Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 08 September 10 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. If anyone is actually interested in working on this as a draft, let me know and I'll move it there. Otherwise, the clear consensus is that this is not appropriate, and the sole "keep" argument is not valid or policy-based. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Westernization of Oceanic societies through cinematography[edit]

Westernization of Oceanic societies through cinematography (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)

More of an essay than an encyclopedic article (although it is written and cited well, so it does have that going for it). Which would be a violation of WP:NOTESSAY. Not finding enough to satisfy WP:GNG in terms of Westernization of Oceanic societies through cinematography as a concrete concept. IceBergYYC (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Oceania. IceBergYYC (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is in desperate need of a rewrite. I don't think that {{Essay-like}} is the right tag, though; it reads more to me like {{Research paper}}. Still a problem, but not under the personal-opinion issue that WP:NOTESSAY is intended to combat. It has also been badly pecked by WP:PEACOCKs like 'rich tapestry of cultures and languages' and 'cherished and preserved their unique cultural traditions.' GNG is always difficult to assess on niche academic subjects, but this one does seem to narrowly pass with the sourcing provided. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC) See below, please.[reply]
    To me, the sources could clearly support an article on Westernization of Oceania as a whole, and there could be a section about cinema. But even the best source currently in the article (8) is much more about using cinematography to combat westernization and preserve their own culture. IceBergYYC (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Brand new editor, hit the ground running. They don't know all the ropes yet, but could use help, even mentorship. Same experience happened to me the first time. I was fortunate enough to get help from other editors. — Maile (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as entirely original research. I appreciate the effort the creator has put into this, and if they have an interest in Wikipedia and the potential to be a constructive member of this community, we should encourage them. But we don't do that by keeping articles that are contrary to policy. As far as I can tell, there aren't any sources that cover the topic of this article. There are historical and sociological sources about Oceania in general that the author has analyzed to write this. That's how academia works; that's not how Wikipedia works. We strictly summarize existing sources: and if secondary sources don't cover a topic, we don't cover it either. I don't see such sources here. This is an entirely understandable mistake to make, and for someone with a research-oriented bent it's perhaps the single most confusing thing about Wikipedia, but it's a mistake nonetheless. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to Move & Draftify - Following Vanamonde's post, I re-reviewed the sources. I still think that the source somewhat support this article, but I now agree with IceBergYYC that the sources very much support an article for Westernisation of Oceanic Societies. The article as it sits is actually a good start for that since it's more WP:SYNTH than OR, and moving is a reasonable AtD. I think we can get an encyclopaedic and valuable article if we can get rid of the purple prose, add in some of the solid info in the sources for other ways in which Oceania is losing cultural identity, and invite some folks from the Wikiprojects from Culture, Globalization and Sociology. Thoughts? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:07, 17 September 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 keep‎. Nomination Withdrawn. Tehonk has proven notability. (non-admin closure) Lightoil (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aziza A.[edit]

Aziza A. (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 artist fails WP:NMUSIC. A WP:BEFORE search could not find any sources that justify notability. Lightoil (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Should have been speedied as being unsourced. scope_creepTalk 16:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Change to keep in light of the overwhelming amount of coverage both academic, cultural and media based. scope_creepTalk 00:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep being unsourced is not a WP:CSD criterion however no indication of significance (WP:A7) is but was declined by @ComplexRational who stated (decline A7; although much work is needed, this was originally PRODded (higher bar than A7) and undeleted at WP:REFUND; no prejudice against AfD if notability concerns go unaddressed). Lightoil (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know. I saw that afterwards I never read the talk page or the contributions page, just read the article. I would not suggested if I had. I know you cant speedy an unsourced BLP unfortunately. It is just of turn of phrase. Its curious there is a now a cambridge university book reference on the article. It curious because there is no coverage on the artist, no streaming of anything that considered as liked by fans nor anything on social media nor any real coverage that can be found on a WP:BEFORE. It is a WP:BLP that has been unsourced since 2009. You'll notice the TR wikipedia is also unsourced as well. scope_creepTalk 08:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She is notable, I requested it to be undeleted at WP:REFUND to work on what was there previously instead of creating it from scratch. But it seems there's a rush. Most sources for her would be from late 1990s and early 2000s and they would be in German. That would be the reason for not finding sources easily with a simple Google search. She was covered by German media in 1990s and 2000s extensively. Most of it probably would not be accessible online.
- This work named World of Aziza A is published by Cambridge University Press and it's a reliable in-dept significant coverage. It covers the artist for 20 pages in detail. I was planning to add it to the article but it seems that was done already.
- This is a digitized copy of her coverage from Folker (music magazine) in 1999 (you can assume there are more printed publications that were not digitized or cannot be found online easily): http://archiv.folker.de/9902/aziza.htm
- Her portrait on a project about female rappers (this project received "International Music Journalism Award" at Reeperbahn Festival so it can be considered reliable): https://www.365femalemcs.com/portraits/aziza-a/ mentions her as "first successful Turkish-German rapper" and "first Turkish-German presenter to be seen on German television" (this "first presenter" claim is also mentioned here: https://www.fernsehserien.de/dr-mag also in the below rap.de source), that would probably mean she meets "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" criterion of WP:SINGER
- Meets "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" criterion of WP:SINGER: First album is from BMG, second is from Doublemoon (an important Turkish indie label), third is from Balet Plak (a major Turkish label)
- Here's a coverage of her from Der Tagesspiegel in 2001: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/ich-bin-fies-veranlagt-857377.html
- She's covered on this file from renk. Magazin: https://renk-magazin.de/deutsch-tuerkischer-rap/
- A bio on NPO Radio 2 : https://www.nporadio2.nl/muziek/artiesten/d187edb6-5436-49be-8d28-b4ed5342cf2e/aziza-a
- A coverage on a reliable German site about rap (from a publisher who also publish Groove and Classic Rock: https://rap.de/meinung/171962-frauen-im-deutschrap-die-wegbereiterinnen-teil-2/5/
- Most of these sources including Folker, 365femalemcs, renk and others mention her first album reaching #2 in World Music Charts Europe (by European Broadcasting Union) which means she meets "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" criterion of WP:SINGER
Chart positions can also be verified with these links: second place, third place, tenth place
- Cambridge University source mentions a "third-place award in a singing competition in Berlin in 1995", which may mean "Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition" criterion is met but not sure because of the word "major".
- Meets "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film" criterion: Music for Lola and Billy the Kid and Eine andere Liga [en] (also acts on both)
- She has a good coverage on this academic publication: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4300 (see "New Citizen Performances: Aziza A., Alpa Gun, Samy Deluxe" and "Identity Politics Cross Borders: Aziza A. in the Classroom" sections.
- She's covered on this academic publication: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sefad/issue/46784/586613
- She's mentioned here as "first Turkish female rapper": https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/tolga-akyildiz/bu-rapcilere-kulak-verin-ne-hikayeler-anlatiyorlar-41756188
- Mentioned here as "first Turkish-German female rapper": https://tr.boell.org/tr/2021/11/02/goc-mahalle-ve-ana-akim-turkiyede-ve-diasporada-turkce-rap
- Covered on this article on DW about this book as one of the 50 people covered in the book (book tells the stories of 50 successful Turkish-Germans): https://www.dw.com/tr/50-t%C3%BCrk%C3%BCn-ba%C5%9Far%C4%B1-%C3%B6yk%C3%BCs%C3%BC/a-15144002 Tehonk (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The Cambridge University source says "she toured throughout Europe to promote the album, thus becoming a known figure in the German Hip Hop scene" and "following year she toured Germany with the famed German female rap star Cora E." (Europe tour is also mentioned in several of these other sources) which probably means criterion 4 of WP:SINGER is also met.
- There's an extensive coverage in this book from Klaus Farin
- There's a coverage in this academic publication Music and Cultural Memory: A Case Study with the Diaspora from Turkey in Berlin which mentions: "In 1997, her debut year, she was chosen amongst the one hundred most important people in the Berlin-based magazine Zitty, and, in a programme for BBC World TV, she was called the 'New European'".
- Mentioned as "the most prominent female German-Turkish rapper" in this work (it also references Zitty coverage from 1997 but it seems that can't be found online): Popular Culture, Marginality and Institutional Incorporation. German-Turkish Rap and Turkish Pop in Berlin
- A Turkish coverage from Hürriyet in 2004: https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/alman-sanatinda-avrupali-turk-firtinasi-204326 mentions "chosen amongst the one hundred most important people in Zitty" and the BBC coverage, also says something like "Aziza A, who managed to create a new style called oriental hip-hop"
- A similar coverage from Cumhuriyet in 2004: https://egazete.cumhuriyet.com.tr/en/catalog/4202/2004/5/16/3 (archive page, needs a paid account to access the full page but there's a text only preview in that link), mentions opening and closing concert at Expo 2000.
- Introduced as "Germany's first Turkish female rapper" on this interview: https://www.istanbulberlin.com/aziza-a/ Tehonk (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Tehonk: I've changed my !vote above. I examined these and they are excellent apart from one or two. She seems to be used in multiple case studies in the academic world. Could you update the article with some of these references? scope_creepTalk 00:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the solid research by Tehonk. Nicely done. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the amount of coverage found by Tehonk shows her notability. Jaguarnik (talk) 01:56, 10 September 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 23:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poomulli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Poomulli (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 family. The article is about a family, and should not be confused with Poomulli Mana which is their house. The house has been attracting some attention as a tourist and healthcare destination, but I do not think it still would be enough to qualify our WP:N standards, and there is definitely not enough material on the family anyway. The last AFD ages ago was probably hijacked by members of the family who mass-voted to keep this. This article probably serves to market their health care facilities as the Wikipedia page shows up on search results and a link to the Wikipedia page is also provided on their website - [1] Jupitus Smart 13:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, India, and Kerala. Jupitus Smart 13:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but a reluctant one. The article as it stands is effectively unsourced since everything fails verification. I have to agree with the nom that, as written, it reads as either WP:PROMO or WP:CRUFT. That said, it does not warrant SALT, as it is entirely possible that an encylopaedic article could be written. It could clear GNG if the dubious content of the article turns out to be correct, and gScholar shows a dozen possible leads to good info. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:02, 20 August 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 14:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - maybe someone can find more non-English sources to improve the article with. - Indefensible (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 2 September 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! 22:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of notability. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:43, 10 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prema Deshapu Yuvarani[edit]

