Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< January 24 January 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Timeline of Opportunity#Heat Shield Rock and stuck in sand. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vostok (crater)[edit]

Vostok (crater) (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)

Extremely minor impact feature. According to a recent paper, there are over 90 million impact craters greater than 25 metres in size across the entirety of Mars [1]. In comparison, there are only 385,000 craters over 1 km in diameter.[2] Very little to say about the crater itself. Only really notable as part of the mission of Opportunity (rover), I propose a redirect to Timeline_of_Opportunity#Heat_Shield_Rock_and_stuck_in_sand where it is already covered. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Not notable as a geographic feature, can just be discussed as part of the Rover's path. Reywas92Talk 00:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable at all. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Reywas. The crater is only significant in the context of Opportunity. –dlthewave ☎ 16:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Reywas. PianoDan (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Redirects are cheap. Femke (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom, it makes sense and is co vered there. Star Mississippi 17:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Credit to Dotx3 for bringing the article up to snuff. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United World College East Africa[edit]

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

The article is only referenced to 2 primary sources and one that is an extremely trivial directory listing. When I did I WP:BEFORE I couldn't find anything that constituted in-depth, direct coverage either, just some extremely trivial name drops in more school directories and articles about other things. Nothing to justify the article though. Adamant1 (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs substantial improvement, but I would argue against deletion. This school was one of the first international schools in Africa and the first IB World School on the continent; It was where the International Baccalaureate's "Middle Years Program" was developed; and as a member of the United World Colleges group of schools is part of a notable and influential educational movement. I will endeavor to improve the article with more emphasis on these topics to highlight what is notable about it, and find sources/references to back them up to increase verifiability. Dotx3 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By all means if you can find multiple in-depth, secondary references to help this pass the notability requirements then cool. Notability isn't something "being the first whatever" or verifiability though. There has to be multiple, reliable, secondary, in-depth references discussing it. Personally I couldn't find any. Maybe you can though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a stab at re-writing the article with a whole bunch of new references (largely in academic literature), which hopefully does a better job of representing the notability of the school for an encyclopedic context (although, as always, further improvements can always be done!). Hoping this pushes the discussion clearly towards keep. Dotx3 (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After improvement by Dotx3 this demonstrates compliance with WP:NORG. Sources since added significantly improved the article and show WP:SIGCOV Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14 Reels Plus[edit]

14 Reels Plus (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)

Sources in the page (and the numerous others on the web) are all routine announcements of movies they produced. Apart from this news bit, I couldn't find anything that meets WP:NCORP. Company website itself is dead. hemantha (brief) 12:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking the WP:NCORP article. I agree that the sources provided are mostly announcement of movies. I recommend adding the Template:Notability on it for a while instead of nominating it for deletion, so that we get some time to fix the article and make it compliant. I found some more articles apart from the one you linked that might meet WP:NCORP. The production company is still currently active in Telugu cinema. They make notable movies in Telugu cinema and even have some movies scheduled for release in 2022. Thanks - krZna (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could list the sources here (or even better add it to the article) so that they can be evaluated. I'll withdraw the nom if there is significant coverage. It's a 12 year old company and the page has existed for 10 years; I doubt a tag would bring forth new sources. hemantha (brief) 05:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 18:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Highking stated, with none of the references helping to establish notability, this article does not pass WP:NCORP. Rollidan (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 09:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Videocracy[edit]

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

WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEO. The cited sources are passing mentions without significant coverage. Daask (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first citation contains the word in its title, hardly a 'passing mention'. Malick78 (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The two references to the term in the article are used in such a way to indicate that the authors recognized that the term was not a new term of scholarly discussion but instead a provocative label. The usages in the two articles cited in this discussion are similar in that there is no analysis, definition, or discussion of videocracy as a concept but instead the term is used solely in the title again as an attention-grabber. I cannot find any usages of videocracy that do not match this type of usage, which indicates that not even the authors that use it think it is a useful term that would justify an article here under our standards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don Harris (Ex-Councilor)[edit]

Don Harris (Ex-Councilor) (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:NPOLITICIAN FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He also made prominent participation in New Mexico Family Law. Sumneeb (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete. by User:Anthony Bradbury (non-admin closure) —MdsShakil (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RnaR[edit]

AfDs for this article:
RnaR (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 still stand by my last afd.

"Non notable YouTuber. Having 1 million subscriber doesn’t mean you are automatically notable and will get an wikipedia article. There are some refs in the article but they are all primary source (they are interviews with the article's subject making them not independent from the subject). I didn’t find any significant coverage that are independent of the subject. Subject didn’t won any major award or anything. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER."

Since the last afd, only thing changed is that he got a non-notable award. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neocorelight, MdsShakil, Joseph2302, and Lugnuts: Courtesy ping who participated in the last afd. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Any POV issues should be handled as an editorial matter, outside of AfD. RL0919 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Proudfoot[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a minor party leader, who is not reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:NPOL #9. Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to the leader of every political party, especially those who are leaders of parties lacking political representation or which have never contested elections. The primary sources about him largely concern the Northern Independence Party rather than Proudfoot directly, his personal twitter account, and the two sources which directly interview him are not enough to establish notability. Good material for the NIP page, but not enough for a stand-alone page on Mr Proudfoot himself. BitterGiant (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. While the party has received independent coverage in reliable sources, he hasn't and has not even stood as a candidate for the party. Emeraude (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are two profiles of Proudfoot - one in The Northern Echo, one in the National World (possibly less reliable) - which probably puts this over the line for NPOL or GNG. There is a profile of Proudfoot in The London Economic although for some reason that website has been blacklisted by WP - never heard of this site so feel free to disregard. A story about Proudfoot was published in The Jewish Chronicle. Other sources which are mainly about NIP, have big sections speaking about Proudfoot and his life: New Statesman #1, New Statesman #2, The Independent, The National. Finally there are a couple of passing references in regard to his academic work: [3] [4] [5]. If deleted, I am almost certain it will be recreated in a year or so. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree entirely with the above observations and believe deletion is not appropriate. The above suggestion that NIP should itself be deleted, despite the fact consensus prevented this, suggests questionable motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:52CF:D82E:8B7:78B8:8A67:5C0D (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC) — 2A04:4A43:52CF:D82E:8B7:78B8:8A67:5C0D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep per Vladimir. And no, NIP is not getting deleted. Unreal7 (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with the delete arguments entirely and concor with Vladimir's perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of whether or not this article should be deleted, it's clear people have issues with the article's neutrality. As previously said here, it's like a puff piece, and I'm inclined to agree. I'm also particularly suspicious of the amount of IP users and SPAs that seem to be policing NIP articles (and the irony of being an IP user myself is not lost on me, but I've observed several attempts by NIP to encourage edit warring via Twitter. That is not to say every IP and SPA has a bad intent, and we should assume good faith, but it cannot be ignored). 148.252.129.27 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Heron (yacht)[edit]

Blue Heron (yacht) (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)

Individual crafts are rarely considered notable and I do not see any coverage that puts this past WP:GNG, although it is hard to find. TartarTorte 17:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas W. Bifwoli[edit]

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

A non notable civil servant. Does not meet WP:GNG. Does not have coverage in reliable sources and the article is only made up of primary sources Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 16:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to ASUS. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Connector[edit]

Q-Connector (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 (1 primary, no secondaries) mini-stub article covering a non-notable product (WP:PRODUCT) Headphase (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpinningSpark 11:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spinningspark. Although ASUS specific some of the headers look generic. Actually noting Jim Grisham as I was writing this I was thinking what a good usefulish idea not that I build much nowadays.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete. Poorly sourced and not even really a product, merely an adapter included with some motherboards from the company that made it. Doesn't meet WP:N guidelines. Andrewbethke (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a motherboard related page. Gusfriend (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merge, where to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge- Merge somewhere into relevant ASUS Products. It is not necessary to have an article for it and it lacks reference VincentGod11 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This article can be merged with an Asus Product article. Juggyevil (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After several weeks' debate, there doesn't appear to be any agreement that the sources presented justify a standalone article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Marsh (writer)[edit]

