Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< May 19 May 21 >

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence in Nature[edit]

Intelligence in Nature (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 book review, I am unsure this passes GNG. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Normally I'd recommend merging the well-sourced content into the author Jeremy Narby's page, but that only consists of one book review with a dead link (rest of the article is sourced directly to the book itself, which speaks to the lack of general notability). Bakkster Man (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*::I would challenge how you've characterised the second source. The interviewee states that they have been influenced by a handful of books, how they made them feel, etc etc and then mentions 3 or 4. I don't think that would be the textbook example for insubstantial coverage.

  • If I wrote 10 sentences about how some books made me feel, and then listed the three of them at the end, is that 10 sentences or a passing mention? You get my point?
    Let's remember the context already: there is one review in the article. WP:BK needs two. Either way, I think you must accept there are at least 2 reviews, therefore WP:BK criteria is met. There is basically no way that anyone can argue delete in the context of WP:BK being the most relevant guideline. CT55555 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The other relevant (and slightly more strict) guideline would be WP:NFRINGE. In addition to notability, the article also needs to meet WP:NPOV and WP:V, with NFRINGE in particular focusing on being notable enough to have NPOV sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an article about a theory. It's an article about a book. Of course, WP:NPOV applies. It's the other side of this debate who is pushing a POV. Of course WP:V applies to everything and, everything that's why the article says things like "Narby then speculates..." not "It is a fact that..." CT55555 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Having listened to the interview a few times over, I withdraw my disagreement. While, the NPR coverage is more than the words on the page, but not much. You were correct to call it insubstantial and I was incorrect. CT55555 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to the author page, there does not seem to be enough reception of the book itself to write a complete article. (t · c) buidhe 00:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since your vote, I have added to the length of the article. User:Buidhe CT55555 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still don't think that there is enough independent coverage for a balanced article. Therefore merge (t · c) buidhe 23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care Interestingly enough (in my opinion, at least) is that this article was written in August 2007, almost nothing was done to it for 15 years and then, when I make an improvement, it is suddenly sent to AfD. I don't care if this article is deleted, merged or ignored - either way it will no longer be a stub, which was my intention all along. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Clearly not deletion-worthy, given that it has multiple reviews (the standard PW and Kirkus, along with the others in the references) and an obvious redirect target (Jeremy Narby). -- asilvering (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you forgot to sign this comment User:Asilvering CT55555 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure did. Thanks for the ping. -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect both Intelligence in Nature and The Cosmic Serpent to Jeremy Narby. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as merge and redirect become clearly the likely outcome here, I've edited Jeremy Narby to include the info here, I hope this is helpful. CT55555 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is now a reasonable conclusion, after the addition of two professional reviews; that constitutes our minimum requirement for book articles. Merging to the author's article would be serviceable as well, but it's currently no longer a strict necessity. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing Keep, Delete, Merge and Redirect and in some cases, more than one option presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:HEY (changed from earlier delete opinion, which I have struck). It now has four published book reviews listed as sources in the article, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since this is a book, WP:NBOOK applies. And, given that there are four independent reviews, WP:BOOKCRIT#1 is easily satisfied. If there are issues with content, WP:DEL-CONTENT reminds us that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Since ordinary editing is going to be capable of improving the article in light of the reviews found, the affirmative argument to delete an article is very weak. Since the article passes an WP:SNG and is not excluded under WP:NOT (it ain't just a plot summary anymore), the book merits an article under WP:N. I also don't see any compelling WP:NOPAGE arguments here; it seems like the book is able to stand on its own in terms of coverage and would be handled best in its own article rather than being rammed into a section of a WP:BLP. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meager sources clearly fail WP:GNG and even WP:HEY falls way too short of keep. --00:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 12:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghgossip[edit]

Ghgossip (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 only is this website not notable under WP:NWEB despite it's claim to be one of the most popular websites in ghana (sourced only to Alexa), it's a vanity spam PR source and unreliable, though that in itself is not a deletion reason, just worth noting. According to other dubious sources its somewhere around 50th in popularity which doesn't say much. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 20 May 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Myers (CasaGrande)[edit]