Prema Deshapu Yuvarani (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)

disputed draftification. Fails WP:NFILM 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZeeNews reference fails based on WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided advises to exercise caution and consult the noticeboard if in doubt: there, 2 users say it is reliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 9 September 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) 22:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Comerford[edit]

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

This subject is a former performer whose coverage whilst active does not meet WP:GNG or WP:COMEDIAN. Sourcing currently includes listing among many others in two editions of a guide whose content was mostly written by the subject; interviews (which are also primary/WP:BLPSPS); tweets; and scant mention. JFHJr (㊟) 20:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews may be equivalent to WP:BLPSPS for their usability for facts; however, the question here is notability, and the fact that the Irish Independent asked the comedian to talk about himself as a subject is an indicator of notability, that he is a topic that a reliable source deems worth covering. It is not in itself enough to get this article past our notability guidelines, but it does give a push in that direction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I did a newspaper.com search and it had nothing worth adding. (However, I will note the existence of this online reference, which can at least be a source to confirm that Comerford is Strangeman, which may be a vital piece of information for securing points that add up to notability.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC) -- Weakening my delete stance due to this source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for finding this. The coverage is principally about this subject's apology for repeatedly calling another living person transphobic (BLP applies to that person in this article, too). Having it as a source for a BLP seems problematic to me. But other minds may differ and that's okay. I added it to the article without using it to support any prose. JFHJr (㊟) 18:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference is one that had been in the article already in recent months. That the subject had been involved in contretemps that reached a level of public court coverage seems worthy of inclusion, even if we limit it to his confession of relentlessly harassing an author and his retracting statements, and choose to sidestep just what he was saying and perhaps even whom he was saying it about. But even if we don't include it, it can be of use for evaluating notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that event square with WP:BLP1E? Not to pile on just after my see-you-next-Tuesday (ha). But your thoughts are appreciated when you've got time and device. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that were the only thing we had on him, yes, that would be WP:BLP1E. But he won a non-trivial comedy competition, the Irish Independent material predates that incident (or at least the coverage of it), so I don't see that this event is the one event or even the first event toward notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the first ref you linked have a date? I'm not on a desktop this weekend, so I have trouble seeing the raw page data. All I get is "9 years ago." Otherwise I'd be happy to add it to support the stage name in the lede. JFHJr (㊟) 18:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As we have an existing source which says he won the 2014 festival on 21 August, and this refers to it happening last night, that dates it to 22 August 2014. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the date of the publication can be corrected later, not a big deal. If you want to make the addition now, go for it. I'd bold the stage name, too. I'll either verify or correct or add it on Tuesday when I'm back at a proper helm. JFHJr (㊟) 19:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a) trying to avoid article editing in general and b) working from a phone at the moment, so I leave it in your hands. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Same. Phone. Then for this discussion, until Tuesday, friend. Thanks again. JFHJr (㊟) 19:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Current refs are weak. Adding to them I found [7][8], but I don't think they strengthen the case enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: It appears he's performed a lot, and won at least one notable award, but I haven't been able to turn up any SIGCOV of him. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 16 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian denominations in Northeast India[edit]

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

Wikipedia has a couple of similar directory-like articles, such as List of Christian denominations in India. However, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this list's assemblage of denominations and local jurisdictions within those denominations appears to be novel. Sourcing does not indicate that delineating these denominations as present in Northeast India specifically is merited, with references dedicated more towards identifying congregants in individual ecclesiastical jurisdictions (constituting, in my opinion, original research). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and India. Pbritti (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:SELCRIT, we need to ask, If this [denomination] weren't [in Northeast India], would it reduce their fame or significance? I think the clear answer is, 'No.' I agree with the nom that it feels very much like a directory list as well. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as many of these diocese are blue linked so this is a useful navigation tool.(680 page views in last 30 days). Regarding not a directory that applies to articles more than lists except where there are very few blue links, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like you're articulating a WP:LISTPURP-NAV justification for retaining the list. I don't see a justified purpose in this case: it is unlikely that a list article satisfies the users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology need–this being fundamentally satisfied by List of Christian denominations in India. If one was looking for a comprehensive examination of Christianity in Northeast India, a non-list article on that subject is what should provide those details. Additionally, as you point out, the list is blue linked, meaning that this list also fails to have a developmental purpose. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-standard regionalization. The number of views in this case is not the main thing, as it can be high even for absurd pages. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would a Merge be possible?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India contains less than 5% of India’s population. Yet 30% of Indian Christian live in this 8-state area. Christianity is the largest religion in several states. I would not expect an article like this for any other Indian region.
It would nice in the future if the article explained the reasons for this concentration and the history of evangelism there. Also, the variations in denominations between states; I think in some cases this was a function of which denominations went to which areas.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Thomas Roberts[edit]

James Thomas Roberts (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 appears to be a high school principal, with no real claim to notability beyond that office. BD2412 T 17:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried both James Thomas Roberts on a variety of resources, but I didn't really find anything. I agree the sources Oaktree found is not sufficient for notability as the sources only give brief mentions of Roberts. Ca talk to me! 07:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to Draft No sourcing we can verify or back up. Barely notable even with sourcing to back it up. Perhaps someone can make it their research project, but not ready for Wikipedia overall yet. PickleG13 (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Henry Tritton[edit]

Joseph Henry Tritton (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:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Not notable as a soldier or anything else as far as I can tell. StAnselm (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian mythology[edit]