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

This game designer still fails WP:GNG. My search yielded no significant coverage; the previous AfD closed as no consensus on the grounds that, per the only Keep !vote, "he had been the assistant editor of White Dwarf for 27 years, the games magazine run by Games Workshop, for 27 editions (and chief editor for 4)". Notability is unfortunately WP:NOTINHERITED. Pilaz (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • On what policy grounds? Pilaz (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to White Dwarf (magazine) - His very brief tenure as editor of White Dwarf is his only true claim to notability, and there really are not enough sources on him that would justify an independent article - most of the sources being used are simply game/book credits and not actual coverage. His association with White Dwarf is covered in the main article on the magazine already, however, both mentioning him in the body of the article as a regular contributor as well as including him in the list of editors, so Redirecting there seems like a reasonable thing to do. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; we're over-interpreting not-inherited here: it's difficult to separate the person from what they did, and their lasting influence. During the time that he was assistant editor of White Dwarf, the parent company (Games Workshop) presided over the introduction of Dungeons and Dragons to the UK, and more-or-less single-handedly created the modern table-top/role-play games movement, which is huge, and of enormous legitimate interest to our readers. We're greatly hampered in looking for sources because this happened pre-internet, and his name is extremely common. We could redirect if White Dwarf had been his only contribution to the birth of gaming, but he did other things before and after, too, and those do not belong in the article on White Dwarf. If we get rid of this article, readers will have to piece together his existence from White Dwarf, DragonLords and the Time Lord game article, which is a messy situation much better avoided. Elemimele (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The works provided by Elemimele above seem sufficient to establish a body of work to meet WP:NCREATIVE#3 — 2pou (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: notability requires verifiable evidence. Where's the evidence that Ian Marsh played the influential roles attributed above? Why is there no coverage of it? I find it a bit of a stretch to claim that because he was an assistant director for a magazine whose parent company allegedly "single-handedly" introduced a game in one of the 193 countries of the world, and that game happens to be Dungeons and Dragons, we ought to give him a pass and conveniently forgive the lack of coverage. Marsh edited the magazine for three editions, meaning three months: judging by the fact that White Dwarf is currently on its 469th issue, it means that Marsh was the editor of the magazine for 0.6% of its tenure. He played a minor role, and not a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work as WP:NCREATIVE#3 demands. The absence of coverage reflects this fundamental fact. Pilaz (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a sidenote, it's not obvious to me that White Dwarf constitutes a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" (WP:NCREATIVE#3) either. The fact that the article hasn't sorted out its lack of citations since 2013 is quite telling, in my opinion. Pilaz (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I would recommend that editors not display their ignorance by nominating things that they don't know enough about to tell whether the current state of an article reflects reality or should be improved. If you don't know White Dwarf and its cultural significance as a gaming magazine arguably second only to Dragon (magazine), you really should think twice about nominating associated persons lest it simply make you look uninformed. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nom has misunderstood NOTINHERITED, which proceeds in one direction (from author to work, in this case). As NAUTHOR and other SNGs indicate, notability can indeed be "inherited" from work to creator. TimeLords alone would qualify Marsh as Notable. Newimpartial (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, WP:INHERITED makes it very clear that notability requires verifiable evidence. You want to apply NAUTHOR#3 here? Then you should show that Timelords is notable, despite having been templated for original research and lack of sources in 2012 and 2014. White Dwarf is a "significant or well-known collective body of work", despite suffering from a lack of citations since 2013? Prove it! All your claims of inherited notability are groundless without evidence. Pilaz (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, the closer should keep in mind the special cases section of WP:BIO. If only SNGs are deemed valid, the guideline recommends merging into the closest article, not keeping. Pilaz (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no requirement, in NBIO or WP:N, to delete or merge articles that do not meet the GNG/NBASIC: this is one of the urban legends of Wikipedia.
      • And setting Time Lords aside for the moment, there is no doubt in my mind (or that of anyone else familiar with the sources) that White Dwarf constitutes a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" - it is discussed extensively in volume one of Apelcline's Designers & Dragons (2014), for example, and is also discussed in Carbonell's Dread Trident: Tabletop Role-Playing Games and the Modern Fantastic (2019), among other independent RS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The special cases section of WP:BIO explicitly mandates merging as a course of action when WP:BASIC is not met and another SNG is met, on the contrary. As for your sources, Carbonell's book only gives a passing mention page 174 to White Dwarf. Does Appelcline also treat the subject as "extensively"? If you could provide page numbers, that would probably be useful for others to review the substance of your claims. In RS, I found only passing mentions for White Dwarf, while the parent company Games Workshop has been reported on by RS and is in my view notable. Pilaz (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • According to the index, the page references to White Dwarf in Appelcline, vol 1. are 137-47 (a ten page section), 33, 38, 120, 149, 152, 195 248, 351 and 356. To me, that qualifies as extensive. Additionally, I disagree with your interpretation of Carbonell as a "passing mention" in terms of policy.
          • Also, according to your interpretation of policy, all the articles that pass NPROF but fail NBASIC must be merged into other articles; however, this is essentially never done, suggesting a flaw in your interpretation of WP:NBIO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for taking the time. The appendix is online for all to view, from the author's website. White Dwarf gets five paragraphs on pages 143-144 in a section titled The Birth of White Dwarf: 1977–1978. The remnant part of the article is used to describe the evolution that the parent company went through in 1977 and 1978. The rest are mostly namechecks, since the magazine in itself is not as interesting to the writer as the pieces written in it. This book no doubt contributes to White Dwarf meeting the GNG, however, thanks to those 5 paragraphs narrating its origin. However, we're still a bit short on sources to meet the multiple part of the GNG, since Carbonell's reference is unfortunately not significant coverage ("A further important expansion of the narrative happens in White Dwarf #161 [...]" is not a sentence about White Dwarf, but about what I assume is a game). Are there any other sources that discuss White Dwarf in detail? As for WP:NACADEMIC, it stresses in the lead that it is an independent guideline from WP:BIO and that meeting any of the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC is sufficient for notability. Very far from BIO where the guideline takes a case-by-case approach to SNGs counting towards notability. If, say, an academic failed NACADEMIC but was part of a notable band (without meeting the GNG), then his content would likely be merged to the band article. Look at it from another perspective: if Ian Marsh was a notable individual in virtue of his editing of White Dwarf, then why is he virtually not covered anywhere? He receives a rather modest acknowledgement in Appelcline's book, where on page 146 we learn that he succeeded Livingstone as head of the magazine, and that he quit because the company moved to Nottingham. That's everything that Marsh gets in that book, which namechecks White Dwarf so many times and has 5 paragraphs dedicated to it. If you have access to Appelcline's 80's, 90's and successive volumes, could you look up Ian Marsh to see if he appears in the index? Pilaz (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't understand your reading of NACADEMIC, which is part of NBIO and is therefore covered by the same subsections as is NAUTHOR, which you are reading as obliging an arricle merge.
              • As far as the prerelease of Vol. 1 of Appelcline is concerned, it does not contain the relevant 10 pages, and the neither does the version on the personal website. The published version contains 8 paragraphs about the origin of the magazine (not 5), with additional discussion of the evolving content and role of the magazine in the rest of the 10 pages. There is even a two-paragraph discussion of Marsh's deciaion not to accompany the magazine when the company moved to Nottingham. I haven't looked for mentions in the other volumes, but that already contributes to personal notability as it is not a TRIVIALMENTION. Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • For WP:PROF, please read the last paragraph of the lead, where it states independence from BIO; I actually intended to talk about WP:PROF all along, and instead used NACADEMIC incorrectly. Apologies for the confusion. As for the rest of your comment, I have made good faith efforts to look for sources, but you seem to assume that I have not read the actual chapter, which I have in its digital form, and I am not providing the link due to obvious copyright concerns. The latter three paragraphs are only tangentially about the magazine, and the rest are passing mentions. Marsh's claim to fame is to have held, for four months, the editorship of a magazine whose notability is half-proven, and to have thrown a fit because he didn't want to move to Nottingham. That's the extent of the sources we have for Ian Marsh: an SNG about being the editor of a partially sourced magazine. As a friendly reminder, WP:SNG is clear that articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, and for Marsh the unfortunate reality is that no significant coverage can be found. SNGs are an indicator of notability, but as the closers of AfDs about athletes have written this year,SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met (AFD), and As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG (AFD). This is my last reply to you, as I don't understand if you're uninterested in looking deeper for GNG coverage of Marsh or avoiding looking for it since that could lead to you changing your mind. Neither is a bad thing. Pilaz (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The indisputable fact that some people have closed AfDs without understanding the relationship between SNGs and GNG set out in WP:SNG is less significant, per WP:CONLEVEL, than the actual text of the guideline. GNG/NBASIC coverage is simply not required, per policy, to retain an article about a person who meets one of the specific NBIO criteria (besides NATHLETE). Where people have produced or are associated with multiple works, as in this case, there is no natural Merge target anyway and it is simply more encyclopedic to retain an article appropriately wikilinked to others - this is an example of what NBIO refers to as a satisfying explanation - in other words, an explicit rationale for a separate article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the above arguments, as well as per WP:BAND (well, it's another creative SNG) #6, which is essentially what Elemimele is arguing: even if the GNG is debatable, there's enough RS coverage that belongs in multiple separate notable articles such that merging to any one of them is inappropriate. This is why the GNG is a guideline, not a policy: such exceptions exist. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing any significant independent third party media coverage about him, and a simple Google search turns up nothing either. I subsequently did a targeted search including the Time Lord phrase, and found no coverage. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit surprised at that. When I do a google search I find quite a lot. Most of it is pretty rubbish as sourcing, but to give a rough flavour, here's a book review of the game by some dr Who magazine of the time: [6], despite being published in 1991, the game is still available on Amazon today, 30 years later; other reviews [7]; a lot of the stuff I find is blog-stuff so not reliable [8] but the fact so much exists suggests that Ian Marsh's game did make some impact. The game and Marsh are also discussed in this book: [9]. I haven't gone googling extensively, these are just typical from the first 2 pages of hits. I'm not saying the sources are great. They're not, they're mostly terrible. But we're talking games in 1991 here, so I wouldn't expect a write-up in the Times literary supplement. Elemimele (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fourth source is a great find and contributes to SIGCOV of Time Lord. My parallel search uncovered not much else other than that. I also doubt that the review in the New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club magazine contributes to the GNG of Time Lord. Pilaz (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there seems to be genuine disagreement over whether this person's body of work is significant, this discussion has not directly examined whether we are better served by a standalone page or not; even significant figures often have no available biographical material, and readers are better served by a redirect. Discussion of this question would be helpful. Furthermore, it isn't enough for a game (or games) that Marsh contributed to to be notable; he must also have contributed substantively; and whether this is the case has not been discussed enough either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to drop out at this point, not in a huff, but because I feel there's a risk of me getting into Bludgeon territory by continuing to say the same things. I did attempt to discuss the questions raised by Vanamonde93, but perhaps not clearly. My issue with a redirect rather than a stand-alone page, is where is it going to redirect to? If Marsh were only known for White Dwarf it could redirect there, but we also have DragonLords before, the Time Lord game after that, and Oozlum games too, none of which belong in the White Dwarf article. If we redirect to White Dwarf we're obliged to remove all this additional information, which means we lose the overview of Marsh's place in the development of gaming, something that I think is of legitimate interest to our readers, and supportable by references (albeit not the best). In case of a redirect, those who'd like to know more about Marsh can only hope that some of his other activities may prove to be notable, and get their own articles; Time Lord appears to be teetering on the brink of notability. In this best-case scenario, our readers will have to piece together Marsh's contributions from several different articles, which isn't ideal. At worst, we end up in a situation where we decide that Marsh's work as a whole is not notable because it consists of a lot of individual bits, each of which is not-quite-notable - a sort of divide-and-conquer deletion-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts approach to AfD. I'm honestly not trying to bludgeon a point of view here; if Marsh gets deleted, so be it. But I think his activities are relevant to gaming when taken as a whole, not as individual bits, which is why I personally favour the stand-alone article. Elemimele (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm also aware of bludgeoning, so I will keep this short because I don't think I have touched upon the relisting comments. I think Marsh substantively contributed to Time Lord and DragonLords as the co-creator of the game and co-founder of the magazine; I don't think he made a substantive contribution to White Dwarf given his short time there. Since all those creations suffer from notability issues, I don't know where a redirect would fit best, but given that the most information we have on him comes from his short time at White Dwarf, a redirect there would likely be okay. Alternatively, Time Lord could be a good candidate. At any rate, I don't think we are well-served with a standalone Wikipedia article whose only independent sourced content is that he left White Dwarf because he was bothered by the move of the parent company to Nottingham. Pilaz (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. White Dwarf and Time Lord are both clearly significant, notable works, and independent, Reliable Sources (namely Appelcline and Muir) document Marsh's contribution to both, thus meeting WP:NAUTHOR and NBASIC/GNG. Meanwhile, the other RS cited in this discussion also offer material that can be used in the article, which - rather than some lofty notion of importance - is the bar established by WP:SIGCOV.
    • AfD evaluates the topic, not the current article, and the topic here is clearly Notable. Also, because there are multiple CREATIVE contributions, each of which has its own article, no merger/redirect scenario is as encyclopaedic a treatment (or as helpful for the reader) as a separate article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is nothing new in your reply (to me, unsurprisingly) that you haven't shared before, and since I believe I have already addressed the points about notability that you brought up, my recommended reading to you is WP:BADGER. Pilaz (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (my Keep !vote is noted above.) Regarding the relist comment, I believe that maintaining the article is a better option than a redirect. A redirect will face WP:X or Y problems given the options provided that qualified the subject via NCREATIVE. -- 2pou (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My reading of the article fails to find anything that would make the subject meet NBIO / CREATIVE / etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect if an appropriate target can be decided. Simply not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NBIO, no actual evidence of being notable has been provided (lots of blanket assertions though). Fram (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added several more sources and more material to indicate his notability. His British zine DragonLords received a favourable review by Gary Gygax, and was notable enough in the British games industry that Ian Livingstone, in the pages of White Dwarf, noted that Marsh was ceasing publication of his zine. Marsh's final act as editor of White Dwarf -- a hidden acrostic telling the new Managing Director of the company to sod off -- is notable enough to be mentioned by several sources. (I have chosen one.) Guinness323 (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Following the addition of several new sources by Guinness323, I have compiled the assessment table below to see if the present sources help Marsh meet WP:NBIO. The table does not explore the notability of the creations of Marsh. Pilaz (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Fawcett, Neil (2006). "The Wargames Journal Interview". Wargames Journal. No. 4. Rebel Publishing. pp. 70–75. No Interview. Good for WP:ABOUTSELF, but usually not considered independent. See the essay WP:INTERVIEW and this discussion. Yes Yes ✘ No
"DragonLords Scrap Book". The Grognard Files. 25 July 2017. Retrieved 25 January 2022. ? No Self-published. WP:SPIP No Passing mentions ✘ No
Gygax, Gary (August 1982). "Two UK magazines are jolly good gaming journals". Dragon. TSR, Inc. (63): 58. ? Is the co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons an independent source on Dungeons and Dragons fan magazines? Yes As a subject-matter expert. No Passing mentions of Ian Marsh, but significant coverage of his fanzine DragonLords ✘ No
Hall, Charlie (8 October 2021). "One of tabletop gaming's most prestigious awards has gone missing". Polygon. Vox Media. Retrieved 25 January 2022. ~ Information on Marsh comes from game designer and publisher James Wallis, who received the "Diana Jones Award" from Marsh Yes No Very little to call it significant coverage; we biographical information we get from Marsh is that he received the award and gave it away after getting married ✘ No
Livinstone, Ian (April 1985). "News". White Dwarf. No. 52. Games Workshop. p. 39. "Since joining the White Dwarf team, Ian Marsh no longer has time to publish his zine Dragonlords. So it's Dragonlords RIP after issue 22." No Marsh was already working for White Dwarf and for Livingstone when Livingstone wrote this Yes No ✘ No
Shannon Appelcline (2011). Designers & Dragons (p.146 of linked edition, recommend CTRL+F) Mongoose Publishing. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-907702-58-7. Yes Yes ~ Only information about Marsh is his short tenure as editor and resignation due to the imminent relocation of the magazine to Nottingham, plus the "sod off" acrostic. However, the text doesn't address Marsh "directly and in detail", since the primary focus of the paragraph is the White Dwarf magazine, so to say it partially counts towards the GNG is generous. ~ Partial
Marsh, Ian (August–September 1986). "The Town Crier". Adventurer (3). No Marsh is the author here ? ? ✘ No
"Time Lord (role playing book)". The Time Scales. Retrieved 25 January 2022. Yes No Fan website No Passing mention ✘ No
Muir, John Kenneth (2015). A Critical History of Doctor Who on Television. McFarland. p. 428. ISBN 9781476604541. Yes Yes No Passage primarily about Time Lords, but Ian Marsh receives no coverage beyond being named as author ✘ No
"Editorial page". Strategy Plus. February 1991. p. 4. No Marsh was employed there at the time Yes ? Probably not, same as source below, only a listing in the credits ✘ No
"Editorial page". Computer Games Strategy Plus. No. 13. December 1991. p. 6. No Yes No Only listed in editorial staff ✘ No
"Black Hat Miniatures". Miniatures Workshop Lost Minis Wiki. Retrieved 25 January 2022. ? No User-generated wiki No No mention ✘ No
"Fighting 15s". Miniatures Workshop Lost Minis Wiki. Retrieved 25 January 2022. ? No User-generated wiki No Passing mention ✘ No
Paul, Mason (2017), "A Case Study of the Influence of Fandom: How Role-players Helped Develop Computer Games in Britain", 人間文化: 愛知学院大学人間文化研究所紀要 (Human Culture: Bulletin of the Institute for Human Culture), Nagoya, Japan: Aichi Gakuin University: 7. ? Assistant editor at White Dwarf while Ian Marsh was editor. See interview of Mason: Alexander Ballingall, "Building Strong Foundations (Paul Mason interview)", Fighting Fantazine Issue 10 (pp. 13-14; p.15). Yes No Two mentions of Marsh; does not address Marsh "directly and in detail" per WP:SIGCOV ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Added assessment of Daranios' source. Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is there a question on the table about Dungeons & Dragons fan magazines? No such magazines are under discussion here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I have doubts about the independence of the review of a fan magazine of a role-playing game made by creator of said roleplaying game. Since the magazine in question was the creation of the subject of this AfD, by proxy, I question the independence of the source. At any rate, it's worth mentioning the fact that Ian Marsh is not the subject of the piece and that it therefore can't count towards meeting the GNG. I changed it from independent to "questionable" because I also changed my mind at the AfD for DragonLords, for the sake of consistency. Pilaz (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is symptomatic of the problems with the table, though, (which is a very fancy way of presenting one editor's opinion about the sourcing, and nothing more). In this instance, Gygax is independent of Marsh whether or not he is independent of DragonLords. If there is content in Gygax that is usable for this (Marsh) article, that meets the relevant sourcing requirement. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just because a source meets the relevant sourcing requirement for an article doesn't mean it automatically counts towards notability. For example you can have primary sources in an article, but they won't help to meet WP:GNG. Pilaz (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, primary sources don't count towards notability. On the other hand, being short on the topic does not automatically disqualify a secondary source from counting towards WP:GNG, as long as it is not trivial, as spelled out by WP:NBIO. Notability can be built up by several shorter sources. Daranios (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:GNG explicitely tells us that the article topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (emphasis mine). Daranios (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added one more source found by Google Scholar. I think the remaining reliable independent sources together (and I personally think Polygon is fine here) provide enough material for more than "half a paragraph". Therefore they fullfill WP:WHYN, as well as WP:NBIO, even if they are individually short: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I don't think they are trivial. Together with the non-independent sources we clearly have a non-stubby article and it would be a service to noone to delete it. Daranios (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep with Wargames Journal and Designers & Dragons we have two (barely) acceptable sources IMO. With all the other ones--and there are plenty, we have enough to write a decent article. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, why was this relisted even once, let alone twice? Yes, it's benefited by good work and new sources during the relistings, but was still put in jeopardy by the continuing fact of this discussion's existence, which fell very quickly within the WP:SHADOWOFKEEP (a semi-fine essay in progress, no thank you I'd say, wait until it's done and makes more sense). Please. let's delete one sentence pages about someone's doll from the 19th-century before nominating - and more importantly defending a nomination well past its prime - pages like this which play well with others (literally). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios' argument. Even if no sources stand out, there certainly is enough here to write a good article. I don't think deleting this would improve Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvement of article and analysis of sources particularly by Guinness323, Daranios, Hobit, and others. BOZ (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article and sourcing is not what it was when nominated for deletion. I agree with the other editors on their reasoning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see there is a big pile on, with the Article Rescue Squadron leading the charge, in their desire to save this poorly sourced article. I've seen a lot of statements for this WP:BLP stating it is notable, yet I've not seen one quality WP:SECONDARY source that I can say for sure, that he is notable. Lets looks at the references:
  • Ref 1. The majority of the article is based on this reference and reference 3, yet reference 1 is an interview, that fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. It is not independent.
  • Ref 2. The GROGNARD Files That is a blog. It is not a reference.
  • Ref 3. "A Case Study of the Influence of Fandom: How Role-players Helped Develop Computer Games in Britain This is a low cited paper. It is states in two sentences Ian Marsh as editor of White Dwarf, and former White Dwarf editor Ian Marsh took over. That is the extent of it. It was a temporary position, so the paper focuses on Livingstone. It non-notable as a source. It is another passing mention.
  • Ref 4. It states Yet Another Fantasy & Sci-Fi Roleplaying Magazine, is published under the auspices of three irreverent gamers — Marc Gascoigne, Mike Lewis, and Ian Marsh It is a single column with a slight overflow to the next and states it is selling for 50p. It is nother passing mention and is non-notable.
  • Ref 5. Diana Jones Award It stated But the leader of the team was a chap called Ian Marsh, who would go on to become the editor of White Dwarf. and When Marsh got married some years later, it was time to give up childish things That is the extent of it, and that a passing mention.
  • Ref 6. Similar content. A passing mention.
  • Ref 7. Designers & Dragons Shannon Appelcline (2011). Designers & Dragons. Mongoose Publishing. p. 48. It states Ian Marsh succeeded Ian Livingstone as White Dwarf’s editor, but he only lasted for four issues. In issue #77 (May 1986), it was confirmed that White Dwarf too was moving to Nottingham. This alienated and angered even more staff members. Ian Marsh and Albie Fiore were just a few of the GW staff members who opted not to move with the magazine. That is non in-depth, passing mention.
  • Ref 8 Marsh, Ian (August–September 1986). "The Town Crier". Adventurer. He is the author. I couldn't locate any review of it.

