, the correct policy to discuss is WP:1E, which I think has some relevant and wise advice.
The correct approach it seem to me is a move to Killing of Samantha Woll, which is undeniably notable and in line with WP:1E JMWt (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Killing of Samantha Woll." Specifically I suggest creating an article called, the "Killing of Samantha Woll," then change Samantha Woll to a Redirect. The incident has received more coverage than she did before this tragedy.--23mason (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and Move to Killing of Samantha Woll. clearly notable per WP:GNG. Good souring.BabbaQ (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Killing of Samantha Woll"; there's been sustained coverage of the killing extending beyond the local area. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus right now. There is about equal numbers of editors arguing Keep, Delete, Merge to Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue and Keep and move to Killing of Samantha Woll page title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Coverage in reliable sources continues two weeks after her death. Her many accomplishments before her death are well-referenced, moving this out of WP:BLP1E (or recently dead) territory. Cullen328 (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per User:Cullen. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:25, 6 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! 08:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Achadara[edit]

Battle of Achadara (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 verifiable in source. Annwfwn (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Georgia (country). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no relevant sources found. AllNotAll (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STRIKESOCK.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Outside help might be being solicited [33].
  • Redirect to War in Abkhazia (1992–1993): No objection to a delete. Not a hoax, but a mole hill made into a mountain. Two sources confirm fighting in the area, nothing that can be reasonably (NPOV) called the "Battle of ..." but yes there was fighting so a redirect might be merited. Unless non-English sources that can be WP:V exist, I don't believe this has SIGCOV from NPOV sources. Ping me if NPOV sources with SIGCOV are added to the article.  // Timothy :: talk  09:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per G5, creation by blocked/banned user. --Yamla (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Second to that, created by banned user in violation of their block. If G5 is not the case, this page should be deleted regardless since this conflict is possibly a hoax and large parts of the article are unsourced. HarukaAmaranth 春香 14:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No objection to delete.  // Timothy :: talk  16:17, 9 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_6&oldid=1185092741"