Belarusian mythology (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)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
This article was blanked and redirected by Eckhardt Etheling with the edit summary: Not a single source and poorly-written; moreover, it misuses the term "mythology" (i.e. godlore) also including later folk tales. WP:BOLDLY merging into "historical Slavic religion". This editor is now blocked, but the rationale is valid; the article has been unreferenced since its creation in 2016.
Earlier in 2023, Maksim L. attempted to delete the redirect which lead to an RfD which ended with restoring the article because no suitable redirect target was found and there was no unanimous agreement to delete.
Even ignoring the sourcing problem, the article states its intended topic as: the system of legends, myths and cosmological presentations in ancient religion that was practiced in Belarus before Christianization in the 10th century. There is a glaring problem with this premise in that there was no such thing as "Belarus" or even a "Belarusian language" (see Belarusian language § History) that long ago. Those ethnic, national, and linguistic distinctions had not yet developed and to present the topic in such terms is anachronistic and very misleading to readers.
If any sources which explicitly discuss the topic in terms of "Belarusian mythology" (as opposed to, say, "East Slavic mythology") even exist they are very unlikely to be reliable. This isn't helped by the fact that Slavic Native Faith-adjacent topics like Slavic mythology and folklore are a magnet for misinformation with a nationalist POV, and I suspect that's a factor here because the article includes a link to a nationalist blog in its "External links" section and its the closest thing this article has to a source. – Scyrme (talk)
  • @Maksim L., Duckmather, Mzajac, Alalch E., Hobit, Paul 012, and Bernanke's Crossbow: This 'reply' is to notify participants of the past RfD. Feel free to ignore this if you are no longer interested now that the RfD has been closed. – Scyrme (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Belarus. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wanted to nominate myself, was doing some research, and didn't come up with anything. Got nothing to add to the nominator's statement.—Alalch E. 19:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 9. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Nationalist blog", luxurious cliché. There was a link to an article by a reputable historian. But his article was called “Pagan Religion”, and pagan religion has nothing to do with Belarusian mythology. Now the wiki-article mixes pagan religion and Belarusian mythology. If we do not have enough qualifications to separate the concepts and leave only Belarusian mythology in the wiki-article, we should delete. In this form, the article is simply nonsense. --Maksim L. (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On closer inspection of page (now only accessible through web.archive.org), the website did attribute the article to Georgy V. Shtykhov [be] who evidently is a reputable historian, although to be honest I don't know much about him. However, the blog on which the article was posted was very clearly nationalist in character. Besides its overt national focus it included a page titled "friends" (сябры) linked prominently on the site which featured a list of links promoting the BPF Youth and the National Alliance (Ukraine) [uk; pl].
    Regardless of the website's affiliations, you're right that the article didn't even mention "mythology" (міфалогія); the relevance of the article to its stated topic is entirely in the imagination of the author.
    I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the author may have had a nationalist bias given the nature of the website they chose to share and the nature of the Wikipedia article itself, the premise of which depends on asserting a distinctly Belarusian national claim to aspects of East Slavic mythology and folklore dating to before the 10th century, and stretching the history of Belarus to over a millenium. – Scyrme (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot evaluate the authority of a source through the fictitious ideological beliefs of the hosting owners. This does not comply with Wikipedia's rules or the general methodology for criticizing sources. You cannot attribute ideological beliefs to anyone at your own discretion and use this as an argument. This is wrong and vicious. Shtykhov’s text was published long ago in the six-volume academic publication “History of Belarus”. The site contained a reprint of a well-known text, without the approval of the author. There was no need for approval. But that's beside the point. The content of the wiki-article under discussion does not correspond to its title. There is nothing in the content about Belarusian mythology, there are no sources on this topic. The wiki-article contains only a lapidary description of some pre-Christian beliefs that are not Belarusian mythology. The article should be deleted and not left as a redirect. There is no redirect target on Wikipedia. Maybe later someone will write a new article actually about Belarusian mythology. -- Maksim L. (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already conceded that the text was attributed to "a reputable historian" and wasn't criticising the text itself or Shtykhov on the basis of the host site. I apologise if that wasn't clear. You yourself have noted that the "article is simply nonsense" in its current state; my point was only that this apparent nonsense makes sense from a particular point of view which plausibly may have been a factor in its creation. All I intended was to suggest a context in which this article makes sense and that finding reliable sources would be difficult because of that POV. That's all. If you don't agree with this interpretation, fine, but I don't see what's "wrong and vicious" about it. – Scyrme (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ru.wikipedia appears to have a large number of sources on its version of the page; I imagine nationalist editors would prefer to stuff their work in be.wikipedia. Perhaps an {{expand Russian}} is in order? (I don't know (Byelo)Russian and Google Translate and DeepL are annoying to access while my computer is repaired. My suppositions regarding the article's contents may be very wrong.) Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Russian article is more developed but much of it is also unreferenced. The Belarusian Wikipedia article seems somewhat more developed, if the empty sections are ignored, although much of it is likewise unreferenced. The author of the Belarusian article appears to be the same as that of the English article, but looking at their revisions there I no longer nationalism was a likely factor. Both have a similar structure, and neither article limits itself to myths in pre-Christianisation pagan religion, so the scope and topic aren't an exact match to the English article.
    The Belarusian lead section opens by differentiating between 3 different topics covered in the article: Baltic paganism (since Baltic peoples lived in the region until the Middle Ages), Slavic paganism, and post-Christian folklore and Folk Orthodoxy. It also immediately lists two caveats: firstly, there are few if any written primary sources, and, secondly, there much misinformation in secondary sources due to the fabrications and dubious theories of 19th and 20th century folklorists, particularly Pavel M. Shpilevsky [ru] who is criticised for similar reasons here on the English Wikipedia at Pseudo-mythology § Belarus. The Russian article has a similar scope, although it lacks the coverage of Baltic peoples in the region.
    It seems both these articles also struggle with reliable sourcing and differentiating mythology and folklore. It's possible that some of the unreferenced material actually is sourced but merely lacks adequate footnotes, since both have works listed in "Literature" sections. This would make verification difficult so translation probably isn't a good idea unless the translator is very selective or is very familiar with the sources.
    I suppose a better article could be written which summarises the histories of different mythologies within the region, similar to Mythology in France, which is what the Russian and Belarusian articles appear to be aiming for. However, doing so would be substantially revising the scope, content, and sources. At that point, it seems easier to start over with proper referencing to begin with. (WP:TNT) A better title for an article with that broader scope might be "Mythology in Belarus".
    Even ignoring the lack of sourcing, the material at the present article at Belarusian mythology is very vague and nonspecific to Belarus (besides using the modern Belarusian names for things such as deities which are otherwise common to the East Slavs broadly); I'm not convinced there's much if any that would be helpful to the hypothetical improved article.
    tl;dr - Even considering translation, this seems like a case of WP:TNT. Translation may help with writing a new article if the translator is able to verify the sources to provide adequate footnotes and exclude unsourced material. – Scyrme (talk) 00:38, 13 September 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. Borderline on the numbers but the provided sources are ostensibly SIGCOV and no rebuttal has been provided. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music on Film-Film on Music[edit]

Music on Film-Film on Music (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)

Poorly sourced time capsule from 2008, cannot find enough sources to establish notability * Pppery * it has begun... 19:17, 9 September 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) 22:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjwal Chaurasia[edit]

All prior XfDs for this page:


Ujjwal Chaurasia (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 Wikipedias general notability guidelines. Sources are not reliable. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Delhi. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only gossip nd PR stuff Worldiswide (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Review of the sources shows that they all read as if they have a common ancestor, which is probably a handout from the company to the media telling e story about its founder. The question that we have is not whether the story is true, which it probably is (although probably exaggerated). It is whether the postings of the story are significant coverage by independent sources They are not.
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 dnaindia.com An interview with the subject No Yes ? No
2 www.socialketchup.in An interview with the subject No Yes ? No
3 www.iwmbuzz.com Reads like a rework of a press release No Yes ? No
4 failurebeforesuccess.com Reads like another reworked press release of his bio No Yes ? No
5 www.india.com/technology Another recycling of the press release No Yes ? No
6 www.news18.com And another recycling of the press release No Yes ? No

There is also a draft, by a different editor. I have not reviewed the draft, and do not know whether it establishes notability. But draftification is not an alternative to deletion. This article should be deleted, and the draft left alone by this MFD, but I will probably review it separately. One interesting comment is that he has made himself a playable character in a video game. That has no effect of his notability.

This article contains peacock language which should be trimmed if the article is kept. It reads like it was written by a paid editor. It was probably either written by a paid editor, or by an ultra who writes like a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment reliable source
Sheikh, Ramij Raja (2023). Life of Popular Indian YouTubers. Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp. ISBN 979-8-851-45989-4.
Pandey, Manish; Pamnani, Harsh (2021). Booming Digital Stars. Pencil Select. ISBN 978-9-354-58955-3. Arumobileworld (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He fails to step over the notability hurdle. WP:BIO fail. Also per reference analysis. None good 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment After a request to re-examine left on my talk page, I have. I see nothing that alters my opinion in any of the new referencing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A request has also been left on my talk page to re-review the article because reliable sources are said to have been added. Reliable sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition for accepting or keeping an article. The article still does not speak for itself. I may or may not examine the three additional sources. Is the proponent a paid editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No sir. I'm not paid editor. I just creating articles about notable peoples. I created this article because of he is Top Indian Gamer. After the nomination of AfD I searched for good reference such as The CEO Magazine published Indian top YouTube creators of 2020 and I found some reliable sources so I added to article. Arumobileworld (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please see the prior AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techno Gamerz 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Authors like "News9 Technology Desk" and "FE Lifestyle" speak Churnalism to me, but I don't have the time to sift through the debris to make a proper !vote. casualdejekyll 18:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All references appear to be either trivial mentions or affiliated with the subject. As an aside, this article also has egregious WP:NPOV issues. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 11:46, 13 September 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 page's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virendra Kumar Baranwal (disambiguation)[edit]

Virendra Kumar Baranwal (disambiguation) (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)

Are disambiguation pages necessary if there's only two articles? Both articles already have a 'for' template linking to each other. मल्ल (talk) 18:03, 9 September 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! 17:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Kishkurno[edit]

Denis Kishkurno (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)