That is all i'm doing. Of the first the 8 references, not one of them is a secondary source. 1 is interview, 1 is a WP:SPS source, 1 is a blog, 5 are passing mentions and 1 is not-notable as a reference, as it is book

The only reason I think it's taken off, is that they're is a lot of sentiment for people who read that magazine. Dungeon's and dragons were and are massive in the UK, but that doesn't make this person notable. If that article was new, it would sent back to draft, because they're is not one clear secondary source. scope_creepTalk 00:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your dismissal of the multi-sentence comment in Appelcline as a passing mention is in no way supported by the text or role of WP:SIGCOV. I would suggest that all editors weigh your intervention with appropriate caution as a result. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post up the details to see what it says. Yip, it is multi-sentence, but it is not 2 pages of a critical analysis. It doesn't constitute an in-depth reference. scope_creepTalk 02:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't anything in SIGCOV about 2 pages of critical analysis, though. And the canonical example of what isn't SIGCOV is a factoid that isn't even the topic of the sentence in which it is mentioned. The Appelcline reference used here is significantly more useful to this article than that. Newimpartial (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is about 5-6 sentences. That is not in-depth, and trying to spin it up to something it's not, is disingenuous. scope_creepTalk 02:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, 5 or 6 usable sentences about a subject are going to meet SIGCOV. I would suggest that any other interpretation of the guideline is disingenuous, except that that could be construed as a personal attack. Newimpartial (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for the most part with scope_creep on sources 1, 2 and 8 of their list. But about the other 5: They are secondary sources - if they are short or long does not change their nature. The quoted sections also fall short of the actually relevant content. E.g.:
Ref 3. also says that Marsh edited the fanzine DragonLords, that that was his stepping stone to Games Workshop, and that he later was editor of Games International/Strategy Plus.
Ref. 5 also says that Marsh was the first recipient of the trophy (and under which circumstances) and that he passed it on to Willis.
Now I don't say that each source has a lot of material on Ian Marsh. But why do we have requirements for length? So that we do not have too little material to write an article proper. Those sources together make up more "than half a paragraph" or "a few sentences", so the spirit of WP:GNG is fullfilled. And combining short sources is a valid way to go. Daranios (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only saving grace of the keep analysis that states is the the nature of the sources from this fringe culture; its gaming, the sources are not going to be perfect, in the least. However, at the same time, Marsh' collegeue, Livingstone has more coverage. I would suggest a merge. scope_creepTalk 03:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to White Dwarf (magazine); having looked into the source assessment table above, it seems to be accurate and demonstrate that WP:GNG has not been met. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the best efforts of the canvass keep-voters squadron, WP:BIO isn't met and isn't going to be. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Kuzmik[edit]

Oleksandr Kuzmik (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his career being limited to 2 games on the Ukrainian third tier Geschichte (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unfortunately I don't have access to any offline Ukrainian sources but internet searches of the Ukrainian name provided don't seem to come back with anything useful. Given that he barely crosses the line for the weak presumption of notability provided by NFOOTBALL with his third tier Ukrainian appearances and, furthermore, given that even more contemporary footballers with a similar professional record have been found to fail GNG, I am inclined to vote delete. If, of course, better sourcing is found, the article should stay. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deplike Guitar FX[edit]

Deplike Guitar FX (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 sign of notability (WP:GNG). MarioGom (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete found and added a couple of additional sources, but there just doesn't seem to be enough in-depth coverage. there is nothing about the company, it's founders, etc. All info is about the app. If someone finds additional coverage, I am willing to upgrade my vote. Chelokabob (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of further additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is WP:ADMASQ and there's no significant coverage in reliable sources because it has no historical impact. FalconK (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Hawthorne[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joey Hawthorne (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)

PRODded with the following rationale "Unable to identify sourcing to meet GNG. His book might be notable, but he's only one of several co-authors" . However @Salvidrim!:, who is some kind of (wonderful) history ninja found a 2005 AfD. Different enough that it's not a G4, but the same concerns remain so we're here. Thanks all Star Mississippi 14:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for all the same reasons as the 2005 AfD. The book is probably notable, but Hawthorne isn't. casualdejekyll (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Each of the refs here is merely a name check. However, I admit that I do not know where significant news would appear for poker players, so if anyone can reveal such sources this could become a keeper. Lamona (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More notable references have to be added to the information present in the article. Fails the notability criteria.Timetraveller80 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misscatylove[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability found, mostly primary sources (Twitter, Soundcloud), blogs, or short mentions. Fram (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifies for WP:MUS for coverage on Wiwibloggs and Eurovisionworld, two verified sources for Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision (which is the project at hand), as well as several other sources not listed on the article; "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician [...] itself". There's also the element of recent relevance surrounding their entry. Lavren2002 (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the dubiousness of seeing something like Wiwibloggs as a good enough source; the Eurovisionworld source is an extremely passing mention, not a source where Misscatylove is actually the subject. Fram (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently fails WP:BLP1E, that event being the Moldovan selection for Eurovision 2022, which this person has (been?) withdrawn from. Information in this article should be merged into Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 article. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 15:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Misscatylove simply isn't notable enough to have their own article. Granfcanuon (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do actually believe that they do, judging by their notability to the Eurovision Song Contest. I do not oppose merging with Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022, but a scandal of this magnitude is notable for at least its own section, in my perception probably an article as well (since there's notability to the 2023 selection as well). I've now added more reliable sources to the article to back up previously less credible parts of it. Please reconsider. Lavren2002 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That quote just shows how relevant she is to this one event. Were they to come back next year, publish music, and be covered in other publications for other events, they can get their own article. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 16:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but that event alone makes them notable enough, to me. Right now, and probably for a while now, "Misscatylove" is one of the most immediately recognised names to the Eurovision community because of how rapidly they became the centre of attention. And again, I can understand why this would be merged with the page for the 2022 Moldovan selection itself, but we could be killing two birds with one stone here. Lavren2002 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:C5C0:107E:C3F2:3084:97CA:E6D9:4432 (talk) [reply]
  • Speedy delete - no indication of notability in the slightest. Coverage for one event (Moldova's NF) is absolutely not enough to make someone notable. This is so egregiously unnotable I'd go as far as to say it could be A7'd. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2.1 million views on Twitter is a credible claim of significance. Certainly not A7 material. Mlb96 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is an unproven statement. The only citation the page used to claim their "song" has "2.1 million views" is a site which fails WP:UGC.Cyanhurricane (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The name "Misscatylove" was trending on Twitter in Israel and the United Kingdom, I know this much. It's not a credible claim of significance in itself at all, so I attempted to find a stable active link source to the amount of hits the keyword had on Twitter, which is in the millions. Also, on YouTube, combining the different views would bring you to hundreds of thousands if not millions (also, all in the first 24 hours the song was live). Lavren2002 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:C5C0:107E:C3F2:3084:97CA:E6D9:4432 (talk) [reply]
          • User:Lavren2002: see WP:GHITS. Even taking this claim at its best, if this person had an amount of Twitter/YouTube hits, it still does not grant them enough notability to get a WP article. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm fully aware. Just pointing out why it's not A7 by any chance. Lavren2002 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Troll page for someone who submitted 90 seconds of noise to a Moldovan Eurovision preselection. Cyanhurricane (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This person has attracted a lot of attention, and got their own sections and walls of text in several credible articles. This is not something that will be forgotten easily, they are the center of one of the biggest scandals of the Eurovision national final season in recent memory and they deserve an article. ImStevan (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:fancruft. Cyanhurricane (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Far from it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision is a major project that they played a crucial role in this year, and probably will again next year. Within the limits of the project they're a very notable character with more than enough independent coverage from sources accepted as reliable on the project (Wiwibloggs, Eurovoix, Aussievision, Eurovisionworld, Escxtra, Escbubble, etc.) – and all have covered the subject very extensively. Lavren2002 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:C5C0:107E:C3F2:3084:97CA:E6D9:4432 (talk) [reply]
        • Whatever about the WikiProject and its significance, the aforementioned coverage in a few Eurovision blogs even if sufficient would fall under being notable for one event at best. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep because while WP:E1 is far from a guarantee of notability sufficient to create a biography for them, including the storyline within Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 is forced; there's no place to fit it in there (and the scandal itself is more broadly covered than the actual national selection). There are enough credible sources for a biography and I believe they're of greater importance, taking account the dimensions this story has reached over the past two days, than the national selection itself. Lavren2002 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • First of all, the "storyline" that has been covered in any source is the entrant withdrawing from the national selection. That is covered as the main subject in one Wiwibloggs article, one ESCBubble article and given passing mention in a few other articles that are about the broad entrant itself. There's no indication of a "scandal" anywhere, just a withdrawal. Finally, on the topic of there being enough "credible sources", I'll reflect back to the fact the coverage is two articles in Eurovision fan sites, and a passing mention in other sites. Even taking this at its best, if there was to be enough coverage of the singer withdrawing, that alone is not enough to even pay lip service to creating an article. If there's no place to fit it in as you say, then perhaps it's not meant to be fit into Wikipedia. For example, look at how Anna Book's disqualification from Melodifestivalen 2016 was handled. No biography, just a line to state that it was disqualified. That's what's needed here, not a fully fledged article. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Anna Book has her own biography, where that event is listed in 3-4 sentences, and that was a much smaller deal. Wiwibloggs, Eurovoix, Escxtra and Escbubble – probably the four biggest news outlets when it comes to Eurovision – all made an entire news story about their withdrawal. The withdrawal is not just an Anna Book case where someone is disqualified for this and that; this was a song that was extremely controversial since the moment it was released, and went viral before and after the withdrawal. Two or three of the aforementioned news outlets also pointed out that it went viral. The WikiProject has its own guidelines and I have to imagine if this isn't enough for a biography, at the very least this should be an "incident" within the selection page (see Alabama Watchdog in Eesti Laul 2021). Lavren2002 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • The Anna Book example is of how a controversy itself is handled. Anna Book herself meets WP:SINGER and hence gets her own article. Also, once again, no indication of where the "controversy" or "scandal" you make references stems from, bar run of the mill coverage about a withdrawal. Going viral (for which I'd argue the sources are already dubious enough to discount it) is already covered by WP:GHITS. Again, taking this at its absolute best, if there was any reference to an actual scandal (which the article itself doesn't even make any mention of!), it'd be covered as you've said yourself as a few lines in the NF page, like Alabama Watchdog in EL 2021. But, there's no reference to any scandal like the lyrics in Alabama Watchdog, so no need. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 00:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because something is relevant to one project doesn't make it notable enough to merit an article for Wikipedia. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also want to point out that Lavren2002 is a writer at Wiwibloggs, according to her user page. Using Wiwibloggs sources for editing, and especially using them as an argument for an AfD like this, kinda constitutes a conflict of interest. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To summarize: this falls under WP:BLP1E and also fails WP:NMUSIC. Nothing about the subject seems to be notable to me; "2 million views" is not a relevant criterion and neither source actually supports this claim-- one of them doesn't mention any numbers at all and the other one is seemingly a list of *every engagement* that *every user* who has ever mentioned them has received, and even then that tops off at 23,000. Furthermore, fan discussion is hardly a criterion of notability and equating that to views the subject has received (on what? Not their music, evidently) is misinformation at best. The top video result on Google for "Misscatylove" hasn't even hit a thousand views as of this comment, let alone two million. I'm also troubled by some of article creator Lavren's comments and actions, such as "that event alone makes them notable enough, to me" (again, BLP1E and NMUSIC), "their notability to the Eurovision Song Contest" (which is not relevant when we're on Wikipedia and not Eurovision Wikia, so I'm seconding the WP:fancruft here), and the attempted drafitication mid-AFD. Then there's also the potential COI that Mr. Gerbear has spotted. I've read no valid argument otherwise, so I'm on the side of deletion. Blue Edits (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment about Twitter views was only directed at someone bringing up A7, I wasn't trying to make a notability argument. Mlb96 (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Same as all said above. Won't be notable in a week, let alone years into the future. Great example of WP:fancruft. I have a lot of respect for some people on this page, but I don't believe in good faith that they think Misscatylove is notable enough for a page.Toffeenix (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As I said in Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 page, this is a clear WP:Troll. It is enough to see the YT channel linked to the "artist" to understand that it is about a blatant troll who happened to be in the Moldovan selection by mistake. --- « Ðømīnīk • Cåpuån » 00:15, 27 January 2022 (CET)
  • Delete. Does not appear to be a notable contestant. As a member of WikiProject Eurovision myself, I do find the sources themselves to be reliable, however this participant is not a Eurovision contestant and does not align with our typical inclusion criteria. They attempted to take part in a local selection process only and this participation did not materialize due to stated personal reasons. I fail to see any sort of "controversy" surrounding this attempt to take part. As someone who also reads Eurovision fansites, I'll also make a somewhat anecdotal comment that I have never heard of this person. Grk1011 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that this subject fails several notability guidelines and does not warrant inclusion here. As a member of WikiProject Eurovision as well I can concur that this would fail our own guidelines, and personally as well as someone that reads Eurovision publications I can't say I had heard of her prior to this AfD either. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the notability guidelines, more sources to be added. Timetraveller80 (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep – withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geheimarchiv an der Elbe[edit]

Geheimarchiv an der Elbe (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)

Appears to be non notable. Couldn't find anything to help it pass WP:NFILM.

PROD removed with "deprod, may be notable. Has some description in the book 'Die Befreiung vom Kommunismus'". Even with this, it doesn't appear to be enough for notability requirements. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This should never have taken over 10 years to be expanded. Many hits in google books and main German film databases, notable war film..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Major expansion since being nominated. Notable director and actors. Many sources discuss the film. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. Multiple reliable sources added since I nominated. Thanks Dr. Blofeld. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's a lot of commentary and debate about one or more people with the same or similar names which does not form part of my analysis and consideration. I am only considering the person about whom this article was written, and the consensus is that he does not merit an article. Anyone desirous of moving other articles into this name or creating sensible redirects is not, of course, prevented from doing so. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Lindeberg[edit]

Stefan Lindeberg (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)

Back in October it was decided that competitors in the Olympics who do not win medals are not default notable. The sourcing for this article consists only of one source, which is so totally comprehensive that being sourced to is in no way adds towards passing GNG. My searches identified several other people with this name, although I am not sure any are notable. I did find one name dropped in a 1994 book that was discussing issues of sport subsidies, and holding up scandinavian countries as an example, they were mentioning the name to say that sa some unidentified place Stefan Lindeberg had said something about the issue. It was from gbooks and I could only get a snipet, but based on the 1994 nature of the source and this person having died in 1974, I strongly suspect there was some other person with this same name who was involved in some sort of sports administration. Digging deeper I found this listing of a Lindeberg as I think (I can not see much in snippet view) a vice chair of the Swedish Olympic commitee in 1989 [10], which is A-not a position that gives default notability, B-listing in a name list like that is not adding to passing GNG and C-it is clearly someone else, because this person died 15 years earlier. My point is I went and tried to find more sourcing on this person, and came up with absolutely nothing. Because there is that other person with the same name who is as likely if not more likely to be notable, we should not preserve this article as a redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per Lugnuts. All the information in this article is there. JPL could frankly have been bold and just done that rather than take the article to AfD, but I understand why he chose to err on the side of caution and take it to AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Changing my vote to delete as there is now an article on another person with a similar (though not identical) name so this should probably redirect there. Smartyllama (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • You are of course ignoring the clear indications that this is not the most proninent person associated with the name. Even within the realm of Olympic sports it seems there was an equally if not more prominent person with this same name. So a redirect does not seem to be a valid option at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. @Smartyllama: @Lugnuts: @Johnpacklambert: Per JPL, a redirect is not a good option in this case. My own google searches (including this) turn up multiple persons with that name who are borderline notable, including an actor, an author, a symphonic conductor, a hockey player, a race car driver, and an entrepreneur. We even have a Wikimedia category for playwright Stefan Lindeberg (here). The proposed redirect presumes that people searching for "Stefan Lindberg" want information on the man who finished ninth in his weight class at the 1936 Olympics. I think it far more likely that such persons are searching for one of the Stefan Lindebergs who gained some measure of notability in the past 50 years. Under these circumstances, redirecting to a chart on results of the 1936 Olympic weightlifting competition does a serious disservice to our readers. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we had an article on one of those people, it would be different. But we don't. For now, this is the only Stefan Lindberg covered on Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on the 1936 Stefan Lindberg, but we shouldn't -- he's less notable than some of the others who a reader might be searching for. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well we do have an article that mentions the TV character Stefan Lindberg. I know it is a slightly different spelling, but still. Anyway, just because a name is burried in a stat list somewhere does not mean it is really a good redirect target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also there is a possibility that Love and Anarchy will be seen to be a notable TV series and get an article. If we see what noramlly happens with TV series and films the creator will mass link the names of the whole cast, and having just yesterday removed a cast link to a person who died about 75 years before the film in question was created, I know people do not look into those links well, so leaving this as a redirect to an obscure Olympic competitor might well lead to us having a false link on the cast list of a 2020s TV show to a person who died in the 1970s. Some of these other people have received at least as much if not more coverage than this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • there also evidently was a recurring character in a 2011-2018 Danish TV show named Stefan Lindberg. I am not sure how likely Danish and Swedish speakers are to confuse these names, but I as an English speaker did confuse them. This idea that competing, as opposed to medaling in the Olympics is a major detail that makes someone even borderline notable is not quite supported by sources. I found a funeral notice for an Olympian who was also a medical doctor, who died 9 years after his participation in the Olympics, in the city where he did his medical practice no less, that did not make any mention of his being involved in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree this guy isn't notable, and every bit of information in this article is in the other article, so a redirect seems reasonable for now. If there were another suitable place for this to go, that would be different, but there isn't, and we can always delete the redirect later to make way for an article about one of the other ones if someone wants to write such an article. Does the Danish TV show have an article on this wiki currently? If not, it's a moot point. Smartyllama (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
e/c :If there was a more notable person called "Stefan Lindeberg" on WP, they would be the primary topic already, and this guy would be at Stefan Lindeberg (weightlifter). If/when an article for another guy with the same name is created, then a WP:RM can be done to move it to the basename, as this is done all the time. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence: The primary topic for "Stefan Lindberg" on Swedish Wikipedia is the playwright. See here. And Swedish Wikipedia doesn't even mention the 1936 weightlifter. With all of this evidence, redirecting "Stefan Lindberg" to a 1936 weightlifting chart is frankly ludicrous. Cbl62 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to write an article for the playwright, we can revisit this. Until then, redirect is fine. Smartyllama (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan Lindberg (playwright) now exists and is the primary topic. When this AfD closes and the existing article is deleted, "Stefan Lindberg (playwright)" should then be moved to "Stefan Lindberg". Cbl62 (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that I am changing my !vote. I have also moved the playwright to just Stefan Lindberg as his name is spelled slightly differently so there is no current conflict, but this is still probably better suited as a redirect there. Smartyllama (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Geschichte. I somehow missed the extra "e". Your find further reinforces the argument that the redirect proposed above is ill advised. The correct rsult here is to delete. Cbl62 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by User:Bbb23 with rationale "A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (non-admin closure) Mlb96 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kapshi (gamer)[edit]