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

Lack of notability, article based on primary sources (and even then lots seem unverifiable). Redirect to New Almaden#New Almaden Quicksilver Mining Museum is a possibility, even though the article title is a very unlikely search term (including the typo in the disambiguation). Fram (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, California, and Louisiana. Fram (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article is worth keeping. It's more that about a house so he should have his own page. He is a biographical representation of someone who came to California either right before or during the gold rush (newspaper sources vary on the year) with little money and did well. Many from this time did not marry since there were far fewer women in California. He is well documented with many sources. Very few homes built in the 1850's survive in California. It's part of the story, but not all of it. Thehusband (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more sources. There is a lot of information about Mr Meyer's online. Occasionally some of the sources have him listed as Meyers, instead of Myers, but Myers is how his name is spelled on his tombstone, voter registration and personal letters currently stored at Louisiana State University. Thehusband (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • TheHusband (or anyone else), can you point to the links which are actually reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage? I see unreliable sources like familusearch and findagrave, and things like this which don't really help either: but I don't see the sources which actually help to establish notability for Myers. Fram (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think A Contested Election in California is the best source[1]
    He's on pages 54-56. He is the Election Inspector for this case that is being questioned. There are newspaper articles from his death as well as the 8 letters on file at Louisiana State University from the 1840's and 1850's. One letter is addressed to Francis Myers, City of Sacramento. No street address. Another one says "Francis Myers, San Jose, CA" on the envelope. Still no address. The towns were much smaller back then. I do not think there are many early letters from this era in California. All of these things make him interesting. I had included a lot of sources like the census and voter registration so I was clear that there was just one Francis Myers at this time. Thehusband (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone coming to California before 1850 was considered a California Pioneer [Category:California_pioneers]. This is not very common. This San Jose newspaper article mentions that he's a Pioneer[2]. The death of this Pioneer was even published in San Francisco[3] in addition to San Jose. The term Pioneer doesn't carry the same weight or meaning as it does today. In 1894 there was no road between San Franciso and San Jose, so I find it impressive for his obituary to be in both cities. What's even more remarkable is that California was still part of Mexico in 1846. Americans were not allowed into California legally at that point. You can read more about the [Society_of_California_Pioneers], which you need to prove that your ancestor came to California before 1850. There are other societies where their relatives arrived later, but this one is the most respected of all the groups.
    Here are three additional secondary sources I've found mentioning him in regards to Grande Casa
    [4]
    [5]
    [6]
    On each of these three links, you can click on the picture on the left to see the brochure/article/document. Thehusband (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirect to New_Almaden#New_Almaden_Quicksilver_Mining_Museum: There is a chance this person might be notable per WP:GNG, but there is a ton of really bad sources here (primary, unreliable, etc.). Familysearch, Find a Grave, and census records are not reliable, and the frequent use of newspaper citations with only a trivial mention of the name "Francis Myers" risks building a Frankenstein article out of multiple people with the same name, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or undue emphasis on trivialities (e.g. providing witness testimony is not what gets somebody into an encyclopedia, and mere verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion). Is it reliably established that the builder and judge are the same person? One obituary states: "The deceased was a carpenter by trade but he accumulated considerable means and retired and has for some time been rated as a capitalist"). We can't have an article based primarily on snippets, census records and primary sources, nor mere mentions of a name on signs, picture captions, or tombstones: that is the realm of historians and biographers to analyze and publish elsewhere: only then can the info be summarized into a tertiary encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider whether there could be more than one Francis Myers in San Jose and Almaden, but these were small places at the time, and I have not found more than one Francis Myers in the local census and voter records, or anywhere else showing more than one. For some perspective, in 1870 there were only 9000 people in San Jose, while New Almaden was even smaller. He spent most of his time in California in New Almaden and only moved to San Jose at the very end of his life. In this book "A Contested Election in California" [7], Francis Myers mentions on page 54 that he built the Casa Grande, on page 55 he mentions that he owns some houses in New Almaden and rents them out, and then on page 56 he says that he was a member of the Elections Board in 1886 as well as the Inspector of the Election in question. The 1894 obituary mentions Francis Myers owned at least 4 different properties and other promissory notes[8]. So it looks like the builder and the judge are the same person. The next person to be interviewed in that book is G.E. Lighthall. What's interesting is that there is a photo of both Lighthall and Francis Myers at this Santa Clara County Park website[9]. The page says that they were both "prominent Almadenders". The disputed election in 1886 in Santa Clara was between two Senators(Felton and Sullivan). It was widely covered at the time. Thehusband (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But looking beyond the primary records, do you see significant coverage in reliable independent sources? His content in A Contested Election in California appears to consists only of his testimony, making it a primary source. Wikipedia articles cannot connect the dots or infer unpublished statements, no matter how likely or credible they may seem. This article on the whole is too close to WP:OR with too much interpretation: holding up scraps and building a narrative around them. I think a redirect to New_Almaden#New_Almaden_Quicksilver_Mining_Museum or deletion is in order, at least until a professional sorts through the sources and can characterize his contributions and biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some other secondary sources.
    [10]
    [11]
    [12]
    [13]
    [14] Thehusband (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another source document called Three Pioneer Rapides Families, by Stafford. Francis Myer's is listed with a short biography on page 121. These links lead to the same document. One of the letters in the Louisiana collection is also mentioned on this page.
    https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/records/item/765772-three-pioneer-rapides-families-a-genealogy-by-george-mason-graham-stafford?offset=14
    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5802c4d9414fb5e45ce4dc44/t/5cd2d8ff1905f458727c9119/1557321989627/Jaudon-Robert+3.pdf Thehusband (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed all the familysearch, finda grave and census records references. Thehusband (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three Pioneer Rapides Families is the same source as this PDF. The biographical info on Myers on pg. 121 I don't see as significant coverage. The brief obituaries in the SF Call and San Jose Herald, are fairly trivial as well, and the similarities in wording and structure suggests they might be syndicated obits written by only one source and reprinted elsewhere. The Santa Clara County Parks sources are trivial mentions, primary sources, unreliable, and/or mainly about Casa Grande. We can't have a Wikipedia article based predominantly on names appearing briefly in brochures, letters, archival documents, databases, genealogies, or even newspapers. Nobody gets into an encyclopedia just because they are "mentioned buying nails" or verifiably got married and died. To satisfy WP:GNG and WP:42 we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I'm just not seeing that. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that's so interesting about Francis Myers buying nails is the book that it's in. It's not any book, but it's Sue Eakin's book that was the basis for the 9 time Academy Awards the movie had "12 Years a Slave". Sue Eakins is the person who rediscovered this 100+ year old book and researched it. I have not seen the movie but "Myers" is part of the book. What's also interesting is that the collection of Francis Myers letters also mentions other people that are mentioned in the book.
The link you included for the entire pdf on the Three Pioneer Rapides Families shows the party that Francis Myers came with to California. It says he went with his brother in law Thaddeus Robert, via the Isthmus of Panama and a few other people. It definitely confirms that they were California Pioneers since they get to California before 1850. Here's the page that talks about how they got to California. [15] Thehusband (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Since most of the documentation we have talks about his journey to California and life there, I think he should be listed in the category of [Category:California_pioneers] and his page should be changed from [Francis_Myers_(CasaGrande)] to [Francis_Myers(pioneer)]. There are several sources talking about his pioneer status. The letters at Louisiana State University archives and other books do not mention CasaGrande but rather his early arrival (consistent with a Pioneer) in California. It would not make sense to fold him into Casa Grande. Thehusband (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Myers was the largest property owner with 16 homes that he owned in New Almaden. [1]. This source is on page 28, and was from Henning Jennings, and not Mr Myers. So it can't be considered a primary source. Thehusband (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Contested_Election_in_California/I5ALAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=largest