Despite playing 18 mins as a professional, I was not able to locate any significant coverage. Tribuna Blog is a squad list mention. Tribuna is a passing mention. Football is a passing mention, explaining that he wasn't taken on after a trial. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, which, following WP:NSPORTS2022, now need to be met. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:55, 9 September 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 discussions about a possible Merge can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go woke, go broke[edit]

Go woke, go broke (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 fails WP:NOT under WP:NOTOPINION as it tries to advance the political opinion as fact, trying to list various companies that may fit the narrative of the phrase and failing WP:POV without WP:BALANCE being given to any points refuting the political catchphrase opinion with intentional exclusion of many companies that have refuted the claims with WP:CHERRYPICKING of details from refs. I propose deletion of the article as it is inherently an opinion piece and the phrase itself is already sufficiently covered in Woke capitalism, beyond that, the article just appears to try to advance an WP:AGENDA. Raladic (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, and Sexuality and gender. Raladic (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Entertainment. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to woke capitalism for now and eventually Corporate sociopolitical activism. The reasons given for deletion are completely off the mark, so let me provide an alternative: this is the same subject as "woke capitalism". I'd say it's a "reaction" to woke capitalism, but the reaction is built into the term -- it's "woke" as used by someone who's objecting to "wokeness" or considers it an undesirable subset of social activism. Some uses are saying the brands are exploiting trendy causes for profit; some don't like that a brand is "shoving [other kinds of people or ways of living] down our throats". In other words, woke capitalism already builds in the criticism that this slogan expresses. In fact, this is already covered in that article to the extent it needs to be, so per WP:NOPAGE why have a separate article? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I hadn't seen the Corporate sociopolitical activism as an uber article and agree that a merge of both to there would probably be the right move per your proposal. Raladic (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. I'm not against a merger of some sort but there definitely is a genuine topic here and it is being covered reasonably well. Sure, there is room for improvement but I don't see the claims of an intrinsic POV that the nomination advances at all. Deletion would be utterly perverse. No opinion on whether Woke Capitalism (which presumably should be capitalised and might or might not even be the same thing as Stakeholder Capitalism as alleged in the Woke capitalism article?) is the primary topic. (I thought that Stakeholder Capitalism was a specific corporate ownership structure where a company was owned by other organisations which have a stake in its operations, not this vague stuff about "wokeness".) On a quick glance, the Woke capitalism article seems to be in a worse state for POV than this article is. I see that Rhododendrites just nominated it for merger into Corporate sociopolitical activism, which seems like a good idea. If both articles get carefully merged there, preserving the majority of the valid content except for any genuine duplications, then that sounds like a good outcome. It might be tricky to do though. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree that the phrase is a topic, but the endless listing of claimed examples is advancing a WP:POV with intentional exclusion of companies that have refuted the phrase, but over 800 words of MOS:CLAIMed examples and just 200 for counterpoints - which clearly lacks WP:BALANCE.
    I support Rhododendrites's suggestion to merge both into Corporate sociopolitical activism, which I hadn't seen, I had only seen Woke capitalism which I did mention already in the Afd proposal and think covers the topic sufficiently. Raladic (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any merge would make this moot but, just because I love arguing, I will point out that the far-right put an enormous amount of effort into making "Go woke, go broke" into the universally recognised WP:COMMONNAME of this alleged phenomena. They fully succeeded in that part but the wider endeavour has gone sour for them because the "Go broke" part of the alleged phenomenon just hasn't lived up to their hype. Particularly with the success of the Barbie movie, the slogan that they worked so hard to popularise is now mockingly thrown back in their faces. Meanwhile, every time a right wing "anti-woke" enterprise goes bust they are greeted with jeers of "Go fash, lose cash" from the peanut gallery. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you are arguing that people are intentionally excluding companies that have refuted the phrase would suggest that you are not going for a neutral article. In fact I only see only the mention of Elon Musk's Twitter being deleted, and that is something else, not the counterexamples you wanted. In fact, you can say that some of what's given in claimed examples may be also counterexamples (for example, is problem for Target caused by boycott from the other side?) and refutations are given in the claimed examples section. So you trying to do a simple count of words by section is a rather wrong-headed approach. What is actually wrong is that way the whole article is framed, using claimed examples and counterexamples, when what is needed is an examination on a case-by-case basis. Hzh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Raladic, arguing about POV in a deletion discussion isn't usually helpful except insofar as it applies to the entire subject. Here's we're talking about subjects rather than the way those topics are currently written about. If it can be fixed by editing, it's probably not something that needs to come up here. Relevant to deletion/merge discussions are WP:N (which isn't the issue here), WP:NOPAGE, WP:POVFORK, WP:OVERLAP, in very rare cases WP:NOT, and a few others at WP:DEL-REASON. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and yes you are right that WP:NOPAGE and WP:POVFORK are probably the better policies to cite of why it can be deleted/wrapped into the other article. Raladic (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close nomination for an extremely speculative, bad-faith invalid rationale. Like it or not, the phrase is a huge meme with a lot of conservators and mainstream reliable sources cover and reference the phrase. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep, open to merger. (Disclaimer: Creator of article) I think that Daniel and HumanxAnthro sum up my opinions perfectly. I'm open to a merger as suggested by Rhododendrites. If a merge is needed, Woke capitalism is probably the best candidate. After more opinions have come in, I do not believe that a merger would comply with Due Weight policies, and if anything, could result in an increased perception of Wikipedia having a liberal bias. Ideally we should be neutral, neither liberal nor conservative, explaining each opinion with attributed debaters as listed in reliable sources, and likewise explaining the most significant rebuttals to it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and not merge. The topic is notable enough in itself as it satisfies WP:GNG, it would be wrong to merge it to a smaller article like "woke capitalism" and distort it (it would have WP:UNDUE prominence in that article). Merging would also carry over the problem in this article to the article it gets merged to. The AfD was started because the nominator got upset over attempts to make the article neutral and accurate including effort to remove unsourced false statement (discussion that led to the AfD here - [17]). The article needs a complete rewrite, not merging. Hzh (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This nomination appears to be a long-winded WP:IDONTLIKEIT based on an edit war within the article. This is a subject that meets WP:GNG with the current sourcing, and as such needs cleanup, not deletion User:Let'srun 13:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NPOV issues are not for AfD as AfD is not cleanup. The term is covered in many reliable sources and there are also counterarguments to the term such as this from Rolling Stone. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • [reply to previous three keep !votes] Yes, the nomination was kind of a mess, but other issues have been raised since then. Perhaps the nom is doomed because of the way it started, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For sure there are NPOV issues. I don't disagree it needs a lot of work. I just don't see deleting it because of that. We will ALWAYS have a war over politics/politicians/political catchphrases on Wikipedia unfortunately.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly there are problems with sourcing and the article itself needs expansion and rewording. But there is, in my opinion, no basis to delete it entirely as it does not violate the pertinent policies. If the article promotes opinions as fact, as was initially alleged, then let’s make it more balanced not bury the well-documented and distinct subject matter in another article through a merger. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge With all the concerns about content raised, it would be better to cover these issues in Corporate_sociopolitical_activism#Criticisms_and_concerns or Woke capitalism rather than one about a slogan that results in NPOV and synthesis problems. This is more recentism about a few incidents in the last couple years than a coherent standalone topic. Reywas92Talk 13:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This topic is certainly notable enough. I see no reason to delete something has seen coverage and analysis from various reliable sources. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the expression is notable as demonstrated by multiple sources that reference it. Though the article might use some recycling, notoriety is established and I think any merge would result in undue weight. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's arguably an expression of a group of people like "Make America Great Again" or "54°40' or fight!"; you don't have to agree with the sentiment (after all, agreeing with the latter means wanting the USA to annex British Columbia), but you can't deny that they are phrases that have wide-enough use by people who believe its value. — Fleacollarindustry (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Fleacollarindustry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep I think it fits its role well and is fitting and follows Wikipedia's rules. Babysharkboss2 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks perhaps to the flawed nomination, none of the keeps seem to be addressing any of the actual issues and we have arrived at the "keep because bias" stage of the nomination. No objection to a a snow close at this point. Perhaps a merge proposal sometime in the future. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that Woke Capitalism supposedly covers the material better. It does not cover the origin or phrase's use nearly as well. It also does not consider what others have said regarding the phrase's use, success, or whether or not it is accurate. It doesn't even cover the Bud Light part very well and almost seems to hold the phrase as true. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 11:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that it covers it better. AfD is typically about the subject, not the present text. The issue is the subjects overlap substantially such that it would be better to cover them together rather than try to maintain separate, significantly overlapping articles. Merge implies improving the target article using material from the merged article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the subject in question bleeds into the other subjects as much as you are are saying. The phrase is related to CSA, but the phrase's article covers the history, use, and explanations regarding its applicability or truth. Significant coverage has rested on the use of the phrase unlike that which is seen in the CSA article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an important factor that Rhododendrites (and I, but less eloquently as I fumbled the nomination a bit) is trying to make, which they also brought up further up in the discussion is the policy of WP:NOPAGE, which is to consider the larger context and for this, the larger context is that of Woke capitalism as a concept, and even further that this whole catchphrase is part of tbe larger 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States. And while the catchphrase certainly exists, it is not actually the majority view of the population, and as such falls a bit into WP:FRINGE policy as it is giving the phrase more credit, which could be sufficiently covered in the larger concept article instead if merged. Raladic (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is frankly getting more and more bizarre. WP:FRINGE? Yet arguing to merge such article into another that would dominate that article? The BBC source given in the article in fact says "67% of Americans say their purchases are affected by a brand's stance, while 42% say they have stopped shopping with a particular brand because of its position on an issue." The underlying premise of the phrase (that a brand's stance affects the consumers' choice) is clearly the majority opinion. Even if you cut that number in half, that's still too significant a number to be FRINGE. Don't cite random policies or guidelines without them being clearly applicable. Hzh (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are affected, but not necessarily in the way that the phrase is arguing, which was my point, it is not a majority view that thinks that companies supporting minorities will go broke - that is the dogwhistle that conservative politicians are trying to use. Many people will not support companies that oppress minorities, such as the case of Chick-fil-A and LGBT people, they are captured in your 67% quote, but are very much in opposition to the phrase. Raladic (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. You have nothing to support your assertion. In fact in your Chick-fil-A article it says sales increased. The boycott of Chick-fil-A led to increased sales, while boycott of Bud Light reduced sales, that would in fact suggest that more of 67% are conservatives. Everything you have written here suggests that you are not interested in a neutrally-written article. You want an article that attacks the idea of "go woke, go broke", but you got upset and nominated it for deletion because other people tried to make it neutral. We are not here to attack one side or the other, we are here to write the article in as neutral and as accurate a possible. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Applying fringe to this sounds like applying it to something like "no justice no peace" (fringe because people say this phrase during times of peaceful protest, without significant conflicts, etc.). That said, the Chick Fil-A example illustrates the extent to which the subject is actually corporations taking political stands (and the effects). There are lots of ways to express that subject. One expression is "go woke, go broke". If "go bigot, turn off the money spigot" or something went viral for Chick Fil-A, that would also be talking about the same subject. That it went viral and people say it add so little to the overall subject. That's why the question should hinge on WP:NOPAGE -- because we have two other pages covering this subject right now (one about corporate activism and one about "woke" corporate activism in particular) and not WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc., which are all irrelevant (and, Raladic, they provide those who want to keep with an easy way to argue against you without actually addressing the real issue ... YMMV). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other article is about corporate activism, this article is about popular reactions to corporate activism, they are related but different subjects. There is only one that is a duplicate, and that's woke capitalism, which you have already proposed merging into Corporate sociopolitical activism. While "Go woke, go broke" can legitimately go into one of the other, this article is big enough to stand on its own, and merging it would distort the other one. Note that the Chick-fil-A boycott failed to reduce sales, and whatever expression that might apply has no notability. With the problems that Bud Light and other companies are having, "go woke, go broke" appears to be a notable phenomenon. How real this phenomenon is, and the various reactions to it, can be explore in this article in greater details, but would be excessive in the other article. That merging would result in UNDUE has been mentioned by a few people, so I don't know why you think that people are not addressing this. Hzh (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above to woke capitalism as above. The origin of this phrase (and other similar phrases) can easily be incorporated there. This topic appears to suffer from SYN. Some of the references don't even use this exact phrase - for example the first reference from CIM and reference 6 "Building Trust: Exceptional Leadership in an Uncertain World" refers to the term "Get woke, go broke" as being the original phrase while one of the BBC sources introduces an extra word and uses "Get woke or go broke" and the Telegraph used "Go woke or go broke". Sure, they all converge on the same basic idea but it also highlights that this topic title is incorrect and SYN. NOPAGE and NOPOVFORK applies. HighKing++ 14:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are variations of the phrase does not invalidate it (another version was given in an earlier edit - [18]), nor does it make it SYN (there are SYN element in the article but not this). It just happens that "go woke go broke" is the one more commonly used - [19], therefore WP:COMMONNAME. Hzh (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using Google Trends to justify the title is the very definition of SYN. Can your opinion be sourced? HighKing++ 16:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly SYN when some of the sources (like CIM) use both expressions in the same articles. They consider the variations to be the same thing. Hzh (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Afful[edit]