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

No evidence found of notability, just some passing mentions in articles giving the names in a team. Doesn't seem to have received the necessary significant attention in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Hotaki[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable person. All sources are either affiliated, passing mentions, or non-RS. Publisher is a vanity press. valereee (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MobiCast (cellular networking)[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:N. It was discussed as something that might hypothetically become a thing, twenty-two years ago, and then it did not become a thing. I don't believe it warrants an article. I am also nominating the following related page because it was discussed as something that might hypothetically become a thing, nineteen years ago, and then it did not become a thing: MobiCast (mobile ad-hoc networking) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I did WP:PRODs on both, which were deleted by Jim Grisham, but he declined to state a rationale in either case. Thus the AfD, so he can say why he thinks they need to remain articles. Bill Woodcock (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for at least a little while?) since the non-anonymous originating author recently just this month in an edit summary said `“Cleaning up vandalism, putting back on track for PROD.”` or Merge, perhaps into some other multicast-related article (e.g. with an explanation of why it failed to ‘become a thing’), since a strict application of WP:N seems to mainly apply to discrete articles.
  • A failed thing (noted as such, of course) can sometimes still have significant value, perhaps even more so as time passes.
Tangents
1. (Possible exception: if there’s an active ‘garbage collection’-type WikiProject that has access to deleted articles so the content, especially references which can be harder to find over time, can be repurposed… I actually think this might exist but can’t recall the name. It’s a shame that non-junk deleted content can’t just live on someplace such as a ‘talk’ page, even if the parent is deleted…)
2. P.S. Apologies for not listing a rationale - I’ll re-read the appropriate policies if I ever weigh in again in that sort of situation.
3. I don’t think this collapse template is ideal here, but I can’t use efn without a reflist or notelist and I have no idea how those would work on this sort of page (with the new threaded interface) so it seemed the least worse option.
Jim Grisham (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jim, that's me you're referring to, and as I've clearly stated, I think this is all non-notable nonsense that doesn't deserve an article. I was the person who flagged it for PROD, and you were the person who deleted the PROD. The question isn't whether you think this shouldn't be deleted, but why you think this shouldn't be deleted, and whether anyone else agrees with you that this shouldn't be deleted. If you have some rationale for why this shouldn't be deleted, please say so, we'd all be very happy to hear it. It's just that whatever seems to be obvious to you, doesn't appear to be obvious to any of the rest of us. Somebody wrote a paper a long time ago, about a thing that they thought might happen, which didn't, and nobody's ever mentioned it again since. What's the news here? I'm pretty sure it they also don't warrant mention in the actual multicast article, but if a one-liner about failed proposed uses would satisfy you, then we could move forward. Bill Woodcock (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reference here is the article that proposes Mobicast technology (not an independent source). I cannot find evidence that it went beyond that, in part made difficult because there are results for the term Mobicast that may refer to other technologies. For example, there is a 2009 Microsoft page for Mobicast that sounds similar to the abstract of the reference but which doesn't make a clear connection between the two. Also, it's just two vague paragraphs. Other things I found are an India-based blog that calls itself "Mobi Cast" and does not seem related to the software here, and a brick company in New Zealand. I also looked at the recent edits and they do not seem to me to have diminished the article, in the sense that no relevant sources were removed, that I can see. Lamona (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The sources found by Malo95 have remained uncontested. Sandstein 16:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Frei[edit]

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

BLP (presumably) sub-stub of a non-notable skiier, no evidence that he meets the GNG. Prod last year was removed with the explanation that the subject met WP:NOLY, which is no longer the case since the criterion was tightened. No source other than a defunct database website, and no sources found except for namedrops and casual mentions that fall well short of the significant coverage of the subject that the GNG requires. Meets no other NSPORTS criteria. Ravenswing 14:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 14:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 14:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He was third at the Lauberhorn races 1969 this is like, to be in a Grand Slam final. I searched Peter Frei in the Swiss newspaper archives a got 675 results [11]. An Article with more details [12]. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Yes, that'd be the casual mention part; the one source you cite has " After the victory of Dumeng Giovanoli, it was Davosian Peter Frei who won in the special slalom (which unfortunately did not count for the World Cup, so the participation was relatively small) . Peter Frei owes his victory to a particularly brilliant second round where he set the best time clearly, which allowed him to move up from seventh to first place," a routine match report that fails to meet SIGCOV. As far as participating in a "Grand Slam final" goes, there is no notability criteria covering skiers, save for the GNG and medaling at the Olympics, and barring sigcov coming out of that, a "Grand Slam final" in skiing carries no more weight than a high school-level competition. Ravenswing 19:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have ruled that only medaling at the olympics is enough to be default notable. The routine match coverage about his placement at the other event is not enough to add towards GNG, and even if it was, one report is not enough to pass GNG. Name dropping in a match report is not significant coverage of the person named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. FIS gives 12 top-ten placements in the World Cup, with a third place as best among those. In Wengen, nonetheless - now that's a classic within winter sport. All of this does not render a presumption of sigcov, it is a guarantee of sigcov. Singling out standalone news reports doesn't change that, when the events in question happened over 50 years ago. Geschichte (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden of proof is with the editor who seeks to keep material. If you claim that sigcov exists, provide it. Ravenswing 00:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article specifically does not fail WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way I also have an all-caps link applicable to this discussion, which is WP:DEADLINE. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found more sources which back up his notability. Small portrait, text of a win, big portrait and Small portrait in die Schweizer Illustrierten of 17 November 1969. You see all Swiss skier who participated a the olympics or world championship are notable. And Ravenswing believe me all medal winners at the skiing classic (Wengen, Wengen, Kitzbühl, Gröden and Val-d'Isère) are notable. Only because there is no notability criteria for skier, makes them not innotable. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources provided are more than enough to get over GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: i hve the impression that there is not all that much of a consensus in the community for either a broad or a limited inclusion of sportspeople. Sometimes a guideline changes, but the actual use of the guideline gets challenged to such a great extent that it's clear the original consensus was not all that clear after all. I'm not expressing an opinion because I am not clear in my own mind what our practice ought tobe in this matter. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. (per G7) Author has draftified content. BusterD (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramapati Singhania[edit]

Ramapati Singhania (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)

Twice declined as lacking notability and subsequently rejected; but then moved to mainspace by contributor with little, if any, improvement. Appears to be a self-written autobio and basic 'Google' search did not reveal further coverage. In view of the history and the 'out of process move, needs to be assessed by the wider community to decide upon retention. Eagleash (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chocholík[edit]

Chocholík (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 notability of this page has been questioned for ten years and contains no references other than location. The hill is not significant in terms of history, use, or altitude. FromCzech (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 19:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genard Hajdini[edit]

Genard Hajdini (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)

Couldn't find any reliable coverage. The sources in the article are just linked in and similar profiles, the lone newspaper report is also an interview of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Bingobro (Chat) 08:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 08:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a lot of fairly gossipy coverage in Albanian media demonstrating that he's appeared several times on TV and I think radio because he's so well known for his social media activities. This one is in English but is so utterly gossipy, I didn't cite it in filling out the article: "Why aren't you married?" / Gerard Hajdini leaves the moderator speechless, tells how his girlfriend got 50 million ALL: Tell us after I die for these stories!. I also found a U.S. local newspaper story about his background, conversion to Christianty, and plans after graduating from Oral Roberts University, so that gave me context to put in the Weebly page for his religious foundation, which I deleted from the original version as an unexplained ad. He wouldn't be notable in large countries, but in Albania, he clearly is: he has coverage in multiple independent sources, referring to different interviews more than a year apart. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That English article appears to be a machine translation of [13]. The translation doesn't make any sense. What this person is known for isn't discernible from the English text. Vexations (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I didn't cite it despite its being in English. As I say, utterly gossipy. The only thing it supports is that he was on D-Night. Whatever Tirana show that is (we have a Korean ep at that title). The thing is, all the Albanian coverage—"famous for being famous" though much of it is—does demonstrate fame in his own country, over more than a year. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so exited about the idea that we would have an article that is supported by dubious citations in a language that none of us appear to be able to read without the aid of machine translation when google translate does such an obviously abysmal job of translating Albanian into English. The tulsa world article is from when he graduated from Oral Roberts University, well before doing anything notable. I still have absolutely no idea what exactly he is notable for. Vexations (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep — I get the hesitancy to make decisions without native English-language sources, but WP:GNG does not require sources to be available in English and applying that standard can lead a systematic WP:BIAS. Probably most of the people in Category:Social media influencers wouldn't pass muster by that standard if they were working in a non-English-speaking country. Searching for Albanian websites that discuss him turns up a lot of news outlets. Machine translation, while not perfect by any means, does give the impression that he is covered in Albanian media as a celebrity/social influencer enough to meet WP:GNG. Whether he meets WP:INHERENTWEB (or if that is a standard to apply here, or with other social media influencers), I'm less confident. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tcr25: There's no way the sources in this article are enough to meet GNG. They all seem extremely promotional, and are primary sources as they are interviews. I'm not seeing any sources here that meet the golden rule: significant, reliable, independent. They all lack one or more. Have you found better sources than the ones included in the article? ––FormalDude talk 00:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: Not all of them are interviews. The Tulsa World one is a profile, not an interview. Even articles based largely on a quote from him, for example this story from an interview he gave to a different media outlet, the reporter found his comments and the context of them relevant enough to their readership to report on. It's not an interview or a primary source, it is independent (there's editorial judgement being applied; it's not a press release or subject's website), and it affirms the basic premise that he is, at least within Albania, a notable social media personality. In this article he's discussed as part of a larger article on social media as an advertising/marketing tool, which reaffirms the basic premise that he's a well-known (within Albania) social media personality. Is all this trivial coverage? Possibly, but it seems (speaking as someone who can't read Albanian) that he is notable the way English-language social media influencers are in the U.S. and elsewhere. WP:GNG doesn't require English-language notability, and insisting on it makes Wikipedia less encyclopedic. WP:NPOSSIBLE seems to be relevant here; can the article and sourcing be improved, yes, but that doesn't mean notability isn't likely based on what we can see. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG doesn't require English-language notability correct, it does not, and I'm not insisting on it. I'm only insisting that the sources meet WP:GNG, which two of them do not as they are interviews and therefore primary sources and not independent. Another one of them is also not independent, being from his employer. That leaves two publications which may possibly count towards notability, both of which seem trivial and promotional when translated. That's not enough to vote keep in my opinion. ––FormalDude talk 13:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the article is about the source, sources don't have to meet WP:GNG; they need to meet WP:RS to help determine if the article's subject meets WP:GNG. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A source needs to meet WP:GNG for the article to be deemed notable. They need to meet WP:RS to be included in the article. I am saying they may meet WP:RS but they do not meet WP:GNG. That is because GNG requires independence, significance, and reliability. The existing sources are either insignificant or non-independent. ––FormalDude talk 02:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Tulsa World has a long-standing article, it's clear as a source it meets WP:GNG. Whether or not the cited article demonstrates Hajdini's notability is an open question. You seem to be basing the claim that this article is a primary source and not independent on WP:INTERVIEWS, which is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The exact sort of distinctions about editorial independence in interviews that I see us going back and forth over are all over that essay's talk page. It's clear that WP:INTERVIEWS does not have consensus and while it may inform decisions, it shouldn't be a red line. That said, I think it adds to a weak keep for Hajdini. As best I can tell, he does seem to be covered in Albanian media as a celebrity (which often means fluff pieces that may border on trivial or even promotional, even though they come from independent sources). There's enough there there for me to think that WP:NPOSSIBLE applies. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:IDPRIMARY, you will see that it says Interviews and reports of interviews are Defined as a primary source by policy. That policy is Wikipedia:No_original_research#defs. So we have established that Wikipedia policy considers interviews by news sources to be a WP:PRIMARY source.
Now, if you go to Independent sources, you will notice that it says primary sources are not independent. And again, a source has to be independent to count towards notability. So no, the source does not at all meet WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 06:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, a reminder that WP:CIVIL applies in edit summaries as well as in comments. Second, the line you quote from WP:IDPRIMARY points to a footnote in WP:NOR to a paragraph that states Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. I'd also note that WP:GNG, when discussing notability criteria calls for sources "independent of the subject" and provides as examples advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website and (from the footnote) Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them. If your concern is independence, the Tulsa World article meets the test in WP:INDY to demonstrate independence from Hajdini. If your concern is that a newspaper report on a current figure or event is, per WP:IDPRIMARY, almost always a primary source (and thus not meeting the secondary source criteria of GNG), then you're unlikely to accept any contemporary news article as contributing to WP:GNG, which seems to me an extreme position unsupported by policy or general practice. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't even read WP:GNG's segment on independent sources correctly. It says independent sources excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it: For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
A source that is an interview with the topic will almost never be independent, and that is certainly the case here (the article practically being a transcript of their interview). It has nothing to do with being a contemporary news article and everything to do with the fact that it's an interview.
I'm sorry you don't feel this is explained well in policy, but I feel I've spelled it for you completely. I think any experienced editor who is knowledgeable about our BLP notability policy would agree with me. I will not be responding here again. ––FormalDude talk 13:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to close the circle, yes, that such sources are excluded is what I was meaning (I should have said "calls out" not "calls for"). As for the opinion of experienced editors familiar with the BLP policy, as one, there's room for disagreement on the difference between an interview and a profile. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unless independent secondary sources can be found that prove notability. WP:INTERVIEWS alone do not prove notability. ––FormalDude talk 06:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude: I'm glad to see you got around to !voting in the AfD rather than criticizing another editor's !vote, festooning the article with tags criticizing the sources cited, and reverting me with the summary Are you kidding me. I have placed a full discussion of the sources on the article talk page. They are news sites reporting on his having been interviewed in the media, and the interview sections of those that are interviews are cited only for his field of study since returning to Albania. I have to concede that the foundation is unnecessary since it has not received independent coverage that I could find, although not that it was presented promotionally. But your attack on the sources cited smacks of distaste for the basis of the subject's notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not attacking the sources, I guess you're just unfamiliar with WP:INLINE tagging. ––FormalDude talk 09:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 09:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Noting for the record that FormalDude is all alone in his increasingly tendentious interpretation of policy with respect to this article—increasingly in that he now seeks to invalidate the Tulsa World article as a source, too—denies here that he is criticizing the sources, and has put the BLP sanctions alert on the user talk pages of A TUZI (the article creator), Tcr25, and me, after we both raised points of disagreement with the basis of his tagging. I've tried to accommodate his concerns; I've explained why I disagree with most of his pronouncements; he is wikilawyering to shame-label this article and rather than start off with a !vote here, he started a bludgeoning discussion with someone who had !voted. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to resort to personal attacks just because you got proven wrong. ––FormalDude talk 22:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That you disagree does not mean I have been "proven wrong"; I am unaware of any position you hold on some committee related to sourcing policy that makes your viewpoint decisive, and I have related my points to policy; in particular, you appear to be conflating verifiability with notability. News outlets writing about Hajdini's having been interviewed on broadcast media very much counts toward notability. I'd also like to point out your initial combative response, since replaced with the bare asertion of disproof above. Accusations of personal attack do not make my responses to your argument and noting of your combativeness and apparent equivocation over criticizing the sources (perhaps you use some definition that has not occurred to me) into personal attacks. But you are of course free to take me to AN/I for my having the audacity to disagree with you, to politely disagree with your assertions that I do not understand and have not correctly read policy, and to seek to protect an article from being defaced by tags that I consider specious. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-independent sources do not count towards notability. ––FormalDude talk 04:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the machine translations of the Albanian language sources that we have to rely on are so bad that it is impossible to make out what they're saying. The one English source, Tulsa World, is 22 years old and might as well be about a different person; it gives no indication why Hajdini is a notable instagrammer. Exchange student at Oral Roberts University are not automatically notable for being a student from a former communist country. Readers who are interested in this topic can read are better of reading the Albanian article in machine translation, because the quality of those translations continues to improve, unlike our translation.Vexations (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The document as it currently appears does not seem to be sufficiently notable. Would be happy to change my mind if additional information was added to the page.Gusfriend (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Mbarga[edit]