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I have made a lot of changes to this article over the past few weeks and addressed the concerns that were mentioned. I have removed the primary sources and replaced them with secondary sources. There were a significant number of sources for someone who died 125 years ago. I find his biography interesting and worthy of note. Thehusband (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to SHOUT, and please don't vote twice. And as far as I am concerned, no, Myers still isn't notable, the main source are court transcripts which are primary sources. I see no evidence of notability at all. Fram (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Santa Clara County documents that I'm seeing (i.e. [MEYERS, Francis - b.1812 in South; to NA 11/54; built Casa Grande; at NA until 1877; last built Sta. Isabel shafthouse. __ this]) give his name as "Meyers". Searching on that name might yield better results. Also, I don't understand why this article has "(CasaGrande)" in the title - if it is to disambiguate the person, then it would be better to use something like "California Pioneer". I'll read through the links provided by Thehusband. I am leaning toward keep even though many sources are primary. It is hard to apply today's criteria to a historical figure. For example, there were very few news outlets in California at that time so even a few mentions should have heavy value. Lamona (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I went through the sources and don't see how his accomplishments meet WP:GNG. It is all passing mentions. Nothing in-depth. I understand the difficulty in finding old sources, but anyone today who owned 16 houses and was an architect and also a judge would have a hard time qualifying either unless there was something more significant. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reading the article in its 1 June 2022 state, I'm not seeing any concrete critera of notability per WP:ANYBIO. The third sentance describes him as "prominent" based on a photo caption. Somebody did a lot of work to find supporting citations but they are passing mentions at best. He was an influential local real estate holder but there is no broad coverage outside his geographical immediate area. The 1873 citation confirms that he was a judge but by my reading he was a county judge, a level that does not normally pass the bar (excuse the pun!) for WP:JUDGE. Blue Riband► 02:39, 2 June 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 23:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space Perspective[edit]

Space Perspective (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:SERIESA. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. We should hold off on creating an article about this until can establish more notability. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 23:13, 20 May 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 Leadhills#Golf course. Any content that anyone wants to merge is in the history. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leadhills Golf Club[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG. All the sources provided are not reliable or just passing mentioned. To pass GNG singnificant coverage of independent, reliable sources are needed and the sources need to talk about the subject in depth and in length and not just passing mentioned. Note: page was created by sock and was rejected 3 times by admins in draft and user MarleneSli moved the page to main space) Cassiopeia talk 20:50, 20 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barista sharifi[edit]

Barista sharifi (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)

Completing another incomplete nomination made by Meatsgains (talk · contribs). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Obvious WP:GNG fail. Very sloppy with WP:CIR concerns as well. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO fails WP:GNG. KylieTastic (talk) 09:27, 21 May 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mooonswimmer 20:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal electronic card[edit]

Universal electronic card (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)

Mooonswimmer 20:29, 20 May 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. Nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee in the 1922 general election[edit]

Dundee in the 1922 general election (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)