Samuel Afful (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:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. My search in Google Scholar, Duck.com, Google, Gnews, and newspapers.com revealed no usable sources. The sources that I found are very short pieces on routine announcements of contracts or simple databases of scores. No significant coverage was found. Ca talk to me! 16:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Ca: Please bear in mind that NFOOTY NFOOTBALL is an obsolete WP:SNG. Regards. Govvy (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources on page already look significant.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed the current sourcing in the article and thought otherwise. Can you elaborate a little more? Thanks, Ca talk to me! 06:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1. goal.com: pure stats Red XN. 2. ghanaweb.com: routine transactional announcement + quotes, Red XN. 3. kickgh.com: 404. 4. kyfilla.com: 2-sentence transactional announcement, Red XN. 5. modernghana.com: does not mention Afful, Red XN. 6 & 7. goal.com: 404.
Nowhere close to meeting GNG, good grief. JoelleJay (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the 404 links: [20] [21] - Does not even mention Afful. Ca talk to me! 03:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Felber[edit]

Josh Felber (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 indication of notability under GNG or SNG. The closet thing to a GNG reference is a video of an interview of him. Second is a you tube video posted by him of him getting an Expy award. No other coverage of him found in the other references. Most of the other references are things written by him. Reviewed during NPP. North8000 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Quite promotional. No RS covering this author except as an author. Even so, doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. I wouldn't count youtube videos or a first-hand interview video as good sources either. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment#Comedy/Sitcom. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.H.E (TV series)[edit]

S.H.E (TV series) (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 indication of wp:notability under either GNG or SNG. The only references are database type entries. Previously deleted. Reviewed during NPP. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 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 04:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ACF Investment Bank[edit]

ACF Investment Bank (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)

Nom per request of IP: My rationale is article fails WP:NCORP. Article was originally nominated for speedy deletion for advertising and its creator was even accused of WP:COI. Its now September and the article still has not been significantly fixed. Can someone please help? 210.6.154.3 UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly fails WP:NCORP at the moment and I could not independently find sources denoting notability. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Variety items from 2020 and 2022 summarise the company's recent deals: [22], [23]. AllyD (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll see, the original article is now flagged as "This article relies largely or entirely on a single source". However, if you go back to the first iteration of the article, it contained 55 secondary sources which were subsequently removed - and it was this act that rendered the article to be in contravention of the notability guidelines. It's fair to say (and see) that the original article - despite the section formatting issues, demonstrated the company concerned plays a specific (and well sourced) role in financing within the global media and entertainment industry. That makes it notable. Easypeasydl (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Easypeasydl: besides not being in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelinces (hence adequately removed), the huge list of references merely cited the Bank in passing in the context of other negotiations, thus failiing to qualify as significant coverage. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:32, 11 September 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 23:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reality shifting[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Reality shifting (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)

Renominating. My reasons for nominations are that the article isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. My arguments are essentially the same as in the previous nomination, but my concern is not notability. Another reason for deletion is that to make the article fit for Wikipedia, it would need to be rewritten from scratch, so keeping this version would not be helpful for future writers, and it will only confuse and disinform future readers. Janhrach (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Spirituality, and Psychology. Janhrach (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good start and cross-referenced from other non-disputed articles. Information must be shared transparently, and I feel this is an honest attempt to share that information, even if only loosely conveyed. I fear by deleting it entirely (without replacement or just editing) we lose at least some valuable information on subjective experience of this phenomenon, which has been recognized by a large group of people. We need to learn more, then share more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B295:B200:DB2:6043:DC3C:D0E5 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All Wikipedia articles should be sourced. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, summarizes knowledge – it doesn't serve as a place for publication of original claims/theories/research. Retention of unsourced claims is not a purpose of Wikipedia, even if they may be lost. If the claims are significant, they should be published outside of Wikipedia first. Janhrach (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT - Even as a very new term (for a fairly old concept), there are legitimate RSs out there including a very on-point one from Somer, et al [24]. The article as written, however, is simply bad. If nothing else set off alarums, most of the cites are from or about TikTok. I am rarely a fan of WP:TNT, as I feel it's the right answer only when an article is likely to significant mislead or misinform readers. That, however, is exactly what I see in this case. If TNT is not deemed appropriate, please consider me in favour of deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:32, 4 September 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 14:20, 9 September 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Shams[edit]