Emmanuel Mbarga (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)

According to Soccerway and other databases he has not played in a WP:FPL so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. I conducted a French search to see if there was any coverage of his amateur career in France but found little. I also did a Portuguese search for his amateur career in Portugal to no avail. I did find this Khmer Times article but it isn't significant coverage since most of it is derived from an announcement from people associated with his club. It makes an erroneous claim that he played for Cameroon internationally but there is no profile at NFT for him. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted, recreation of a previously deleted article, the same article was deleted a couple of days ago as A4, creator blocked as a sock. Will be salted as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saveng Samnang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Saveng Samnang (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)

Deleted 3 years ago for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This third attempt to create the article makes no claim to notability. Being Goalkeeper of the Season in a semi-pro league is not sufficient for a stand-alone article on its own. The native form of his name is "សាវែង សំណាង". I didn't find any in-depth coverage when searching here or here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Takaki Ose[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Takaki Ose (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)

Deleted last year for failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He is still not playing at the professional level so there is no claim to the latter guideline. In terms of GNG, the one cited source is not significant coverage; it's just a contract renewal announcement. I found him mentioned in an image caption here but that also doesn't establish anything. If anyone can show clear significant, detailed coverage I will happily withdraw but, for now, I see no reason why this article shouldn't be deleted for a third time. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom. Non-notable footballer with no pro appearances. JTtheOG (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. --John B123 (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: still fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, recommend Salt JW 1961 Talk 15:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. CLearly not notable at the moment. Oppose SALTing however as his career is still active and he could be notable someday. Smartyllama (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. No evidence of notability and doesn't have the required level of WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. As with the other two AfD's, this should also result in delete in my opinion. Third time's a charm? GauchoDude (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm still new to Wikipedia and still trying to understand how it works. I found him on Soccerway [14] and footballdatabase [15]. As well as a number of articles that mentions him:

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Does this constitute detailed coverage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfkill13 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfkill13 I would say that none of these constitute detailed coverage. Soccerway and Football Database are wide-ranging databases that attempt to provide exhaustive stats about almost every footballer. Appearing in such a database does not automatically mean that that footballer needs a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. The remaining sources linked are all trivial mentions in match reports. WP:SIGCOV requires coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. For an example of how SIGCOV works, please see this example. That would clearly be significant, detailed coverage of Kazuyoshi Miura. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace[edit]

Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (For Swedish name)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (for JIPF)

Non-notable organization. Couldn't really find anything in English sources. Perhaps there might be some Swedish coverage. Mooonswimmer 13:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Katz, Olle (29 August 2015). "Debattinlägg: "Riksdagsledamöter stöttar israeliska högerextremister"". SVT Nyheter (in Swedish).
  2. ^ "Svenska judar oeniga om vägen till fred i Israel". Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish). 9 January 2003.
  3. ^ "DEBATT: Skilj på legitim Israelkritik och judehat" (in Swedish). Göteborgs-Posten. 11 October 2021.
  4. ^ "DEBATT: Palestiniernas folkrätt glöms bort i debatten". www.expressen.se (in Swedish). 3 Dec 2021.
  5. ^ "DN Debatt. "Oriktiga uppgifter om SodaStream"" (in Swedish). Dagens Nyheter. 19 July 2013.
  6. ^ "Judiskt stöd till Mana". Arbetaren (in Swedish). 29 January 2008.
  7. ^ "Judisk kritik mot Ebba Busch Thor". Dagen (in Swedish). 25 August 2016.
  8. ^ Helgesson, Fredrik (22 February 2017). "De vill lösa Israel-Palestinakonflikten utan våld". Sveriges Radio (in Swedish).
  9. ^ Landy, David (2011). Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights : Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel. London: Zed Books. p. 113. ISBN 9781848139299.
  10. ^ "Israeli ambassador vandalises art exhibit". The Irish Times. 17 January 2004.
  11. ^ "Israeli Says Artwork Is 'Call to Kill'". Los Angeles Times. 18 January 2004.
  12. ^ Doneson, Daniel A (Autumn 2004). "Snow White, the Ambassador, and the Aesthetics of Death : Azure - Ideas for the Jewish Nation". azure.org.il.
  13. ^ "Sharon Praises Ambassador's Art Attack". DW.COM. Deutsche Welle. 18 January 2004.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, notable, visible, active organization. I Added Swedish searchlinks at the top. (I assume that descriptions of organization's acivities does conteibute to "in-depth coverage" of WP:GNG.) Loew Galitz (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do the sources cover the organization in depth, or is the coverage focalized on its chairman Dror Feiler? Mooonswimmer 11:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunately been my finding as well. Dror Feiler is definitely notable, but I'm not sure if the organization is. TartarTorte 14:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated in my comment, there's more than 1/2 a page which focusses on the group in Landy's global survey of Jewish groups which support Palestinian Rights, which is not a trivial mention. Feiler as founder is certainly prominent, but not the only member who's been the focus of attention as the sources indicate. Given the 40 year history of the group, there's adequate material provided to pass the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Despite several efforts by the article creator and an editor with a COI to show notability for the subject, they have not been able to convince other editors that there are sufficient sources. RL0919 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Torsten Haß[edit]

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

Not relevant, autobiography. Heanor (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Concerning the notability accusation: (1) Torsten Haß "has created […] a significant or well-known work" (WP:AUTHOR) of German language librarianship, the Bibliotheken für Dummies. Cf. possessions of Bibliotheken für Dummies in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, WorldCat, part of the first external link in the Torsten Haß article. --- (2) Bibliotheken für Dummies has been "the primary subject of […] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (WP:AUTHOR), but the text passage concerning reviews was deleted 22:38, 8 October 2021‎ by MrsSnoozyTurtle because of promo concerns. --- (3) Additional coverage of Torsten Haß plus Bibliotheken für Dummies e.g. in the following German language library journals: Bibliotheksdienst 55(2021),p.934; Bibliotheksdienst 54(2020),p.943; BuB 72(2020),p.611; Die Bücherei (archdiocese Cologne) 2019, issue12, p.3; Bibliotheken heute (LBZ RLP: library center of Rhineland-Palatinate) 2020, issue3, p.127. Some of this articles were mentioned and hyperlinked in the WP article Bibliotheken für Dummies; this article was nominated by MrsSnoozyTurtle for speedy deletion 6:30 26 September 2021 and deleted 11:00 26 September 2021 because of promo concerns… And in my opinion it doesn’t make sense to mention this coverages in the Torsten Haß article, if there is someone that equates promo with mentioning sources… --- (4) The WP article Bibliotheken für Dummies also had references that Bibliotheken für Dummies is "the subject of instruction at two or more […] colleges, universities" (WP:BKCRIT)… But in my opinion it doesn’t make sense to mention this in the Torsten Haß article, if there is someone that equates promo with mentioning sources… ++++ Concerning the autobiography accusation: (1) The COI tag was by Deb. If you look at the talks, Deb asked user th0815 (<2% of the contributions to the article = "major contributor to this article"???) in his user talk if he was Torsten Haß, th0815 admitted it and proposed to delete his 2%. Deb denied. I (= major contributor to this article) was not asked the same/similar/any questions. Strange. --- (2) Specific text passages with a non-neutral POV (if existing) were not mentioned. In my opinion, th0815 should have deleted his passages, he proposed to do so, but he wasn’t allowed: "don't edit the article in future", Deb stated in the user talk th0815. --- (3) If I would be a German author, I would make an article in the German WP. Would make more sense, wouldn’t it? ++++ Concerning the comment by AleatoryPonderings: In my opinion, cross-wiki spam made months later should play no role in this discussion about notability and autobiography. Otherwise malicious users could plan cross-wiki spam to harm any older article in an AfD discussion. --Immanuel Giel (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Not a single newspaper article, interview, or mention can be found that isn't derivative of the many wiki articles recently created. The single not self-published work, a title in the "...for Dummies" series, is neither "well-known" nor "significant". I was going to quote its sales rank on Amazon here. But, as it turns out, Amazon(.de) doesn't even have it in its catalogue, not even used. The spam campaign referenced above also leaves a bad taste. And while a policy of deleting articles for that reason would allow malicious use as mentioned above, there is no reason to believe that to be the case here. K. Oblique 03:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only commenting (because COI, as I’ve learned): No articles? Some of them were mentioned by Immanuel Giel, and these articles are not derivative of the cross-wiki spam (most or all of them were published before the cross-wiki spam); most of them you can google. No sales rank? Of cause not: because of the publishers jubilee a Second edition was already published, for free, in the web, in 2021. You can google it… -- th0815 09:42, 16 January 2022 (CET)
    • Comment no.2 (COI): I forgot: The last copies of the printed first edition (2019) are for free, if one contacts the publisher. Would be stupid to pay for a first edition copy (and stupid to try a sell by the publisher, by amazon or someone else). And the second edition (2021) is published only as a free pdf because of the publishers jubilee, so there can be no amazon data set. -- th0815 11:50, 16 January 2022 (CET)
    • Comment no.3 (COI): By the way: Is "bad taste" an argument? -- th0815 15:03, 16 January 2022 (CET)
  • 'I just now removed he material that belongso nly in a cv, such as a full list of his book reviews and his fiction , which seems to have very little distribution. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's noteworthy that the eWPs in which thereare \not an article, are the French, German, and Italian. I think the reason is their selectivity. I don't think we want to show we're worse than they are. . DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (COI): As far as I know, "notability is not established because another wiki has a page on the subject" (quote from https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Notability; maybe one might find something similiar in the English language WP). Th0815 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment no.2 (COI): Found it in en.wikipedia.org!: "On the other hand, the fact that there are no interwikis does not mean that the article should be deleted." WP:OTHERLANGS Th0815 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you try to edit AfD discussions, you can read the sentence: "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." And, well, except Immanuel Giel (who in his user talk stoically stated about another delete: "Let it be") until now my person seems to be the only user who tries to do something like citing guidelines/essays (if I find them ;-)... Except one user, who uses Amazon ranking as an argument (smells like "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking)" – WP:INVALIDBIO) to refute a library possessions argument pro keep… I'm curious about the decision. But not curious enough to wait for the decision and therefore go to bed later today. Good night! Th0815 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consensus proposal: Modify and keep, to shorten the discussion: a new text version (1) based on the changes made by DGG (see above, 19:13, 16 January 2022), --- (2) inserting the text passage concerning reviews (line 20, deleted 22:38, 8 October 2021‎ by MrsSnoozyTurtle) as a last paragraph into the section "Carreer as an author" (to address MrsSnoozyTurtles promo concern a little bit and act according above mentioned "the primary subject of […] reviews" (WP:AUTHOR)), --- (3) deleting the non-fictional works in the intro, because they are not mentioned in the DGG-version of the article anymore, --- (4) deleting the infobox made by the COI user th0815, --- (5) deleting the COI tag because of "4", --- (6) deleting the empty "See also" left over by DGG, --- (7) deleting the header "non-fictional works", because fictional works are not mentioned anymore in the DGG-version of the article, --- (8) changing the header "Works" to "Works (selection)", because fictional works are not mentioned anymore in the DGG-version of the article, --- (9) finally, in the Edit Summary: referring on the AfD-keep-Consensus found on January Xth; otherwise (1)-(8) have to be listed, in my opinion +++ Alas, I should not do it: In my interpretation, user Deb has warned me not to change anything in this article (Deb: "preclude […] you from editing ", 19:55, 1 December 2021); she/he has warned me not in my user talk, but in the user talk of COI user th0815. Strange… Immanuel Giel (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional remark @delete opinion 16 January 2022 UTC (COI): Even if "no articles" meant online articles and even if one would not able to google it – it would be no valid argument, I think: "There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online." (WP:PAPERONLY) Th0815 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @consensus proposal 18 January 2022 (COI): According WP:WTRMT no.7 it is ″strongly″ recommended ″that the tagging editor initiate[s] a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so […] and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed.“ The tagging editor hasn't initiated a discussion. So, the COI tag can to be removed anyway, I think. Th0815 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not satisfy the general notability guideline. I also believe the subject does not satisfy the notability guideline for creative professionals. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (COI): „Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.“ (WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE). Th0815 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe i could have been more clear. Torsten Haß (and pen name Kim Godal) has not received significant coverage in in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus i'd say he is not presumed to be notable enough for a stand-alone wikipedia article; thats what the WP:GNG tells me. Further, i believe that Torsten Haß does not satisfy any of the four criteria listed at WP:NAUTHOR. @Th0815: If you know any good sources that describe Torsten Haß in depth and are independent of him, please bring them up in this discussion. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi, Nyamo Kurosawa, and thank you for your comment. ----- @WP:GNG, part significant coverage: The usage of an italic Torsten Haß (in contrast to Immanuel Giels Torsten Haß plus Bibliotheken für Dummies; see above 15:46, 12 January 2022) implies that there has to be significant coverage with Torsten Haß as a sole/main topic, doesn’t it? That’s not necessary, I think: „Significant coverage […] does not need to be the main topic of the source material“ (WP:GNG), so secondary topics are enough. The most usual secondary topic in an article about a book is the author and details about him/her (e.g. affiliation, funtion). It is not necessary that the coverage of an author in an article about his/her book is „in depth“, if there are multiple articles (and there are multiple articles listed by Immanuel Giel): „If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability“ (WP:BASIC). ----- @WP:GNG, part reliable sources, independent of the subject: A few words about some journals listed by Immanuel Giel: Bibliotheksdienst [24] was founded in 1961, since 2013 it is published by De Gruyter, a publisher specializing in academic literature, to cite the English WP. BuB [25] was founded 1922 and is published by the Berufsverband Information Bibliothek [26] - Professional Association Information & Library; BuB is the most widely used German-language library journal, to cite the German WP. Bibliotheken heute [27] was founded in 2005 and is published by the Landesbibliothekszentrum Rheinland-Pfalz [28]. So, the first journal is by an academic publisher, the second by a Professional Association, the third by a library center owned by the German Federal State of Rhineland-Palatinate. If these journals/publishers are accused to be unreliable and/or dependent, no journal (or other source) might exist in any article... and of cause I am not able to bring non-existent journals/publishers up in this discussion ----- @WP:AUTHOR: As Immanuel Giel stated on 12 January 2022, she/he thinks that Torsten Haß „has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work“ that has „been the primary subject of […] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews“ (WP:AUTHOR, no.3). Immanuel Giel thinks the prevalence of Bibliotheken für Dummies in German language libraries to be a proof of „significant or well-known“ and stated that the hint to the book reviews was eliminated by user MrsSnoozyTurtle because of his/her „promo concern“. Because I do not want to violate WP:REPEAT, here an additional information about the significance of Bibliotheken für Dummies: „which has now been reprinted twice due to high demand and reached a total circulation of 60000 copies“ (my translation, from BuB 72.2020, p.611, printed only about 15 months after Bibliotheken für Dummies had been published; this BuB reference had been cited in the WP article about the book Bibliotheken für Dummies which was speedy deleted on proposal of MrsSnoozyTurtle because of his/her promo concern) Th0815 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll keep it short; the sources listed so far in this discussion:
            • BuB 72 (2020),p.611 is a short announcement of the publishing of the e-book version of "Bibliotheken for Dummies", not significant coverage of Torsten Haß or the book.
            • Bibliotheken heute (LBZ RLP: library center of Rhineland-Palatinate) 2020, issue3, p.127. --> 52 words announcement of the publishing of the e-book version of "Bibliotheken for Dummies", written by Torsten Haß himself
            • Bibliotheksdienst 55(2021),p.934 --> can't access, but judging by the title („Bibliotheken für Dummies“: 2., überarbeitete Auflage als E-Book), probably is also just an announcement as are the two sources i could access.
            • Bibliotheksdienst 54(2020),p.943 --> can't access, but would be good to know what exactly is written about Torsten Haß or his books in this one (again judging by the title "Überregionale Kennzeichnung von Pflichtexemplaren.", Haß might not be the main focus of the article).
            • Die Bücherei (archdiocese Cologne) 2019, issue12, p.3 --> couldn't locate the source at all.
It would be helpful if someone with access to the "Bibliotheksdienst" sources could give info about the coverage Torsten Haß has received in these sources (including the authors); even better would be excerpts. As for the significant or well-known work aspect of WP:Author; Haß co-authored one of about 700 books of the German version of For Dummies. So far, very unsure that book is a significant or well-known work. Links to further coverage of Haß or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews about his books appreciated. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Nyamo Kurosawa, for your valid arguments citing relevant guidelines… so at last there is a basis for a thorough discussion & judgement by the closer. Bibliotheksdienst is embargoed, but to add something: Die Bücherei [29] is not mentioning Torsten Haß. ----- Back to the bold claim „Not a single newspaper article, interview, or mention can be found that isn't derivative of the many wiki articles recently created“ (03:46, 16 January 2022), and as a basis for a thorough discussion & judgement by the closer: „quick & dirty“ at least two newspaper articles can be found that can’t be derivative (because of their date), published in Die Rheinpfalz: [30], [31] ----- As already stated, two reviews were mentioned in the article, but deleted by MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:38, 8 October 2021 because of his/her promo concern. I found no more. ----- Maybe for further keep/delete opinions with valid arguments citing relevant guidelines WP:100WORDS is helpful, although the title 100WORDS is misleading, I think: „Fifty such words would likely be significant“ (also WP:100WORDS). If 50 words are enough: There is biographic material about Torsten Haß in Bibliotheken für Dummies; about 60 words, pp.7&49 in the second edition, pp.7&48 in the first edition, to be found in the References section of the Torsten Haß article. ----- Should I have brought all of this into this discussion earlier? I don’t think so, because until Nyamo Kurosawa came I saw just opinions instead of opinions with valid arguments citing relevant guidelines. And, generally spoken, this was not the way a AfD debate in WP should be conducted, I believe. ----- Links to further coverage of Haß or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews about his books appreciated. Th0815 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: @Th0815: Can you give a clear, succinct WP:THREE please? Minimal or no explanations, just a list, with links if possible. Numbered with # would be helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer : Thank you, Asilvering. I'm not sure if WP:THREE refers to a single argument or to all of them. So in the following I give TWO sources at the single arguments, because two/„multiple“ (=„more than one“, cf. Merriam Webster Dictionary [36]) is required sometimes anyway. Th0815 (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bibliotheken für Dummies: significant or well-known? (WP:AUTHOR):
      • #1: Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog: More than 60 library possessions: [37]
      • #2: BuB [38], 72.2020, issue 11, p.611: High demand -> 60.000 printed copies between publication of 1st ed. (Oct. 2019) and publication of journal text (Nov. 2020): [39]
    • Bibliotheken für Dummies: multiple reviews? (WP:AUTHOR):
      • #1: ub info, 2019, issue 11, p.13 (seems to be print only, so only the data set in Zeitschriftendatenbank): [40]
      • #2: Spektrum, 2019, issue 11, p.39: [41]
    • Bibliotheken für Dummies: subject of instruction at two or more colleges/universities? (WP:BKCRIT)
    • Torsten Haß: significant coverage? (WP:GNG, if according to the second example non-trivial mention simply means „more than just the name“)
    • Torsten Haß: significant coverage? (WP:GNG), if the essay WP:100WORDS (which means 50 words, so the text tells me) has more weight than the second example in the guideline WP:GNG)
      • #1: Bibliotheken für Dummies, 2nd ed., pp.7&49: [46] (combined about 60 words)
      • #2: Die Rheinpfalz, July 7th, 2014: [47] (about 620 words)
  • Lordy. At some point you just have to say delete as obvious promo and COI, I guess. -- asilvering (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. There seem to be several suggestions around merging, renaming, etc.; I need not decide which if any of these has consensus as this can be taken up on the article talk page or resolved under WP:BB . Stifle (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Peshawar (1758)[edit]