Nomination withdrawn (see below). Pointless fork from Dundee (UK Parliament constituency) which amounts to indiscriminate information and so conflicts with the spirit of WP:IINFO. An article about a single constituency in one general election is hardly notable. Much of the content is unsourced and the rest has mostly been lifted from the candidates' biography articles. NGS Shakin' All Over 19:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (author) British elections are fought on a constituency basis and in many elections there are individual constituency contests that are notable, such as Smethwick in 1964 or Enfield Southgate in 1997. Dundee in 1923 is one of them for two reasons. Firstly it was an election where Winston Churchill was defeated (last time he stood as a Liberal) and secondly it was the only time a prohibitionist candidate won a British Parliamentary seat. All UK parliamentary by-elections in the 20th century are treated as notable. Individual contests within a General Election can also be notable, although the bar will be higher than for by-elections. The bar is easily cleared in this case. JASpencer (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a as a quick note, I have so far found two academic articles on this particular election contest, one from 1970 [16] and one from 2020 [17]. This is a sign of continued interest that few other electoral contests within a General Election would garner. JASpencer (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I don’t think this is a WP:IINFO violation (even in spirit). The information belongs in Wikipedia… somewhere. The real question is what is the best way to present it? - Should it be presented within a stand alone article, or within a broader article? That is essentially an editorial decision, not a matter of policy. There are valid arguments to justify either approach. That said, my call is that this specific topic is better presented as a stand alone article. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JASpencer (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for another note on this, but there is a middle brow book coming out to mark the centenary of this election. Seriously, this is a notable election. https://www.waterstones.com/book/cheers-mr-churchill/andrew-liddle/9781780277899 I may have been rather more interested in modern political history than average or healthy as a child, but I had no particularly deep interest in Churchill and no connection at all with Dundee but I do remember two specific conversations with two separate adults about this election as a teenager (turns out one of these was wrong on a crucial detail which I didn't know until researching the article). Out of school. That was, erm, more than fifty years after the election. Yes that's slightly weird but this was an extraordinary election involving a person who was and still is a big deal. JASpencer (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note Looking at the US for a counterpoint at how elections within a wider election is treated. I went to look up the 1960 Democratic Primary in West Virginia (because it had a documentary) and it wasn't there, but there was 1960 United States presidential election in West Virginia and 1960 United States Senate election in West Virginia. Now neither of these are particularly notable elections and they are both quite cookie cutter. WV wasn't crucial in the Presidential race compared to Illinois and the incumbent won quite handily in the Senate race. Dundee in 1923 is different. The incumbent (Churchill) was defeated, he was already a national figure and later would become an international figure, he was out of Parliament for two years in which time he switched parties (twice), the swing against him was the highest of any other National Liberal MP in Scotland, the prohibitionists won their only ever British MP, in local terms it was a crucial turning point when Dundee went from a safe Liberal "seat for life" to one where it would be dominated by Labour for the best part of a century. The race also attracted not just one, but two academic articles wholly devoted to the Dundee 1922 race.
So the notability question really doesn't seem to be can a component race in a wider election be notable - the American practice is that they are - nor whether this reaches that notability bar - the bar in American terms is very low - it is whether a British constituency election within a General Election has a far, far higher notability threshold than an American Senate election. I would say for a general rule like this that the burden of proof is heavily on those proposing the deletion.
JASpencer (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We should not encourage articles like this, but this is an exception, in that a person as important as Churchill was defeated. US analogies will not be helpful, because senators do not become ministers, whereas British ministers normally have to resign if they lose their seats. The exception is if they are granted a peerage. Churchill had been a minister continuously since 1905, with a short break during WWI when he served in the army, so that this defeat was highly significant. Equally the election of a prohibitionist is significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does appear there is some academic work about this constituency and this election. Passes WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not just academic work, but a forthcoming book as well. JASpencer (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment. Some good work has been done on the article since I first saw it. I think it now meets the required notability standards, especially with the Churchill connection. I'm therefore withdrawing the nomination (see above). Thanks and well done to all involved. NGS Shakin' All Over 09:09, 23 May 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manyavar[edit]

Manyavar (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)

Maynavar is the title of the article, but that is just a product line from the company Vedant Fashions Ltd. Most references are for the company. Fails WP:GNG for the product line, and the company fails too. If someone thinks this is worth rescuing, they should create a Vedant Fashions page instead. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - citations are drawn directly from company website. Subject not appropriate for an encyclopedia Volcom95 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rorshacma (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Go to the Reunion[edit]

Don't Go to the Reunion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An independent film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NFILM. The only two references being used are unacceptable for establishing notability, merely being the official website and its Amazon sales page, and I was unable to find any coverage or reviews of the film in reliable sources after searches. Rotten Tomatoes only has one critic review included as well, and the source it is from is one that I am not sure qualifies as a reliable publication for the purposes of establishing notability. As the writer, director, and production company all appear to be non-notable themselves, there is no appropriate article for a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WITHDRAWN by Nominator - As shown by ReaderofthePack, this one does seem to have just enough coverage to squeak by WP:NFILM, and as no one else has commented to advocate deletion, I am going to go ahead and Withdraw this nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Cinema Crazed is typically seen as a RS. It's not as major of an outlet as Dread Central or Bloody Disgusting, but Vasquez's reviews are usable from my experience. I also added one from Horror Society, also generally seen as a RS. I'm trying to add more since I'd rather it be a stronger article as a whole before I put an official argument forwards. On a side note, it is mentioned in this bizarre article from the NYT, where it just list titles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wish there was a tad bit more coverage here since I would rather have more, this does squeak by notability guidelines for films at this point in time. The sources aren't the most prominent outlets, but they're generally all seen as reliable. I'm not fond or proud of using AICN as a source, though. I think that they're still seen as RS, but they are extremely bottom of the barrel as far as sourcing goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I actually did run across that NYT piece in my searches, but didn't mention it since, like you said, it basically just lists its title. I was not sure on Cinema Crazed or Horror Society being considered reliable sources, but if they are, then I agree that this probably just manages to get past the bare minimum requirements. I will leave this discussion up for a while longer, to give others a chance to comment if they want, but will withdraw if no one else argues for deletion within the next day or two. Rorshacma (talk) 20:58, 20 May 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. Unfortunately All Issues Resolved is not the case, and sourcing is not BLP compliant. If someone wants this to actively work on in draft space, I'm happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 02:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chosen Effect[edit]

Chosen Effect (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:PROD contested following deletion. Conducting a brief WP:BEFORE, I agree with the PROD of User:Tamzin, who wrote Largely promotional/COI and minimally sourced. Only 1 backlink, itself unsourced. Having trouble finding coverage even in non-RS, let alone RS. Except, now there are no backlinks. Article's creator Icecoldrecords has a likely COI and I see no RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been around for 15 years and Chosen Effect even longer. Looks like some backlinks and information may have disappeared over time. I will do some work to see if I can research some backlinks and help edit the article. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The length of time the article has existed is irrelevant. It has been tagged for citations and WP:ADVERT concerns for over eight years, which is more relevant. Best of luck improving this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like some have made edits but no one has taken the time to improve and fix advert concerns so might as well be me. Thanks for the best of luck well wishes. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All issues resolved. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the nominator. Provided sources are not acceptable or enough and are press releases, youtube, etc.Samanthany (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All Issues Resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiterateFactChecker (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