Omid Shams (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)

Largely sourced to WP:IMDB which is unreliable. Can't find enough coverage (probably because of language barrier). Best, Reading Beans (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 9 September 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 14:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sangram Singh Patan[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable politician. Once I removed all the puffery and everything that had no source, turns out literally nothing was sourced, including the fact he actually holds this office (which looks to be local?). Both references simply mentioned him as an upcoming candidate for the position, and a google search turned up nothing other than directories and crowdsourced, though of course I couldn't search in Hindi. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on other local government officeholders as well, as for example Ritu Jaiswal.-Admantine123 (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because that article has sources to show the subject meets our notability requirements. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's almost empty and unreferenced. Does it even classify as "stub"? If deletion really is too strong, then at least draftify. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails in WP:NPOL Worldiswide (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Article is a stub. Cwater1 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NPOL. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Even if membership of Zila Parishad makes this person meet WP:NPOL the article has never contained sources, so fails WP:BLP. I note that the editor User:Patan Yuva who initially created it declared a COI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the article stands now, it qualifies for speedy delete under WP:A7. Looking at the history of the article, it strikes me as a vanity piece, and has never once been in a state where it would be acceptable for article space in spite of its age. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:BLP— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zilla Parishad representation alone is not sufficient as notability criteria. --Soman (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:25, 16 September 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 14:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangiri Swati[edit]

Jahangiri Swati (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 indication of wp:notability. Article was previously deleted and creator is blocked and indicated they are Swati and wanted to get the word out. The nature of the material appears editor generated with references cited only for factoids in that creation. One reference is just for land ownership, one is a blog talking about info derived from DNA. I was not able to check out the (off line) third reference North8000 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 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 14:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Danailov[edit]

Mario Danailov (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)

Stats stub with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and no decent sources found in a Bulgarian source search. There is an assistant referee of the same name mentioned at Viasport, Gong and Sportal but the coverage is not at all significant and there is no evidence that the footballer is the same person as the assistant ref. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Drat8sub (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per proposal. Most likely the same person as the referee (home town of the referee same as the home town of the player's club + name is not so common) but even that doesn't provide much notability. --Nk (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:00, 13 September 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 The Prisoner. ✗plicit 14:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number Two (The Prisoner)[edit]

Number Two (The Prisoner) (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 currently does not have enough sources to meet GNG, and a BEFORE check mostly turned up unreliable sources and trivial mentions. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:42, 9 September 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 Champany, Falkirk. Star Mississippi 16:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Champany Inn[edit]

Champany Inn (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 believe this business fails to meet the standards set in WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments about Michelin stars and notability:
    • There was a long, rambling discussion of Michelin stars and notability at
    • I did a search for Michelin+star+notability in Wikipedia space and looked at a sample of about a dozen AfDs for restaurants with Michelin stars. Only one restaurant with a star was deleted; other AfDs closed as either “keep” or “no consensus”.
      • If you run this search yourself, be aware you’ll turn up additional AfDs for restaurants that didn’t have stars. Michelin stars were brought up for some reason such as, “but if it did have a Michelin star…”
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a few sources already given that discuss the establishment, and some in Gsearch as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks as if it no longer has a Michelin star,[30] gone in 2011.[31] in my view this shouldn't directly affect notability. Thincat (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator). In addition to the sources contributed by others, I've added some more and added some additional facts to give a better sense of the place. Best, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 17:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Champany, Falkirk. While the subject is notable, the article is a premature spinout from the hamlet, where the hotel and restaurant are the only establishments. Champany Inn is not even mentioned in the body of that stub! gidonb (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can everyone else live with merging as a compromise? It would preserve the content, while strengthening the microstub on the hamlet. Please react below! Pinging 1keyhole, Лисан аль-Гаиб, A. B., Oaktree b, Thincat, and Jarry1250. gidonb (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is fine Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be a good thing to do (but I have no problem with keep). Thincat (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitar Dimitrov (footballer, born 1989)[edit]

Dimitar Dimitrov (footballer, born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm struggling to get this over the WP:V line let alone WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. He might well be the same player as this guy in Soccerway and Transfermarkt, even though the DOB doesn't match. In any case, the sources found are database sources only and I can't find any evidence that he ever received significant coverage. This isn't surprising considering that he seems to have only ever played in one professional match. The Bulgarian Wikipedia article doesn't offer any evidence of notability either. Footballers are no longer automatically notable for participating in one game and WP:FPL has been deprecated. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 9 September 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 2000 Rugby League World Cup qualifying. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Rugby League World Cup qualification – Pool A[edit]

2000 Rugby League World Cup qualification – Pool A (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)

Unnecessary article split which just duplicates information already on the main 2000 Rugby League World Cup qualifying page. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No unique information here. Mn1548 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 10:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Education Association[edit]

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

an artifact from 2008. considering the original article, it was likely written just to promote the entity. ltbdl (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — The article having promotional text way back in 2008 is pretty irrelevant since it's now entirely stripped down of any content, barring a few sentences that just describe the association. Obviously not the best of articles, but I think the topic is notable. Firstly, this is a non-profit, so WP:NCORP treats it a bit nicer compared to actual companies. Having been founded in 1928, it's pretty unlikely that an organization of this size and history doesn't have any coverage available, and I'm honestly not convinced a WP:BEFORE has been carried out (because I indeed have found sources within a few minutes) since the nomination makes no mention of notability. A rationale solely consisting of "was promotional at some point" cannot be the basis of an AfD. Styyx (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @styyx: hey, could i have a look at your sources? ltbdl (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can show me you did a WP:BEFORE, then yes. Styyx (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    seriously? ltbdl (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, seriously. I do realize I'm being a dick here, but a Google search is the bare minimum expected before sending something to AfD. If you say you couldn't find any sources while searching, that's also enough; I'm not going to shame you for not finding anything in a different language, but I do still want to see the effort. Styyx (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, very well then. all the sources i dredged up were trivial mentions (eg. [33] [34]). ltbdl (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, and I'd agree with your assessment on the 2 particular sources you mentioned. I added some better ones to the talk page. Also they have 10055 hits on Hürriyet which is a lot. Styyx (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I have added another cite. If anyone likes to merge in the "see also" articles that would be good I think as I doubt they deserve their own articles.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. TED is fairly well-known. I tried to do a quick search to find better references, but surprisingly, I couldn't find any good ones. So, I would respect any reasonable votes to delete, but TED is a known, old organization. Aintabli (talk) 19:55, 14 September 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! 04:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simar Khaira[edit]

Simar Khaira (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 general notability criteria as there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the sources are either non-reliable, press releases, or puffed up. The subject also does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.

I would have draftified the article, but Draft:Simar Khaira already exists. It was created by the same creator, and the draft was declined on August 31. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:33, 9 September 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 All-Asian Intervarsity Debating Championships. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Universities Debating Championship[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Asian Universities Debating Championship (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 organization was active for only 5 years, it separated from All-Asian Intervarsity Debating Championships mainly due to internal conflicts. After working separately for only 5 years, the new organization started its journey to United Asian Debating Championships after reconciling with the old organization.

So I think it may Redirect to All-Asian Intervarsity Debating Championships. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 20:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 12:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 08:32, 9 September 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! 04:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Sidhu[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NDIRECTOR, with neither the casting direction for bluelinked films or the direction of unlinked films sufficient. Cinetown awards appear to have a dearth of coverage (GNews) of the actual event -- the ability to get press for pre-event PR not withstanding. And this is ignoring the cut-and-paste promo which should be nuked from orbit (note: Previously PRODded; I don't think the page as a whole is eligible for G11) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 9 September 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 00:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMPS Polytechnic College, Jalpaiguri[edit]

IMPS Polytechnic College, Jalpaiguri (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 GNG. Sources in the article are primary, database, government. BEFORE showed database and primary, but nothing in the news, and nothing that meets IS, RS, and SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. I also searched for it in Bengali (আইএমপিএস পলিটেকনিক কলেজ, জলপাইগুড়ি), or omitting the last word which in English is "Jalpaiguri"), and was surprised to find even less about it. Long history of sockpuppetry by User:Dny123 accounts at IMPS Polytechnic College and Draft:IMPS Polytechnic College, both of which are now salted following many G11 and G12 speedy deletions. Wikishovel (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Jemail[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Ca talk to me! 13:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey sequel[edit]

Untitled Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey sequel (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)