Battle of Peshawar (1758) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seems to be some doubt about many of the sources, others do not seem to even mention this battle. Does it in fact have more than one line in any of these sources, was this a major battle? Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hell many of them seem to just list it as one of a number of cities captured, so was there even battle?Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge' to Maratha conquest of North-west India by using a source like this one. Extorc (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems no source says a battle occurred there, so I am unsure this would be a used search term. This looks made up by the article creator. What seems to have happened is the city was captured, but that could mean anything. So if there was a merge/redirect it would also have to have name change.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In agreement as well. Change the title to Capture of Peshawar (1758), delete the page and direct the title to another page suitable for it. MehmoodS (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The more and more arguments I see for keep the more and more this looks utterly made up, so no I do not think a redirect (now) is a good idea as I doubt it would be used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nominator has removed 4 sources, while only one source was the disputed one. I have reinstated 3 sources back. This battle is an important battle, which shows the maximum extent of the Maratha Empire in the north. One source [1] clearly mentions there was an attack, though nominator claims there was no battle. I could not access other book sources quoted as they are not available on google books preview. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the sources that were removed, only one seemed to be about this one "battle" and it seems to not be an RS. The rest just refer to the capture of the city, not a battle. None were more than a line, no in-depth coverage from which we could create an article. Note your source here does not say it was attacked, it says it was captured.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly says attacked, the exact quote "The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758." is clearly mentioned in the ref. Peshawar was a big city, so your claim that it was occupied by Marathas as it was abandoned is wrong. Also another source [2] clearly mentions that it was stationed by Afghan Emperor's son Taimur Sultan and Jahan Khan were at Peshawar. Crashed greek (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you have wrongly tagged a source of 2005 book source, which was published before wikipedia article was created, while the reliability issue was with another book. So I have removed the tag, and put back the disputed source book too but with the tag you you have inserted. Crashed greek (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So (and let me get this straight, they attacked 3 cities all at once and fought one battle between them that lasted a month? No they are not, they are talking about a campighn where 3 cities were captured, that does not mean there was a battle there (read wp:or). In fact this whole article looks like, ORSlatersteven (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source above says Emperor's son and Jahan Khan had retreated to Peshawar, after seige of Sirhindh in March and Lahore was captured in April. And Peshawar also was overrun by Marathas in May. I was able to verify one more source now using google search, [3][1] I have added the exact quotes with page numbers now. Crashed greek (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also nominator is now trying to move the article to Capture of Peshwawar (1758), after nominating here for deletion. He is trying multiple things with the same article to see which one works. Crashed greek (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I said that as there does not appear to have been a battle (and no source says there was one) even as a redirect we would have to use what people would be looking for, which is the capture of the city.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The one source clearly said it as battle has been called as disputed using a wikipedia essay. Essays are not wikipedia policies. You have sided with that claim without any justifications. Other sources mention Peshawar fort as attacked, overrun. That is not the same as captured as you claim. Crashed greek (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I recall the source did not say it was a battle they just gave the date it had been captured. Would you care to provide a quote from an RS that says there was a battle THERE? Using the word Battle or similar termSlatersteven (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Attacked and overrun is similar term to a battle. Northwest Froniter is the region for which Peshwawar fort is the capital. Sources are clear Crashed greek (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another source [4] uses words "defeated and captured", which means a battle. Crashed greek (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Battle is used in the sense of war or combat which takes place between two armies in a battlefield due to conflict. Whereas Attack is violent or aggressive act that cause harm to the other. So from the sources, the battle actually took place at a different city/town/location, likely Sirhind, where Afghans were defeated and as a result, Timur Shah and Jahan Khan fled to Peshawar. But after finding out that the army of Maratha and the Sikhs is in hot pursuit, they vacated and fled from Peshawar, and thus the fort of Peshawar was attacked and captured. There was no battle in/at Peshawar nor does the attack define it as a battle. If there was a Battle, any sources would clearly state it. It was simply capture. MehmoodS (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They can also mean in a war or campaign. That is why it is OR to say this was a battle. You are using wp:synthesis to draw conclusions not stated EXPLICITLY in the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Barua, Pradeep (2005). The state at war in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. p. 55. ISBN 9780803213449. The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.
  2. ^ War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia, 1740-1849
  3. ^ Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813. New Dawn Press, Incorporated. p. 256. ISBN 9781932705546. "The province of Multan and northwest frontier were also overrun by Marathas and the forts of Peshawar and Attock were garrisoned by their troops"
  4. ^ Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 Volumes] By Alexander Mikaberidze https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Conflict_and_Conquest_in_the_Islamic_Wor/jBBYD2J2oE4C?hl=en&gbpv=1 Page 43 "The Marathas, assisted by Sikhs, defeated the Afghans and captured Attock, Peshwar and Multan in the spring of 1758.
  • Delete I am the one who tagged the article for WP:PROD a few months back and discussed on talk page as well. There is not a single reliable source that mentions any battle taking place at peshawar. Even redirect to Capture of Peshawar is not helpful because, there is hardly any source which says Peshawar was captured. Most of the historians that mention Maratha invasion of Punjab do not even mention Peshawar except some hyper nationalists authors. Even if we accept dubious claim of capturing Peshawar (not battle), there is no need for a separate article whose authenticity is in question and best can be merged with Maratha conquest of North-west India. The user crshed greek who commented above for keeping the article tried multiple times engaging me in an edit war to keep such dubious source which is listed in WP:PUS. After exhaustion, I let go of the matter. Anyway, I strongly suggest for deletion of the page or least merging it with Maratha conquest page. Hiensrt (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple shources say that Peshawar was recaptured by afghan emperor and maratha empire suffering casualties there before proceeding to the famous battle of Panipat. That means it was indeed captured by marathas. Also sources say that maratha empire had garrisoned their troops in Peshawar fort. At least one foreign author has cleaely told that peshawar was captured, whichihave quoted here. So no need to bring nationalism, islamism, communism etc here. You have gone offline and this new user MehmoodS has surfaced. You have voted as delete here, but he has refrained from voting here. Crashed greek (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually he did say merge, he has just not bolded it. Also, if it is was recaptured, that would be irrelevant as it does not seem to be the battle you are referring to, which its original capture (again we go back to a kind of WP:SYNTHESIS) even if A battle was fought there at some point it does not mean it was this one. And again capture and battle are not synonymous, many cities surrender without a fight.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly renamed). Maratha conquest of North-west India has a paragraph on the relevant events, which makes clear that Peshawar changed hands twice. I would suggest that the title might be something live Peshawar in the Maratha War. I presume there are sources which may provide more detail than is in Maratha conquest of North-west India. There is a certain class of WP editor who seem to want to make everything a battle, so that they can use a battlebox. Sometimes towns will be surrendered because they are untenable, the forces that were in possession being allowed to retreat in safety. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That page is also citing the same source, this page has. While the tertiary work is useful but in this case it is propagating the same boast which is doubted by many. Here [48] Please read footnote on page 76 of the book i provided. This book "Fall of Mughal Empire" is written by eminent historian Jadunath Sarkar and his whole work is based on primary sources, he is stating that maratha standard over Attock is a mere boast and no maratha soldier crossed even Chenab river. Remember Attock is further west on Indus river and Peshawar is still west to that so their claim of going upto even Attock is doubted let alone Peshawar. Another book I am citing here is "Punjab: A history from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten" by Rajmohan Gandhi. On page no 103 it is written that, "Though the claim that their standard was raised on the walls of Attock on the Indus's eastern shore has been disputed, the Marathas, led by Raghunath Rao and aided by the Sikhs and by Adina, had pushed the Afghans out of India. However, Raghunath Rao did not pursue the Afghans beyond Chenab. He returned to Lahore, as did Adina." So here too it is stated that even raising their flag on east bank of Indus is disputed by historian let alone crossing Indus and then going upto peshawar. One more writer Khshwant Singh in History of Sikhs, states, "As the Sikh and Maratha armies crossed the Sutlej, Jahan Khan, who was in the Jullundur Doab, hastily retired to Lahore. A few days later the entire Afghan army vacated the city and was in full retreat across the Ravi. Raghu Nath Rao entered Lahore in April 1758. Adina Beg Khan feted him at the Shalamar Gardens and had the city illuminated in his honour. While the festivities were going on in Lahore, Sikh and Maratha cavalry went in pursuit of the Afghan prince and his commander-in-chief. Taimur and Jahan Khan barely escaped with their lives when crossing the Chenab near Wazirabad. Their rearguard and heavy baggage were captured and brought back to Lahore. The Sikhs took the Afghan prisoners to Amritsar and made them clean up the pool around the Harimandir. The Marathas returned to Delhi the richer by several crores. Adina Beg Khan got what he wanted: the subedarī of the Punjab at seventy-five lacs of rupees a year to be paid to the Marathas." It is clear that even the maratha boast of reaching Attock is doubtful let alone Peshawar which is still far away from there. Hiensrt (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Marathas reaching even till Attock is doubtful and disputed, let alone crossing Indus and reaching Peshawar.

1. First source: Eminent Historian Jadunath Sarkar's magnum opus in four volumes, "Fall of Mughal Empire", Here is the link for second volume [49], please see page 75-76 and footnote on page 76 of the book. He is stating that maratha standard over Attock is a mere boast and no maratha soldier crossed even Chenab river. Remember Attock is further west on Indus river and Peshawar is still west to that so their claim of going upto even Attock is doubted let alone Peshawar. 2. Another source I "Punjab: A history from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten" by Rajmohan Gandhi. On page no 103 it is written that, "Though the claim that their standard was raised on the walls of Attock on the Indus's eastern shore has been disputed, the Marathas, led by Raghunath Rao and aided by the Sikhs and by Adina, had pushed the Afghans out of India. However, Raghunath Rao did not pursue the Afghans beyond Chenab. He returned to Lahore, as did Adina." 3. Another writer Khushwant Singh in History of Sikhs, states, "As the Sikh and Maratha armies crossed the Sutlej, Jahan Khan, who was in the Jullundur Doab, hastily retired to Lahore. A few days later the entire Afghan army vacated the city and was in full retreat across the Ravi. Raghu Nath Rao entered Lahore in April 1758. Adina Beg Khan feted him at the Shalamar Gardens and had the city illuminated in his honour. While the festivities were going on in Lahore, Sikh and Maratha cavalry went in pursuit of the Afghan prince and his commander-in-chief. Taimur and Jahan Khan barely escaped with their lives when crossing the Chenab near Wazirabad. Their rearguard and heavy baggage were captured and brought back to Lahore. The Sikhs took the Afghan prisoners to Amritsar and made them clean up the pool around the Harimandir. The Marathas returned to Delhi the richer by several crores. Adina Beg Khan got what he wanted: the subedarī of the Punjab at seventy-five lacs of rupees a year to be paid to the Marathas." It is clear that even the maratha boast of reaching Attock is doubtful let alone reaching Peshawar which is still far away from there. And fighting a battle there is not found in any source whatsoever except one random source provided by one editor, that source is listed in WP:PUS. All three writers I provided here are quite known and have wikipedia pages. Since I already voted for Delete before, so wrote comment while adding these sources, my vote is still Delete.Hiensrt (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The book you quoted of Rajmohan's year 2013 book is not searcheable on google, so it has failed the verification. You are also not quoting exact sentences from books, so your sentences would be WP:OR. But multiple books say opposite of what you are stating. Crashed greek (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wp:v has nothing to say about access, in fact, quite the opposite. It only has to be verifiable by those who have access.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moments after I had told [50] that some sources added by others I could not search on google books, you had tagged [51] those sources as failed verification in the article. But here you are stating the opposite. Crashed greek (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not tag them because I could not read them, I read them. I just did not conclude that they were not talking about a battle.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book of Rajmohan Gandhi is available on google books, here is the link [52], it is just that, its content is not accesible. I don't know why you are making things up, I quoted exact wordings from the book as it appears on Page no 103. I don't think you understand what failed verification and WP:OR means. Besides there is one more book Forgotten Mughals by G.S. Cheema, here is google book link [53], in the book on the page no 294, it is stated, "After their easy success at Sirhind, the Marathas advanced further, the Afghans evacuating the Bist Doab and, on 19 April, Lahore as well. The forces of Prince Timur were weak, and the Lahore fort in disrepair; so the viceroy evacuated the Punjab rapidly without risking another engage ment. The Deccani cavalry chased them as far as the Indus, but they did not try to cross the river, the traditional border of the Indian world. Nor do they ever appear to have ever garrisoned the fort of Attock which presumably remained in Durrani hands. But for a few months at least, the whole of Punjab including Multan, was dominated by the Marathas and their Sikh allies." Here also the author is clearly saying they did not cross Indus river, Peshawar is of course beyond Indus, let alone Indus, he is also saying that Attock fort was under Durrani forces and was not occupied by Marathas.
  • comment Here I am adding all four sources I provided above in citation form, all pf which talk about Maratha campaign in Punjab and states unequivocally that Maratha armies didn't cross the Indus river, almost every source is denying even occupation of Attock, let alone Peshawar.[1][2][3][4]}}