I appreciate your efforts, but I still think it's promotional and it lacks sources to reliable publications. It's also still an orphan because no articles link to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to improve and resolve issues. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 14:51, 25 May 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 Hinduism in Hong Kong. History is under the redirect since it's unclear whether merging or redirecting was desired and this can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Association of Hong Kong[edit]

Hindu Association of Hong Kong (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:NORG. Nothing found with WP:BEFORE. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Hinduism in Hong Kong per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Here is less significant coverage and passing mentions I found about the subject:
    1. "Hong Kong Hindu Temples 'Wait and See' for 1997". Hinduism Today. 1989-10-01. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The article notes: "Hari N. Sharma, now of the Hindu Mandir, was brought to Hong Kong in 1953 to help design and then serve as priest for the Happy Valley Temple. ... The temple is run by the 500-member Hindu Association of Hong Kong under the chairmanship of K. Sital. ... The oldest shrine in Hong Kong is the Happy Valley Temple, founded in 1952 through the efforts of S.T. Melwani to fulfill the religious needs of Hong Kong's largely Sindhi community (90% of all Hindus)."

    2. Vaid, K. N. (1972). The Overseas Indian Community in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 74. ISSN 0378-2689. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Before coming to the Colony, Melwani had taken an active interest in politics and social work in India under Mahatma Gandhi's leadership. And this interest Melwani continued in Hong Kong. He founded the Hindu Association in 1945 and remained its president till his death in 1964. The magnificant Hindu temple in the Happy Valley owes its existence to Mr Melwani. The late Melwani argued with the government for years that the Hindus needed a separate crematorium where religious rites could be performed and he ultimately succeeded in getting a place for this purpose at the Cape Collinson."

    3. Daswani, Kavita (1995-03-05). "A prayer for hall of fame". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The article notes: "The latest client is very special: the Hindu Association in Happy Valley which has commissioned the pair to renovate the main hall of the Hindu Temple in Happy Valley. ... "He had been praying that morning that we could work on another temple here," said Lilley. Later that day they had a phone call from the Hindu Association, which had intended to renovate the main hall of the Hindu Temple in Happy Valley for some years. A meeting was scheduled that afternoon, and Lilley and Annapurna started work last October."

    4. Laxton, Andrew (1994-10-02). "Cathay lights on until 'there's a health risk'". South China Morning Post.

      The article notes: "On board tonight's flight will be the head of the Hindu Association, K. Sital. Although going to Bombay on business, he plans to find out whether there is anything overseas Indians can do to help."

    5. Thomas, Hedley (1994-09-28). "Cash goes missing from Hindu temple". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The article notes: "In April last year the managing committee of the Hindu Association, which is responsible for the temple, decided to make Priest Vishal Sharma responsible for temple hall bookings, according to a notice board memorandum. A managing committee member, M. P. Shamdaswani, revealed that funds from the prayer collection plate had gone astray."

    6. "Indians angry at forgery". South China Morning Post. 1993-03-05.

      The article notes: "POLICE have been called in to investigate a forged letter purporting to be from Hindu Association president Mr Kewalram Sital."

    7. McKenzie, Scott (1995-11-10). "Jaffna refugees give up hope of ever returning". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The article notes: "Since then, the local Young Men's Hindu Association has given them permission to sleep on the floor of its hall."

    8. Torode, Greg (1993-10-04). "Diners donate $77,000". South China Morning Post.

      The article notes: "Hindu Association chairman Kewalram Sital urged anyone wanting to donate to send cheques to the commission."

    9. "K. Sital". South China Morning Post. 1996-12-16.

      The article notes: "K. Sital is a Hong Kong Indian businessman. His Style Asia Group has operations in China, India and the United States, as well as in Hong Kong. His services to the Indian community include eight years as chairman of the Indian Chamber of Commerce and almost 20 years as president of the Hong Kong Hindu Association."

    10. "Pages from the past". South China Morning Post. 2002-02-26. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The article notes: "Well-known Sindhi businessman K. Sital, who chaired the Indian Chamber of Commerce in 1970, '71, '73, '79, '81 and '82 has made a major contribution to the social aspects of the Indian community. He is president of the Hindu Association, which manages the Hindu Temple in Happy Valley, and chairman of the Hindu Commu-nity Trust of Hong Kong. "

    11. Kagda, Falaq; Koh, Magdalene; Nevins, Debbie (2018). Hong Kong (3 ed.). New York: Cavendish Square Publishing. p. 84. ISBN 978-1-5026-3240-1. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The religious and social activities of Hong Kong's strong Hindu community, which numbers one hundred thousand, are centered around the Hindu Temple in Hong Kong Island's Happy Valley district. The Hindu Association of Hong Kong is responsible for the upkeep of the temple, which is used for the observance of Hindu festivals, meditations, spiritual lectures, yoga classes, devotional music sessions, and other community activities."

    12. Luk, Bernard Hung-Kay (1990) [1989]. "Religion and Custom". In Tsim, T. L.; Luk, Bernard H. K. (eds.). The Other Hong Kong Report. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. p. 321. ISBN 978-962-201-430-5. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The Hindu Association of Hong Kong, founded in 1952, is responsible for the upkeep of the temple and the appointment of the priest, as well as welfare services for the Hindu community."

    13. Chemerka, William R. (2020). Gunga Din: From Kipling's Poem to Hollywood's Action-Adventure Classic. Orlando, Florida: BearManor Media. ISBN 978-1-62933-142-3. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The ban on Gunga Din extended to Hong Kong, then a British colony, following protests organized by the Hindu Association of Hong Kong."