Per WP:NFF, this should not have a page until filming has been confirmed to have started. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Filming has been confirmed to have started, so it can have a page now. As such, I withdraw my nomination. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Unreleased films such as these should be draftified until release. 82.35.44.68 (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Struck comment from CU-blocked IP. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator, my opinion has changed now that filming has been confirmed. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what NFF says, it says that films should "have commenced principal photography", not entered post-production. Di (they-them) (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you are correct, my mistake. Ignore my vote. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)g[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Brown (racing driver)[edit]

Travis Brown (racing driver) (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 racing driver. Even in the American stock car racing scene, the most we've really done is ARCA. There is no reason why we should make a standalone article for a driver in the Carolina Pro Late Model Series. Furthermore, there is no information, let alone sourced information on his social media accomplishments. We've got people like Doug Barnes Jr. (22k subs, late model driver) who don't even have their own article! I feel this can be a bigger problem, especially with ARCA. People who aren't notable are getting articles left and right (and I will say that I once contributed to this myself; I've since stopped and realized the problem). The entirety of the stock car racing project on here needs a rehaul on what is considered notable. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I want to mention that for this specific article, most sources are primary sources; such as PR releases from the team and Brown himself. Furthermore, based on a Google search on both "Travis Brown racing" and "Moonhead", almost nothing comes up; if any. I can find no reason why this deserves a standalone article. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 05:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm willing to relist this once more to get some assessment of sources brought up in this discussion. Right now, it looks like this article is headed towards Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://traxion.gg/sim-racer-travis-moonhead-brown-will-race-again-with-huffman-racing-in-2023/ Yes Yes Traxion is part of Motorsport Games and the Motorsport Games family of brands. All Traxion content is editorially removed from Motorsport Games video game development and created by a dedicated team. Sometimes you may see Traxion-created content disseminated across the Motorsport Network, for example, Motorsport.com and Autosport Magazine. Yes Provides in-depth coverage of the subject on top of covering news ✔ Yes
https://www.essentiallysports.com/nascar-news-racing-fans-join-nascar-driver-in-mourning-the-tragic-loss-of-his-most-priced-possession-weeks-after-furious-altercation-shook-the-sport/ Yes ~ Although a bit sensationalist and tabloidy overall, it has an editorial structure and no indications of being a blog Yes Provides more than just WP:ROUTINE coverage of the subject with a few lines of background ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Traxion still appears to be industry press - not necessarily a reliable source - and his racing team provided the images for the article, so I'm not willing to count that toward GNG - and you need multiple anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Motorsport Network has in the past been used to establish notability of subjects related to motorsports, in fact it is one of the top sources for doing so. I'm not sure why all of a audden it's "industry press" and no good because of that. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The more substential coverage is limited to niche sources. gidonb (talk) 11:55, 11 September 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. I don't see a consensus here in this discussion. But discussion on possible Merges can continue on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 CW affiliation realignment[edit]

2023 CW affiliation realignment (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:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. The context of this could easily be fit into the main article on The CW itself. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie @Nathan Obral @Wcquidditch @Mvcg66b3r @JJ2104 @BlueboyLINY @Esolo5002 @TheCatLife @Vrgin X With all due respect... Is all this necessary??? It's NOT like I made this stuff up out of thin air... I added multiple citations to the source material... I provided links... It's its own article for a reason... To outline said events and easy for one to find rather than such other articles for this information... I created this article to focus solely on these details... PLEASE DO NOT DELETE!!! It is also UNFAIR that my edits are being reverted for providing more detailed information... I NEVER claimed this was original research... That last claim is FALSE... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 13:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your protestations but the article and it’s contents could simply be summarized into a single paragraph in the CW’s main article. Maybe even two paragraphs if you’re generous. But it doesn’t merit a separate article. This was nowhere near the level of the 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment, it was a (mostly clean) series of switches in nine markets. That’s it. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 22:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, it wasn't as crazy as the 1994–1996 United States broadcast television realignment which locally turned the (former) local NBC affiliate to a Fox Station, it (the CW affiliation realignment) could easily be turned to a paragraph. So, I do say, Merge. Mer764Wiki (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again… IF it has an article of its own it’s so that people don’t have to scroll down as much or scramble larger articles looking for that information… PLEASE understand ME when I say that I’m just making it easier for people… There already exists articles of lesser importance than this… I’m NOT saying this is the most important article but it’s still noteworthy since this was a nationwide matter… Deletion or merger with other articles is HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED… CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 09:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I said before, It wasn't as crazy the mess that happened when Fox gained the NFL rights which means, you don't HAVE to make it a whole big article, you could make it a paragraph or two on the CW article with no problem. Mer764Wiki (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I run into this problem later on... I've been in situations in the past where I've added facts, sentences or even whole paragraphs with links and citations only to have them deleted and scrubbed after other users reverted edits back to previous versions... I can't win at all!!! I'm starting to get very annoyed, frustrated and angry... 😡😡😡 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 14:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was NOT easy to create that article... It still took ME hours to finish... A lot of edits and creations I feel are bring reverted or deleted UNJUSTLY... I'm getting the impression that it's predatory and discriminatory... As long as I'm NOT providing false information, it SHOULD be allowed... WE SHOULD NOT even be having this discussion... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 14:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm losing it, WE COULD MERGE THE ARTICLE TO THE CW ARTICLE, WE AREN'T BEING UNFAIR TO YOU, WE JUST DON'T THINK IT'S AS CRAZY AS THE 1994-1996 REALIGNMENT, FOR PETE'S SAKE, Stop having this battle, jeez... Mer764Wiki (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It took years for me, with some assistance from Sammi Brie, to finish 1989 South Florida television affiliation switch. The reason why it remains as an article, and was elevated to Good Article status, was because it depicted a clearly notable series of events that were a deeply complicated series of transactions and affiliation switches tied to one television station sale.
Despite all of your haranguing, pleading, borderline canvassing and yelling at us (via bolded text and hitting the caps lock) over this deletion/merger request, it continues to fail to justify why this merits an article in its own right and should not a part of The CW rephrased to meet encyclopedic standards. Point blank, this article fails standards set up by the community, not one or two editors. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, agreed. Sorry if screaming wasn't a good idea, I was just fed up with him. Mer764Wiki (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry... But I'm NOT screaming... It's just a custom of mine's to put certain words and expressions in bold text for added emphasis... That's all... I'm just stressed and frustrated that my contributions are being discredited, discarded and taken for granted... Why am I even here then IF everything I write comes to question NO MATTER WHAT!?!? The 2001 Vancouver TV realignment has its own article and that was just one market... We're talking about nine different markets nationwide with eight of them involving CBS-owned stations... I still think everyone's rushing to judgment... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 18:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All caps and boldened text imply screaming or yelling by the poster. Even if I take your claim at face value, it’s still not helping your cause as to why this article should not be merged into another article or deleted. That’s not how Wikipedia works. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you Mer764Wiki, are fed up with ME and I have done NOTHING wrong!?!? What did I do to you personally!?!? Don't I have a right to express my concerns!?!? CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 18:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to get angry, I literally don't want any harm Mer764Wiki (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mer764Wiki @Sammi Brie @Nathan Obral Right now... I'm just disappointed and hurt by everyone's lack of appreciation for my efforts and concerns... Even IF I merge the material, how do I word it all properly!?!? CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 18:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Vancouver thing was one article cause it had unexpected changes on the Vancouver, BC and the Victoria, BC market, meanwhile, the thing about the CW was a mostly clean swap between, yes, 9 markets, but it wasn't as chaotic. I'm not disappointing you, It's just, we don't need to put it in much detail. That's all. Mer764Wiki (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mer764Wiki @Nathan Obral @Sammi Brie Why am I wasting my time then!?!? I'm unappreciated and you all are too strict... I can't please anybody... You're all silencing and judging me... My efforts were in vain... Nothing of what I do or say will convince you... And you didn't even bother to answer my question either... Where was the help in all this!?!? 🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 19:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your histrionics and irrational behavior on a very trivial matter like an article deletion/merge request is very concerning and crossing more than a few lines. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mer764Wiki @Nathan Obral @Sammi Brie By the way... That question was... How am I supposed to word the details properly if I were to merge everything!?!? And what's to stop me from believing and thinking that such material will be reverted and deleted afterwards!?!? I speak from experience because it has happened to me before... What do you have to say about that!?!? CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 19:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a possessive tool. It is a community project. If you want to do stuff that you can claim ownership on, have at it on a fanwiki, a blog or a personal website. But it is inherently wrong to claim ownership of pages or content on something that is easily available for anyone to read, edit or display elsewhere.
Even if you specifically merged the material into The CW—and to be blunt, there is a good chance that someone else might do it before you—any editor can go on and edit to whatever style they so choose and to fit both accepted standards by the community and encyclopedic standards as a whole. That is the reason why WP:TVS is a thing to begin with. We debate and form consensuses. We work as a team to make the articles in the subject matter better. No one goes it alone. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 19:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie @Mer764Wiki @Nathan Obral You're not telling me anything with the last reply... I never claimed ownership of anything... Nor did I ever claim it as a possessive site... Please do not put words in my mouth... The lack of appreciation and understanding offends me... There are so many sections and paragraphs in the main page that I would not know where to add them... I give up... You'll overrule anyway without anyone's approval... From now on moving forward, I'm going to think that every article I create for Wikipedia and every edit (big and small) that I make will immediately be discarded and deleted without consideration for the effort of the person and without any display of appreciation for said efforts... I'm done... Proceed with deletion because you're going to anyways... I just feel unappreciated... I'm sorry I even bothered going through the effort... I would not have even published the article if I knew that it was going to be subject such immediate, significant scrutiny... 🏳🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, reread your prior comments. “all that I have done” … “my work will be in vain” … “if I were to merge everything” … “if everything I write”
Despite what you claim, you have repeatedly claimed ownership of the article and are treating this process, which is how these are always handled, as a deeply personal attack against yourself and akin to a persecution. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 20:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Let's pull back for a bit and explain the issues at play.
Can I put the paragraph in The CW Article? Mer764Wiki (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the sources as well? (I forgot that part) Mer764Wiki (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mer764Wiki Again... So many sections and paragraphs... Where!?!? CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of the History section of the article. If that helps :) Mer764Wiki (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mer764Wiki @Nathan Obral @Sammi Brie I'm done talking about this... All of my reasoning was not good enough for anybody... My work was in vain... I'm not getting anywhere with this... I'm the minority here... I can see that I am not going to be appreciated for the efforts and trying to be helpful... I'm sorry that I even bothered anybody with this... Why am I wasting my time here!?!? Nothing of what I do is easy but nobody is seeing that... For the last time, I am done... 🏳🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re talking in circles, saying practically the same thing over and over, and it’s not helping your cause. Articles are not kept based on how much people stomp their feet (metaphorically) and pout and be all despondent, saying “all my work is in vain and you all don’t appreciate me” repeatedly. I got the hint the first time and you don’t need to repeatedly tag us in these comments; personally, I find it rather rude. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 20:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nathan Obral Well then... Consider this... This discussion is over... I never tried to be rude or mean to anyone but I'm tired and frustrated that there was a rush to judgment here... For the last time, you do whatever you want... I give up... I'm walking away from this now out of respect for everyone here before I take the matter more personal than I already have... 🏳🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I told you not to tag me, and yet you did to say once again the same thing you’ve already said over and over again on this page. Please do not tag me again after I specifically asked you not to. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 20:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize to everyone... I just wanted to be heard... But I am ending the discussion and letting everybody go about their own... Maybe next time, I'll either suggest an article or seek approval... Goodbye... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, you just have to realize that we can put a paragraph or two, about the 2023 affiliation changes in The CW article and it isn't bad. Yea it's confusing, however, you can't try to talk us into keeping it, we may (probably will) merge it to The CW article. Just, newt time, don't be rude, and don't tag me, I'm tired of that Mer764Wiki (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only tagged you all because I did not know if you would receive it or not... Do not assume that I'm being rude... It's not intentional and it's not my fault... I give up... I never tried to be mean or rude... But I have taken the matter so personal... I cannot carry on... I'm done... I'm done... I'm done... 🏳🏳🏳🏳 CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 20:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I think the article is well-cited and to be honest, Nexstar is trying to make it on par with the Big Four networks. It could be a turning point for the station much like Fox getting the rights to the NFL was for it. Jgera5 (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge for now - Per Sammi Brie. The article can always be restored if and when the merged content overwhelms the parent article, and it's if the realignment is well-cited as a turning point, via a split discussion. (Please note that I will not respond directly to badgering, but will instead report it to WP:ANI.) BilCat (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Mods - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How much more can I do or say!?!? Padding it with extra words may backfire too... I don't know... I have nothing else... Please refer to my "closing remarks"... CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 21:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't need to reply here, so please stop doing that. Assume I've read your "closing comments", which I have. All new articles have to go through a review process, and an AFD is one of the possible outcomes of that. It's not personal, and it's not about your time and effort. It's about whether a topic has enough independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant a separate article. That's all it is about. That said, an AFD can be a highly emotional process to go through, especially if a person has never been through one before. If this is your first, then your reaction is understandable. The best advice is for you to let the process process play out until it's closed, and not to respond to anyone here anymore unless you're asked some specific questions. BilCat (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rice, Lynette (May 5, 2023). "Eight CBS Stations To Ditch CW And Go Independent This Fall". Deadline. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  2. ^ "Nexstar Television Stations in Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Tampa to Become Affiliated with the CW Network on September 1". Nexstar Media Group. June 14, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  3. ^ "Mission Broadcasting To Acquire WADL-TV Detroit From Adell Broadcasting". Mission Broadcasting, Inc. broadcastone. May 18, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  4. ^ "Assignments". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission. May 17, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  5. ^ "The CW Network And Hearst Television Expand And Extend Affiliation Partnership". Nexstar Media Group. August 1, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  6. ^ "The CW Network and Gray Television Expand and Extend Affiliation Partnership". Nexstar Media Group. August 30, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  7. ^ "The CW Network and Sinclair Expand and Extend Affiliation Partnership". Nexstar Media Group, Inc. August 31, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.
  8. ^ "Nexstar's KAUT-TV in Oklahoma City To Become CW Network Affiliate on September 1". Nexstar Media Group, Inc. August 31, 2023. Retrieved September 1, 2023.