Hiensrt (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cheema, G.S. The Forgotten Mughals: A History of the Later Emperors of the House of Babar, 1707-1857. p. 294. After their easy success at Sirhind, the Marathas advanced further, the Afghans evacuating the Bist Doab and, on 19 April, Lahore as well. The forces of Prince Timur were weak, and the Lahore fort in disrepair; so the viceroy evacuated the Punjab rapidly without risking another engage ment. The Deccani cavalry chased them as far as the Indus, but they did not try to cross the river, the traditional border of the Indian world. Nor do they ever appear to have ever garrisoned the fort of Attock which presumably remained in Durrani hands. But for a few months at least, the whole of Punjab including Multan, was dominated by the Marathas and their Sikh allies.
  2. ^ Singh, Khushwant. A History of the Sikhs: Volume 1: 1469-1838. pp. 142–143. As the Sikh and Maratha armies crossed the Sutlej, Jahan Khan, who was in the Jullundur Doab, hastily retired to Lahore. A few days later the entire Afghan army vacated the city and was in full retreat across the Ravi. Raghu Nath Rao entered Lahore in April 1758. Adina Beg Khan feted him at the Shalamar Gardens and had the city illuminated in his honour. While the festivities were going on in Lahore, Sikh and Maratha cavalry went in pursuit of the Afghan prince and his commander-in-chief. Taimur and Jahan Khan barely escaped with their lives when crossing the Chenab near Wazirabad. Their rearguard and heavy baggage were captured and brought back to Lahore. The Sikhs took the Afghan prisoners to Amritsar and made them clean up the pool around the Harimandir. The Marathas returned to Delhi the richer by several crores. Adina Beg Khan got what he wanted: the subedarī of the Punjab at seventy-five lacs of rupees a year to be paid to the Marathas.
  3. ^ Gandhi, Rajmohan. Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten. Aleph Book Company. p. 103. ISBN 978-93-82277-58-3. Though the claim that their standard was raised on the walls of Attock on the Indus's eastern shore has been disputed, the Marathas, led by Raghunath Rao and aided by the Sikhs and by Adina, had pushed the Afghans out of India. However, Raghunath Rao did not pursue the Afghans beyond Chenab. He returned to Lahore, as did Adina.
  4. ^ Sarkar, Jadunath (1934). Fall Of The Mughal Empire Vol.2. The Marathas did not venture to carry the war across the Chenab, because the river was too deep for fording and the country beyond it was mostly tenanted by Afghan supporters of the Durrāni cause.......*Not a single Maratha soldier crossed the Chenab. The assertion that the Maratha standards were carried up to the Indus at Attock, is an ignorant boast.
There are numerous sources otherwise who mention the capture of Attock, Peshawar and Multan like the ones listed on the article, particularly the reliable ones. Singh's source doesn't make any such statements. Whereas Jadunath's view has been refuted by many historians during his time and the modern historians and scholars after. Hari Ram Gupta, an imminent scholar has stated in his book History of the Sikhs vol 2 as well as Marathas and Panipat about the Capture of Peshawar. Due to numerous sources in particularly by reliable citations, its concluded that there was a Capture and not a Battle of Peshawar in 1758. MehmoodS (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge Adding my decision in bold. Reliable sources mention the event as "Capture" as a result of the battle that took place in different location. Repeating what I mentioned earlier: "Change the title to Capture of Peshawar (1758), delete the page and direct the title to another page suitable for it." MehmoodS (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge There's very little about any so-called battle here, nothing that can't be covered in another article. FDW777 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marianna Olszewski[edit]

Marianna Olszewski (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)

Another pure advertisement and possible G11. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

slip of the mouse DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever it is, it's not an advertisement. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNG requires in depth coverage of a person in reliable sources, not just a few short mentions here or there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything much about her other than mentions in articles about some off-shore banking scandals. That's not enough. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Pavitra[edit]

Mani Pavitra (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)

Pure advertisement--possible speedy G11. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Branded content / publications used for sourcing. A joke. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or TNT At least one of the "references" is actually an advertisement (#13). Much of the rest doesn't show notability. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 09:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Levin (influencer)[edit]

Rachel Levin (influencer) (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)

pure advertisement, even for a field like this

Even given the dubious nature of the awards, she didn't actually win any of them. And the Inquirer is her home town paper. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is the Forbes source, it is considered generally unreliable per WP:FORBESCON, and this 2016 '5 things to know' People article mostly recycles two other sources instead of independently reporting, and promotes an upcoming interview. Beccaynr (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've revised the article, including to add sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of the refs listed, the only ones that I would consider to be SIGCOV would be the Philadelphia Inquirer and maybe LA Weekly. The rest are mostly "Top X of Y" type articles which do not mean much in terms of notability. Lean delete.-KH-1 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and Vogue (even one of the less popular international editions) establish notability. Trillfendi (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Philadelphia Inquirer and LA Weekly and People and Adweek are sufficiently indepth and sufficiently important. Thank you Beccaynr. --GRuban (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the sources (I have read in full every one I mention, tho I haven't watched the linked videos from her site)
The story in People is an interview in which she says what she cares to, more than half of the text is in her own words, or at least are reported to be her own words; of the rest, part is a quote from a Social marketing company. Visually, the bulk of the contents are photos of her or videos of her.
LA Weekly is a less sophisticated interview, with 90% in her own words telling how successful she is--this is not a third party source, but the reprint of a press release.
Vogue has 17 words about her in a combination article, and the rest of the material about her is a link to her instagram site /.
"Adweek" isn't even a story--there is no text at all, just a like to a video where she stalks about herself with no editorial comment whatsoever--it's just a link to her own publicity and not a third party site at all.
The Inquirer story is at least in the words of the reporter, but it just reprints her publicity,
WWD is a combination story--she gets 17 words and a link to her video
WSJ has a quote from her in a general story
Hollywood Reporter --both stories are inclusion of her name in a long list of people considered for a prize she was nominated for, but did not win (or apparently even get honorable mention) The only thing she came out first in is a list complied by a marketing company, the least reliable of all imaginable sources.
E! similarly is a a list of people nominated for a prize she did not win.
The Guardian story is not about her, but a general one --and a rather good honest report on the general phenomenon; being honest, the complete content about her is Charles has more than 13 million subscribers, and so do Eleonora Maronese, Roi Fabito, Rachel Levin, Guillermo Díaz Ibañez, Wengie Huang, and Nathaniel Peterson. "
GRuban,Beccaynr, have you actually looked at them--if so, do you really assert that the Adweek is third party--that her own videos are a third party source? Do you assert that the two words of her name in the Guardian is significant or substantial content? (and similarly for the others)
There does seem to be one half-way usable source, the Inquirer. At least, it might be usable if it weren't in the "opinion": section and written by a columnist. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I agree the Guardian is just a mention, I'm not counting that very highly. However, the People is clearly a non-trivial piece about her, as is the Adweek. The Adweek piece absolutely has a lot of text - as it says at the bottom, it "first appeared in the May 2, 2016 issue of Adweek magazine", which would make it rather difficult to do if it were "just a like(sic) to a video"; now I have to ask you whether you read it? Then there is the LAWeekly, also a long piece, not a video ... and just look at the number of them. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect you didn't read the Adweek piece. It is paywalled; if you don't have a subscription (or ... use a hack, which I would never, ever, suggest you do, because that would be wrong ...) the free part is just a video, then comes the "please subscribe". But it is a full length piece, with real text, multiple videos, and, as I write, "first appeared in the May 2, 2016 issue of Adweek magazine". Don't know what I can tell you about it without copying and pasting it in, but it's not an indepth biography, but it is multiple several sections about how she does her stuff, which is presumably of interest to Adweek's subscribers (unlike biographies; Adweek is a magazine about advertising after all), about the same order of magnitude as the other pieces I cite. Between them they are sufficient. --GRuban (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban You are correct, I mistakenly thought that was the entirepiece, and the video was an external link from the piece. I now understand how they do things. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, it would have been difficult to rewrite the article without looking at the sources I could access, and the rewrite was an exercise to help assess the reasons for deletion in the nomination, i.e. "pure advertisement", "dubious nature of the awards" and "hometown paper", and to assess WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability. As an initial matter, each of the three four types of awards not only have their own Wikipedia articles, the nominations also tended to receive independent coverage from reliable sources (including the Los Angeles Times), and I do not believe nominations should be discounted when there is this type of media notice. And when I reviewed the sources again, I realized this 2019 E!Online article is for a 2019 award nomination - a nonindependent source, but the award nomination is a form of secondary commentary on her career (also covered by e.g. WP:RSPDEADLINE).
  • At the time the article was nominated for deletion [54], it contained puffery, an advertising tone, and overstatements based on the cited sources. So from my view, one question was whether the article could be rewritten in a neutral point of view. Per WP:HEY, I think the advertising tone is adequately addressed.
  • As to the sources, The Philadelphia Inquirer describes itself as a regional paper, and a review of its news page indicates this includes New Jersey. The 2016 article about Levin labeled opinion is written by a columnist (columnists are presented in their own section on the PI opinion page) and I assessed her role as a columnist as indicating she is not an outside author per the reliable sources guideline, and then focused on incorporating straightforward facts into the article, not the 'publicity'. Given the in-depth coverage available, it helped develop some biographical information, while some career information was also supported by other sources, including MTV News, which found her first tutorial video 'worthy of notice' several years after it was created, with WP:SECONDARY commentary that includes classifying Levin as a 'famous beauty guru'.
  • With regard to The Wall Street Journal, her inclusion in the WSJ article at the beginning of her YouTube career was found 'worthy of notice' years later by the PI columnist, which is why I included it as an event in the Levin article. I do not have access to the full WSJ article but I can see WP:SECONDARY commentary at the beginning (e.g. "These next-generation Estée Lauders") that appears to apply to all of the subjects, so I erred on the side of this independent and reliable source supporting WP:BASIC notability on its own and with support from the PI columnist.
  • With regard to The Hollywood Reporter, per WP:RSP/WP:THR, There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, and the first THR citation includes Levin in a 2015 article about "YouTube's Top 30 Influencers", "chosen by marketing powerhouse Ogilvy & Mather" with a blurb about her, which appears to support her WP:BASIC notability. And then the Levin article includes findings of another marketing company (ZEFR) that received notice from WP:BI (no consensus on reliablity) and People (per WP:RSP, reliable, but should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source.) From my view, the article could be rewritten to include a greater focus on the reporting by THR and remove the ZEFR-related information without an adverse impact on WP:BASIC notability, and could help address any ongoing concerns about an advertising tone that may exist, but it was People taking notice of the event that led me to include it, so I think further discussion would be helpful about whether the content should be included.
  • And then there is Women's Wear Daily, a trade industry journal "often referred to as the "Bible of fashion", according to its WP article. In its 2018 report on the 'beauty vlogging universe', Levin is ranked second in the list of "Top Performing Beauty Vloggers of 2017", with some accomplishments highlighted. For WP:BASIC, the guideline indicates it is not a strict count of words that determines notability, but instead what those words say, and this type of WP:SECONDARY coverage appears to support notability. Subjectively, we can discount marketing companies that track social media engagement, but when independent and reliable sources find them worthy of notice, this appears to be objective evidence that supports inclusion in this type of article.
  • As to the 2019 The Guardian article, it appears to clearly include Levin as part of "YouTube celebrity culture", which is a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary that supports her WP:BASIC notability, and then offers a straightforward fact about her YouTube stats in a context that helps demonstrate its significance, which is a form of WP:SECONDARY synthesis that further supports her WP:BASIC notability.
  • As to the 2020 LA Weekly article, it is bylined to a reporter, not a press release, and while it is mostly an interview, it also includes straightforward facts that help add content to the article, and further shows she has received sustained coverage over the course of her career.
  • As to the 2016 Adweek source, I do not have access to it and did not include information from it in the article, although I encourage anyone with access to review it for usable content. I mentioned it above as support for WP:BASIC notability because People also takes note of the interview in 2016, and notability may be supported based on how Adweek frames the interview as "And what brands can learn from the vlogger".
  • As to the 2020 Vogue Germany article, it helps show how she continued to receive coverage, and the WP:SECONDARY commentary is that she appears on a shortlist of beauty influencers/social media stars, which is Levin's claim to notability.
The WP:BASIC guideline includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability, and I think the sustained WP:SECONDARY commentary and synthesis outlined above is sufficient to establish her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As this concerns some l questions that frequently arise, I'm going to respond further: I think this shows a misunderstanding of "mention" vs. significant content" Including a name and nothing else is a mention. Usually I think the rule of thumb might be a paragraph at least. I'm not saying these mentions can be worth including for an article, but they are not RSs for notability . 'including straightforward facts" is not the criterion for a RS for notability -- it's a frequently used non-argument. The Inquirer is the major regional paper for the Philadelphia area. Like all such papers, it does cover local events more heavily than a national paper would. But this is true of some national papers also, even the NYT and WP. I do not accept that the listing of anything by an advertising and publicity agency is a reliable source for notability of anything. I am even reluctant to consider them RSs at all for any purpose whatsoever, though I suppose there can be exceptions. "include Levin as part of "YouTube celebrity culture", is not a criterion--including someone because of being especially important in celebrity culture is. The relevant policy is NOTDIRECTORY. Being part of something , or on a list of something is directory information.
We're dealing with an industry, internet influencers, whose very existence is based only and expressly on publicity and usually nothing else whatsoever. There can be exceptions when a influencer is also a notable artist or musician, or becomes one, but usually they're the most extreme example of "notable for being notable," except that in this expression notable is not being used in the WP meaning. We could consider changing our definition of WP:N to be whatever the world temporarily thinks important, however foolishly, but this provides an gradual decline into nothingness. What keeps us from it is the requirement for signficant coverage from RSs. In publicity-ridden fields, those terms in the GNG should be interpreted very strictly. The important thing about n encyclopedia is that it not be a vehicle for publicity--not for anyone's publicity/. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there is sustained WP:SECONDARY coverage in independent and reliable sources, based on her successful career on YouTube and other social media. Her participation on social media is her work, not 'publicity'. WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not appear to apply, because there are more than passing mentions due to the context available in the sources and in the prose of the article. As to the rankings by companies that analyze social media engagement, when independent and reliable sources find these worthy of notice, that is not her 'publicity', it is a measure of her success in terms that WP:BASIC appears to count for notability. Wikiproject YouTube also has an essay that echoes this reasoning, and it does not add a subjective criteria of 'notable artist or musician' to the exclusion of 'beauty influencer'. Beccaynr (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like there are sufficient sources to meet guidelines (For me that's Philly Inquirer, People, and Adweek). Adweek also isn't an "advertising agency", it's a trade publication so it does count. I don't really love influencers but being well known and making mind-blowing contributions to art/music don't always go hand in hand. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lalakwe[edit]

Lalakwe (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)

Notability in question. Per WP:BEFORE, I've searched through Google Books and Philippine newspaper archives. I was unable to find any reviews or awards associated with this film. Newspaper mentions that I found are either Cable TV program schedules, a newspaper writer missing a bunch of old films or saying that a certain actress starred in this film. Note that lalakwe is also slang for a homosexual or effeminate man so you might get false positives if you search Filipino sources. --Lenticel (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Stevens (racing driver)[edit]

Ella Stevens (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)