    14. Erni, John Nguyet; Leung, Lisa Yuk-ming (2014). Understanding South Asian Minorities in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-988-8208-34-0. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The Hindu Association and the Indian Association, for example, look after the Hindu and Sikh temples in Happy Valley and in Tsim Sha Tsui, which provide the Hindus and Sikhs with a space for worship and for communal gatherings."

    15. Hall, Elvajean (1967). Hong Kong. Chicago: Rand McNally. p. 84. OCLC 1129726. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Hindu religious and social activities center around a temple in Happy Valley (see map, page 129). The Hindu Association of Hong Kong keeps up the Hindu temple, which is used for lectures, observance of festivals, meditation, Yoga classes, and the teaching of Hindi."

    16. Coulson, Gail V.; Herlinger, Christopher; Anders, Camille S. (1996). The Enduring Church: Christians in China and Hong Kong. New York: Friendship Press. p. 65. ISBN 0-377-00306-9. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "A still smaller minority—about 12,000—are Hindus. Their close- knit community is centered on the Hindu Temple in Happy Valley. The Hindu Association of Hong Kong is responsible for upkeep of the temple."

    17. Hong Kong 1976: Report for the Year 1975. Hong Kong: Information Services Department. 1976. p. 159. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The Hindu Association of Hong Kong is responsible for the upkeep of the temple, which is also used for meditation periods, yoga classes and teaching Hindi to the Indian community. During 1975, the association sponsored several seminars on ancient Hindu teachings which were conducted by Hindu scholars invited from India. The seminars were held in English and were open to all nationalities. Religious music recitals are also held periodically at the temple."

    18. Faure, David, ed. (1997). A Documentary History of Hong Kong Society. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 148. ISBN 962-209-393-0. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The Hindu Association for the Hindus, which maintains a Crematorium and Cemetery, and a temple under construction."

    19. 李桂玲 (1996). 台港澳宗教概况 [Overview of Religions in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau] (in Chinese). Beijing: 東方出版社. p. 421. ISBN 9787506005821. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "随后,马温尼( F. T. Melwani )又创立了“香港印度教协会” ( The Hindu Association of Hong Kong)."

      From Google Translate: "Subsequently, F. T. Melwani founded "The Hindu Association of Hong Kong"."

    20. 香港的宗教 [Religion in Hong Kong] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Holy Spirit Study Centre. 1988. p. 56. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The book notes: "印度廟在一九五二年建成以迎合教徒的信仰需求,香港印度教協會( THE HINDU ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG )之後便成立,始創人乃馬溫尼( F.T. MELMANI )。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hindu Temple was built in 1952 to meet the religious needs of the believers. The Hindu Association of Hong Kong ( THE HINDU ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG ) was established after the founder was F.T. MELMANI."

    21. 陳天權 (2021). 時代見證 : 隱藏城鄉的歷史建築 [Witness of the Times: Hidden Historic Buildings in Urban and Rural] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Zhonghua Book Company. ISBN 978-988-8759-43-9. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The book notes: "他們從事商業工作,1948 年成立香港印度教協會,向當局申請興建印度教廟。港府在印度人墳場下方撥地給協會,1953年建了印度廟(Hindu Temple)(圖 17,18)。該廟採用印度北方廟宇的那格拉(Nagara)風格,裝飾不及南方印度廟複雜,且帶有英國建築特色。"

    There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hindu Association of Hong Kong (traditional Chinese: 香港印度教協會; simplified Chinese: 香港印度教协会) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 22:55, 20 May 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 00:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Registro de Identidade Civil[edit]

Registro de Identidade Civil (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)

Project for a new Brazilian eID card that has been suspended for over a decade Mooonswimmer 16:47, 20 May 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 Draftify while it's unclear whether Dedovic will attain notability, I'm willing to give it time to incubate. Star Mississippi 02:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edhem Dedovic[edit]

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

this is a WP:BLP1E - I don't see any coverage of Dedovic beyond the single instances of being airlifted/rescued with injuries and don't see otherwise how he would be notable and WP:VICTIM (sorta) applies and it doesn't appear he had any significant role in the event itself. I dare say millions of people, children included survive war and aren't notable. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E applies here to a significant extent. I am willing to change my mind if additional evidence is adduced as to notability.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am thinking about taking the article back to the draftspace, and keep working on it. Will link to this discussion on its Talk page TransGobbledygook (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I don't think this article is very promising but I think the page creator should be allowed to work on it in Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 23 May 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 00:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islem Chikhi[edit]

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

Article about non-notable footballer who apparently was under contract to an Algerian first division club (Paradou) in the past, but I can't find support that he ever played in a competitive match for the club, and the article fails WP:GNG. All online coverage in English-, Arabic- and French-language sources is trivial (i.e., database entries). Jogurney (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the Arabic-language wiki, it is: ايسليم كيخى Jogurney (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't find anything useful from the Arabic name above. Couldn't find much searching in Latin script. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 21 May 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users here. North America1000 15:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Aura[edit]

Ace Aura (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 appears to be a discussion about the notability of this article (see Article Talk Page, Talk page of a user who nominated for speedy deletion, and a declined draft submission. I am therefore starting an AfD discussion to gain concensus. Osarius 08:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 20 May 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 Battle of Kakkor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kakor (1759)[edit]

Battle of Kakor (1759) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It also exists here Battle of Kakkor, we should not have two articles on the same subject. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 20 May 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Los Angeles in popular culture (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)