CLOSING REMARKS... I never claimed ownership of anything... Yes, I wrote it... How else would it have appeared!?!? I always thought tagging someone was the only way that a person would reply... I did not come here to make enemies nor did I come here with the purpose of intentionally and maliciously instigate a hostile situation... I just wanted to be heard and to be allowed to publish and edit on Wikipedia like everybody else and for my work to be appreciated like everyone else's... We cannot continue looking at these discussions one-dimensionally anymore... I really hoped for a clear and viable solution... There's a finer line between what contributions and edits are acceptable and what are not that I personally failed to consider and realize... If, where, how and why I went wrong, I'm open for further discussion, but on my talk page... I want to apologize to all for having run everyone involved with this discussion "through the ringer"... I did not plan on being so personal and upset about it... But I just want whatever I contribute to be treated equally and fairly like everyone else's... Understand!?!? CPLANAS1985 🇵🇷 🇺🇸 (Male • T • C • IG • FB) 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Subject has good enough sourcing in the article to pass WP:GNG as it currently stands. While this article isn't long per se, that isn't a reason by itself for a merge. Some minor cleanup is needed, but that is not what an AfD is for. User:Let'srun 21:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't mean to prolong this AFD but I saw the choices as No Consensus or relist for another week so that's what I'm choosing to do. Maybe some of these comments could be hatted if no one objects to that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: The above arguments can be based.--Jasulan.T TT me 13:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge: The current sources are mostly press releases with two Deadline articles. I've seen little evidence that there is widespread reliable sources discussing this. That being said 10 news stations in fairly big markets changing affiliations is somewhat noteworthy. If someone could find extended reliable coverage I would change my vote to keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note one other thing. It is possible that this article could be expanded to include several television stations changing affiliations due to the acquisition of local sports rights. See stations in Phoenix and Las Vegas. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This subject has received additional coverage not currently in the article, some of which have mentioned the local sports angle you referenced: [[38]][[39]][[40]]. Let'srun (talk) 15:35, 12 September 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. Nominator has withdrawn their nomination and articles will return to being Redirects. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rock the Nation World Tour[edit]

Rock the Nation World Tour (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 both WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG, as well as having relied on primary sources for more than five years.

I am also nominating the following related pages for also failing notability, WP:NTOUR, as well as having needed additional citations and/or relying on primary sources for more than ten years:

Rising Sun Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hit 'n Run Tour (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't understand, these pages were Redirects, which seems appropriate, and you reverted their status as Redirects to nominate them for deletion as articles. Please consider changing these back to Redirects. Also, at least one of the articles is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. None of these subjects meet the GNG, but the nom failed to heed WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Let'srun (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator I shall withdraw the AfD per the suggestion by Liz and per the statement by Let'srun, and restore the redirects for the articles. Any further discussion on the redirects are going to have to be at RfD. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:25, 13 September 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 00:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Willis[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant winner. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 9 September 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 War of the Outlaws. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dano-Norwegian War[edit]

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

Does not disambiguate Dano-Norwegian War. Unnecessary disambiguation page. Lightoil (talk) 02:40, 9 September 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_September_9&oldid=1176112891"