Possibly-promotional WP:BLP of a child racing driver who apparently has a good publicist but no current claim to long-term significance. At present this article seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. While the sourcing here suggests the subject may pass the WP:GNG, I believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugo Ugochukwu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugo Ugochukwu (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Powell, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Kimi Antonelli all demonstrate a precedent to delete articles of this type. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I was referencing the outcome of that deletion discussion at the time it took place. It appears Antonelli may now have received further coverage sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per my comment below, changed my opinion upon deeper evaluation of the sources. At best case, a WP:BARE notability on WP:GNG, and an obvious failure of WP:NMOTORSPORT. WP:NTEMP clearly says that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." She meets WP:GNG through i (newspaper), CNN and Formula Scout bits cited in the article already. There's also more at Capital (French magazine) [67], and Gazette Series (published by Newsquest) [68]. It definitely reads a bit promotional, but that's something the AfD is not for. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources you provided, the CNN one is an interview, the Capital one just speaks about her background, her backers, and so on—they all basically go on a tangent about how good she is and how much she is going to make history, but only the iNews one actually focuses on her achievements, whereas the Gazette Series is just short coverage of a very minor local karting competition. The Formula Scout one is a bit eh, it's good coverage but the topic isn't that significant and making the list isn't particularly worthy. All it suggests to me is she has a good publicist, as the nominator mentioned. Her results are largely uninspiring and competing for a spot in the FDA is nowhere near notable, especially when she didn't even make the finals and the 2021 winners (Laura Camps Torras and Maria Germano Neto) don't have an article. If Antonelli, Ugochukwu and a literal GP3 driver are all deletable, then I see zero reason to keep this one. MSport1005 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MSport1005 I've given the sources a very detailed look. The reason why I mentioned CNN is because, beyond the interview quoting, there is some independent reporting on her in separate sentences. But, I have realized the 2nd half is all basically about Stevens' staff, and not her alone in fact. So, I've struck that one out. Capital is actually copying the CNN's article, so that one is thrown to the garbage bin too. Like you said, iNews is good. While I believe that Formula Scout is WP:SIGCOV, Gazette Series' isn't (few sentences only). So I come to the WP:BARE situation, where I myself will lean and change my vote to delete. If Stevens achieves something in the future, the article could always be recreated. As a notice, I'd support an instant recreation for Antonelli, just like I said above. The sources I posted were never discussed in AfDs, and per guidelines (would need a bit of new text of course), if added there, it would bypass G4 deletion. Ugochukwu's coverage is very WP:ROUTINE (beyond one decent Autoweek article) and McLaren tied from what an initial glance, sadly. And like WP:NMOTORSPORT says, only GP2/F2 as top-level feeder fulfills the notability criteria, so GP3 is just not reaching it. Thank you for doing a reply to me, because it made me go deeper into all of this, as I change my views when faced with good points. Cheers, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I don't support the re-creation of Ugo Ugochukwu's article. He's got quite some independent coverage, magnified of course by his signing for McLaren, but he's a pretty overrated karting driver in my opinion, and is set to make his racing debut in a way easier series compared to Antonelli (and Antonelli has already had decent success in Italian and UAE F4). MSport1005 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gharjistan University[edit]

Gharjistan University (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)

Reviewed under new page patrol. No content (barely a stub) and no wp:notability-suitable references. When looking at a reference given (their web page) establishing wp:notability via more sources looks unlikely. Article was previously deleted. Curation tool didn't work on creating this page so I created manually. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the bar is a bit higher than just legitimate. The only English page on their web site has a "trying to get established" look. Maybe the fact that it is in Afghanistan gives it more notability. I'm not advocating any particular outcome on this; just doing my NPP job. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expander System Sweden AB[edit]

Expander System Sweden AB (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)

Definitely fails WP:NCORP. Now a hardware wholesaler, it wasn't notable as a "pivot-pin system" manufacturer either. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Binod Hazarika[edit]

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

Not notable at all. Winning a past election and losing all criteria doesn't make him eligible for Wiki. Arunudoy (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gulzar Hussain[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gulzar Hussain (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)

Too low-level officer. Doesn't pass WP:GNG Arunudoy (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ben Het[edit]

Battle of Ben Het (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 fork from Ben Het Camp, which provides some expanded detail of the 3 March 1969 attack, but not enough to warrant its own page. There were multiple "battles" at Ben Het: the 3 March 1969 attack, the May-June 1969 siege, the April-May 1972 siege and the 12-13 October 1972 conquest of the base, all of which are detailed on the Ben Het Camp page. Any relevant detail should be merged into that page. Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The infobox of the Ben Het Camp article featured a WP:RED to the previously nonexistent Battle of Ben Het article under Battles/wars, suggesting an article for the battle was desired. The battle is also detailed on the PT-76 article, which would lead one to believe it should have it's own article so as not to be exclusively spread across multiple articles. The notion that an article for the battle shouldn't exist due to an article for the camp existing that mentions the battle is a bit baffling, given there are numerous articles on battles for forts, castles and bases that exist in conjunction with the articles for the forts, castles and bases they took place within. For example, Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) is allowed to exist alongside Tan Son Nhut Air Base, with the 1966 attack not being excluded to detail in the latter article.
In regards to there being multiple "battles" for Ben Het, generally when searching for the 'Battle of Ben Het' or reading mention of the 'Battle of Ben Het,' the tank battle of 3 March 1969 is the engagement you'll find. The 3 March 1969 attack is also the only engagement truly titled a "battle" that you mentioned, and if the siege and conquest were to warrant their own articles then they could be titled the 'Siege of Ben Het' and/or the 'Fall of Ben Het,' as many other articles do to differentiate between battles and sieges taking place in the same area.
To merge the article with the Ben Het Camp article would be contradictory to the precedence taken on a vast majority of other articles regarding battles for forts, castles and bases, and thus I suggest to keep it. UncleBourbon (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redlink just means that someone put square brackets around a term, thinking a page exists, it doesn't "suggest an article for the battle was desired". Your comparison to Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) is incorrect, Tan Son Nhut Air Base was already a massive page, adding a large amount of specific detail relating to the 1966 attack would have just bloated the Tan Son Nhut Air Base page. There is no issue with having details of the engagement on both the PT-76 page and on Ben Het Camp, the issue is that you have created a fork with only a few more specifics than what was already on Ben Het camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone thought a page existed, and if the battle is significant enough to exist as a subsection of an article for a tank model that fought in it, then it is WP:N enough to warrant it's own article. For another more accurate comparison, you have Duc Lap Camp and the Battle of Duc Lap, as the Duc Lap Camp article is even smaller than the Ben Het Camp article, and again the Battle of Duc Lap article is allowed to exist alongside it. I could go on with other examples if you would like, since the problem you take with this article's existence truly goes against the precedent. "Only a few more specifics" is entirely your opinion; the Battle of Ben Het article mentions the forces stationed at Ben Het at the time of the battle, the activity observed prior to the battle, the names of participants and commanders within the battle, the order in which targets were sighted and positions they were taken out, the pursuit by the AC-47 'Spooky,' as well as various other details left out of the Ben Het Camp article.UncleBourbon (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is the order of creation. I created Duc Lap Camp several years after another User created Battle of Duc Lap, because Battle of Duc Lap didn't have detail of the camp itself including its history before and after that battle. A better comparison would be Camp Carroll created in July 2006 and then the creation last November of Surrender of Camp Carroll which was soon merged back into Camp Carroll and First Battle of Quang Tri. Ben Het Camp already states the forces stationed there, the names of the participants and commanders is trivia unless any of them received a significant medal, the order of engagement is stated on Ben Het Camp and the use of an AC-47 can just be added to Ben Het Camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see the significance in the order of creation if we're discussing whether the articles can exist simultaneously. The point stands that if the Battle of Duc Lap can exist separately from Duc Lap Camp to provide greater detail on the battle, then the same is applicable for the Battle of Ben Het. You also haven't put the Battle of Duc Lap article up for deletion since it's details could all be moved to your Duc Lap Camp article, which is essentially what you're doing here. Information and significance are what matter, not date of creation. The fact it is the only true tank battle involving the United States in the Vietnam War, that there are two different articles already referencing it as the 'Battle of Ben Het,' and that it is well documented and of significance, makes it noteworthy enough to warrant it's own article for greater detail. Again, it is only your opinion that a paragraph on the Ben Het Camp article has sufficient detail, and that details such as participants and commanders are 'trivia.' The infobox alone for the Battle of Ben Het article has more details regarding the battle than the paragraph of the camp article, which is fine as it is an article for the camp, and not an article for the battle. It frankly makes no sense to turn a perfectly suitable full article of a battle into a drawn out section of your article on the camp it took place in just because you want the information there.UncleBourbon (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely disagree with you. Battle of Ben Het contains only additional trivia beyond what is contained on the Ben Het Camp page. There's clearly no point in us continuing this discussion as we won't reach agreement, so we will see how this AFD plays out. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Although relatively minor, notable as the only tank v tank engagement of the Vietnam war. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only tank v tank engagement, involving the US. The North and South Vietnamese had plenty of such engagements. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes, let me rephrase that, it's the only tank engagement involving US tanks in the Vietnam war. However as such, this makes it definitley notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NOPAGE, I think this should be merged as proposed by the nominator. Both articles are quite short, so no information will be lost, but this engagement will presented in the context of other related events. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on Ben Het Camp proper. The majority of the border zone camps were subject to periodic attacks of varying severity so long as they existed (some even being under what might be considered a permanent state of siege). Merging this with the camp gives context to the engagement while still preserving its unique elements. Intothatdarkness 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but also rename to include the date for clarity - the tank battle at Ben Het on 3-4 March 1969 is notable as the only US tank versus NVA tank battle of the Vietnam War and has received a lot of coverage because of that. See e.g., 1 2 3. The sources clearly distinguish this battle from the other battles that took part at the camp, and from the history of the camp in general. The nature of the Vietnam war meant that certain places were fought over all the time, but this being the case does not mean that there weren't much larger battles that were distinct from the continual drum-beat of combat around US/ARVN bases. "Ben Het Camp" is not a natural redirect for this subject and will surprise people searching for this specific battle, it is also not what we have done with Battle of Khe Sanh or the DMZ Campaign (1969–71) despite the existence of Khe Sanh Combat Base and Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone so consistency points towards not merging to the place where the combat took place. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ben Het Camp is a perfectly natural redirect and it would not "surprise people searching for this specific battle". The comparisons to Battle of Khe Sanh and DMZ Campaign (1969–71) are spurious as both were long battles/campaigns whereas Ben Het 1969 was just an overnight attack and trying to put either of those into Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone would completely overburden that page. Putting Battle of Khe Sanh (created in 2003) into Khe Sanh Combat Base (created as a redirect in 2007 and as a standalone page in 2012) would similarly overburden that page. Khe Sanh is probably the best known battle of the war, unlike the Ben Het attack which is relatively unknown (it has not "received a lot of coverage") and was just one of a series of attacks aimed at the camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much every book that discusses armoured warfare in general during the 20th century mentions the tank-battle at Ben Het. It being brief or long doesn't particularly matter. It being part of a series of attacks also doesn't particularly matter as the sources treat it differently. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of "pretty much every book that discusses armored warfare" (none of which are on the page as refs) doesn't determine whether this should be a standalone page or a redirect. Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST, see the links above. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cali White[edit]

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

Fails NBIO. Refbombed with examples of her modelling work but lacking in SIGCOV. KH-1 (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hridaya Caitanya Dasa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hridaya Caitanya Dasa (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)

All ISKCON members are not notable. Lack of major work or post held. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Promotional bio based on self published or dependent (ISKCON) sources. Last Afd in 2011 had only WP:ITSNOTABLE comments. No notability asserted. Venkat TL (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pelli Chesi Choodu (1988 film)[edit]

Pelli Chesi Choodu (1988 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of myriad articles mindlessly created by B.Bhargava Teja. Lacks reliable sources, and I was unable to find any. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Mission in the Philippines[edit]

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Mission in the Philippines (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)

Notability and verifiability in question. As per WP:BEFORE I cannot find reliable sources outside the mission and Wikipedia mirrors for the personalities listed in this article. Article has also been unreferenced since 2011. Lenticel (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There is no point in further discussing a page which is nowhere near the same page that was nominated, and where the available sources are so plentiful. Geschichte (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those United States[edit]

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

There are no articles, there are no sources, there is nothing at all.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Ki (kana). Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gi (kana)[edit]

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

Article content superfluous to the much better developed Ki (kana). VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 02:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages - substantively the same content, with similar well-developed alternate articles:

Ga (kana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article content superfluous to the much better developed Ka (kana). VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 02:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Log Jammer (Six Flags Magic Mountain)[edit]

Log Jammer (Six Flags Magic Mountain) (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 water ride. Was removed from the park in 2011, but was unlikely to be notable even before then. Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal Wave (Six Flags Magic Mountain)[edit]

Tidal Wave (Six Flags Magic Mountain) (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 former water ride (was removed from the park). Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Motorsports[edit]

TNT Motorsports (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 notabilty guideline. I have been unable to find any substantive third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Sable232 (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason; I could not find sources to establish notability. Two of them were television shows under the TNT Motorsports umbrella.

Trucks and Tractor Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tuff Trax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Motor Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete all – There's clearly a reason these articles are effectively unsourced, and that's that there is effectively no coverage. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I'm striking my !vote, since there is clearly some coverage as shown below. However, the linked articles only suggest TNT Motorsports may pass the GNG, the other three do not. However, as has also been mentioned, there is no direct association between the four articles. Since I do not wish to start splitting my !votes (which invariably gets messy) I will abstain from this discussion. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- There are literally zero sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given Sammi Brie's sources, I'll strke my !vote. Spf121188 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GNG only cares about whether sources exist, not whether or not they are in the article. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything - There is SIGCOV on TNT Motorsports in this source, on Motor Madness here, and possibly on Trucks and Tractor Power here (though I can't verify at this time as it's behind a paywall. There also is strong WP:POTENTIAL for non-digitized SIGCOV for everything given the timeline of these articles. Furthermore, the additional nominations pass WP:TVSHOW, and none of these are BLPs therefore GNG needs not be applied so strictly towards subjects which predate mass use of the internet. If absolutely need be, these can all possibly be merged together, but I am certainly not supporting this position in this !vote. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see some SIGCOV: [72], [73]+[74] [75] Motor Madness has nothing to do with this company given that it went defunct on the SRO/Pace buyout in 1990 (first clip). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhant Ghegadmal (Actor)[edit]

Siddhant Ghegadmal (Actor) (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. Most of the appearances in films listed are as an "extra". Majority of sources are either imdb or youtube. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD fails, please merge Draft:Siddhant Ghegadmal (Actor) into this. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a new case for this SPI. As an admin though, I like to see ban evasion confirmation before deleting pages. Let's see this AFD through. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to South Park (franchise)#Films. ✗plicit 02:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South Park (film series)[edit]

South Park (film 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)

Fails WP:GNG. Article is duplicate of information already at South Park (franchise) and other articles and appears to have been created primarily because author disagrees with consensus about the Paramount movies being considered episodes at this time as per author’s edit history at South Park and List of South Park episodes among others. SanAnMan (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per the consensus at the talk page, at the moment the Paramount "films" are being classed as episodes, mainly due to their content and running time. Barry Wom (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page was not created due to my disagreeing. In fact it still goes by the consensus. If these films are suppose to be treated as extended episodes, then much like how the 24th season consists of only two specials and has its own page, the paramount films should be grouped in their own page as well. With constructive edits, it can be a noteworthy addition. Should the paramount films continue this would be the longest group of episodes since season 16, and if they are meant to be episodic as opposed to cinematic, they deserve to be grouped as a season as well. Zvig47 (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reason of editor who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to South_Park_(franchise)#Films, not seeing the need for a stand-alone entry, it does not seem to meet GNG. No objection to merging before (soft) redirecting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. The information is already present at South Park (franchise), and it doesn't seem like there's any need for a separate page about all of the films. Individual films which meet GNG are a separate story. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Severestorm28 01:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. TheVHSArtist (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Victoria (crater). ✗plicit 02:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verde (Mars)[edit]

Cape Verde (Mars) (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)

Extremely minor Martian geographical feature, a minor escarpment of the less than 1 km diameter Victoria (crater), I just don't see how this warrants a separate article from the crater itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_25

Leave a Reply