How times change. The last AfD from 4 years ago was a strong keep, with nobody but the nominator (User:TenPoundHammer) supporting deletion. Yet the keep votes were not policy based - they simply repeated WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and like. IMHO the policy falls squarely on the delete side of this debate. The list has almost no references (fails WP:V), if gutted to meet WP:V the article would cease to exist. As a list, it fails WP:LISTN (" One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" - such sources have not been found; if they were, we still have a WP:V issue). As a potential article, it fails WP:IPC, WP:OR. In fact, the topic might be notable (my BEFORE suggests that indeed there may be some sources), not that anything in the article supports this, but nothing here seems salvageable - a proper analytical piece would have to be written from scratch. WP:TNT applies to this TVTropic list, unless someone rewrites this during the ongoing discussion (then we can preserve the old content in the article's history). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Lists, and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the precedent established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction to make way for a proper article. The list has only a smattering of sources regarding specific entries and makes no credible claim of significance for its topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's List of television shows set in Los Angeles and List of films set in Los Angeles so I'm not sure what the point of this (wildly incomplete) duplication is. Reywas92Talk 13:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92 And do those lists eve neet WP:NLIST? Something to consider in the future... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: Pointing to WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES does not seem fitting, because there are secondary sources! Well, at least if one uses "Los Angeles in fiction" as search words. Like this whole book, or the whole book that is reviewed here; or this whole PhD thesis. (Yeah, yeah, I know, the sources were not specifically noted down in the previous discussion...) Which also means that the topic does not fail WP:LISTN. I also don't see any problem whatsoever with WP:V, as the primary sources are self-evident. And primary sources are fine to use, they just don't establish notability... which is not our problem here. For the same reason I don't see WP:OR here. Allright, as there are currently hardly any sources present, I do see the problem with what to include as notable with regard to the topic. So I suggest to, for the time being, change this to a disambiguation page, basically keeping and expanding the See also section, until someone expands it to a proper prose article or a list with more clearly defined inclusion criterea. This would also preserve what we currently have in the history, which I see as a benefit as experience has shown that some entries will be significant and will appear in secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios The sources you found seem to be about Los Angeles in fiction, not Los Angeles in popular culture. Recently I've been thinking about the distinction between such topics, which is a bit hard to pin down. Related to this is the issue whether we need to standardize some article's names. Might be worth discussing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture, which is sadly inactive. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: In my experience the two designations are used more or less interchangeably on Wikipedia. The essay you referred to, WP:IPC, does that! Looking at the content of our article, the only section one could argue about is In music. And even that can be fiction, if a songtext or video tells a non-factual story. And if it really would hinge on the distinction, and a simple name change to Los Angeles in fiction would clearly solve any supposed notability issues, than that's surely an alternative to deletion that should be taken in the spirit of WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios I think the name cultural depictions of Los Angeles would be even better (broadest). Pop culture doesn't cover 'classics', and 'in fiction' does seem limiting when it comes to weird stuff like music, culinary applications, LEGO models, historical reenactment, whatever. I'll probably start an RfC somewhere, and ping many folks active here (regarding mass renaming of all 'in fiction'/'in popular culture' articles to 'cultural depictions of'. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: The question is what the goal is. The current name fits what we currently have. If there are concerns, oh no, that isn't notable, because we only have encompassing sources talking about "in fiction", and not using the term "in popular culture", than the narrower title would solve that. It's not a concern I have, I and I think it would mean playing WP:LISTN against WP:AtD-M for not good reason, but there it is. Changing to "in culture" would open the article to more input, which might solve notability concerns (again, which I don't share) by another route. It does, however, beg the question what to include. Are there some new corners of Category:Culture of Los Angeles that we then would need to think about? So that might be better suited to solve at the more general discussion you have started. Daranios (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I stand by what I said in the last AFD. This is just an unverifiable mess, and no one arguing to "keep" in the last AFD gave a concrete reason. The concept is just a random WP:NOTTVTROPES violation that by design calls for a garden variety of unsourced trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An actual article on the topic would very likely be notable. This list is not, being a ridiculously broad attempt to seemingly list every time that Los Angeles has appeared in fiction, no matter how brief or unimportant that appearance was. There is zero prose text discussing the concept here, and zero reliable sources that would be usable anywhere else, just a list of mostly terrible trivia. Any potential article or section on the actual topic would not benefit at all from the preservation of this list. Additionally, as Reywas92 pointed out, we already have lists serving a navigational purpose for the notable works set in LA, making this list redundant on top of everything else. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it, according to WP:OR. This article is entirely WP:OR based on the observations of editors, with no reliable sources on the topic of how Los Angeles is portrayed in popular culture. I wouldn't rule out someone could write an article about how Los Angeles is imagined, separate from how Los Angeles is. But there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this article, which is entirely constructed in a way that is WP:NOT compatible with Wikipedia policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't think we should entertain a disambig. AnM2002 (talk) 10:08, 21 May 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. General consensus against deletion, although this is not to prevent anyone from restructuring the article in the way mentioned by TompaDompa. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction (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 (de facto a list) was improved during the prior AfD when references have been added by User:XOR'easter (it had zero before). Unfortunately, it is still very problematic, as it is a list of media in which this topic appears. There is no source that shows such a list has been subject to discussion outside Wikipedia (fails WP:NLIST: " One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"). If we look at it as a "in popular culture" article, it fails WP:IPC. I don't see any source that discusses this topic (FLT in fiction, or FLT in popular culture, etc.). Which means this fails WP:OR and WP:GNG; the claim in the lead that "The problem in number theory known as "Fermat's Last Theorem" has repeatedly received attention in fiction and popular culture.", while arguably true, is unreferenced and unless it can be - with a secondary, reliable source that meets WP:SIGCOV - this article a major problem with the above-mentioned policies. While now, yes, referenced, I fear this is simply not encyclopedic material, just a TVTropic, WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of all media which mentions this topic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong keep – Fermat's 1637 claim, only recently proved, is perhaps the most famous problem in mathematics and has captured the imagination of mathematicians and lay people for centuries.The statement that it "has repeatedly received attention in fiction and popular culture" is not just "arguably true," it is amply demonstrated by the article's contents, which our introductions are supposed to summarize. Merriam-Webster defines encyclopedia as "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge..." It is not a limiting term. The list of instances here could be merged into the primary article without the summary sentence, but that article is already long and splitting out the material in a separate article is appropriate editorial judgement. The contents of this article are of significant interest to our readers. It has survived two deletions reviews. Enough already.--agr (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the content passes MOS:POPCULT based on the sources in the article and it is appropriate to have a seperate article on this per WP:SUMMARY. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SailingInABathTub Please elaborate on how POPCULT is met. It states: "all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item." Which references go beyond mentioning the subject's appearance and "in some depth...links the cultural item to the subject of the article", i.e. provide a non trivial discussion of how a given work of fiction is connected to the topic of the Fermat's Last Theorem? Ideally, a short quotation would be preferred. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per POPCULT: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all."--agr (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ArnoldReinhold The question, then, is our interpretation of "otherwise suitable"... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been around since 2007 and has been edited by dozens of contributors who thought the material suitable, And it has survived two previous deletion attempts. Who now gets to "interpret" suitability, ignoring all those past voices?--agr (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the first source in this article,[1] there are many reliable secondary sources which specifically link a cultural item to Fermat's last theorem. The sources all cover the theorem in some depth.[2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Jay Garmon (21 February 2006). "Geek Trivia: The math behind the myth". TechRepublic. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
  2. ^ Anna Davis (7 October 2013). "One plus one equals Doh! How The Simpsons can teach children maths". Evening Standard. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
  3. ^ Dan Solomon (1 February 2022). "The Secret Story of the Texas Philanthropist Who Helped Solve Math's Toughest Riddle". TexasMonthly. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
  4. ^ Kevin Knudson (20 August 2015). "The Math Of Star Trek: How Trying To Solve Fermat's Last Theorem Revolutionized Mathematics". Forbes. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
  5. ^ Simon Singh (22 September 2013). "The Simpsons' secret formula: it's written by maths geeks". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
  6. ^ Robert Krulwich (11 May 2014). "Did Homer Simpson Actually Solve Fermat's Last Theorem? Take A Look". NPR. Retrieved 20 May 2022.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SailingInABathTub The sources do suggest that the topic is notable, but precious little if anything from the current article is rescuable (and the sources are not great, since they generally focus on the use of the theorem in one piece of media; they say very little if anything aobut "Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction", as in, they don't address the "big picture" outside few passing mentions. This is the case of WP:TNT, or a proper rewrite needed. Referencing a list of trivia is just, sorry to say, a waste of time. It needs to rewritten into an analytical piece. If you think this can be done with the current sourcing, by all means, take a stab, and ping me when there's a paragraph here that's not a bullet point trivia that FLT was mentioned in The Simpsons or whatever. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that prose is preferable to a list format, but this can be resolved through the normal editing process. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could, if there was anything to rescue except categories and external links/see also. As thing stand, the only difference between hard and soft deletion would be that in the latter case, edit history would be preserved. I would, in fact, prefer this outcome, but it would require someone to start rewriting this properly now, during the AfD. Otherwise, this will be deleted, with no prejudice to someone writing this anew from scratch. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is your policy-based reasoning that there is nothing to be rescued? WP:OR? I think that it's clear from the reliable sources that exist, that they directly support the content. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And POPCULT. Yes, we can reference that such and such work mentioned this, but it is OR to claim this constitutes a notable example of the use of this work. Maybe a few sentences could be salvaged, like the content about The Simpsons, but first, we need to have at least a stubish few sentences about the main topic. We can't have an article that consists of a claim that FLT has been extensively referenced in fiction backed up with no reliable source saying this, then one or two or three examples. Such a tiny article, at best, would merit an immediate merger to Fermat's_Last_Theorem#In_popular_culture. In fact, now that I look, that section is already in prose format and superior to this OPish article, which contains even less analysis, and just more trivial examples. As such, I'd suggest we just redirect this there, with no loss of non-trivial content. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not make the claim that "FLT has been extensively referenced in fiction". The article only claims that it has "repeatedly received attention in fiction and popular culture" a claim which is validated by the sources that I have provided and that you yourself in your nomination acknowledge is true. SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SailingInABathTub As I said, due to sparsity of examples meeting IPC, there is not much to rescue here. We could possibly have a stub of few sentences, but what's the point, given that we have a perfectly acceptable section in the main article that would be its exact duplicate? That section now has a proper lead in sentence I've added based on a source you found, and discusses the two apparently most famous appearances in media and pop culture that you also referenced, i.e. the Star Trek and The Simpsons use. What else is there to keep? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we both know that almost everything that has a half decent source in this article will then end up in main article, only for the section to be split off once again per WP:SUMMARY and David_Eppstein (talk · contribs). It's pointless to delete a notable article that is clearly needed. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that we should keep bad content in location A to keep it out of location B is a terrible one. Just remove the bad content instead. Having a weak-scope sub-article for the sole purpose of keeping the main article clean is a bad solution that stems from a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the main article. As WP:CARGO says: Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Don't we have an essay on that? Ping UseR:TenPoundHammer, maybe they know the right one? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia articles are supposed to (a) meet our policies and (b) have reliable independent sources, despite bald claims that WP:ITSFAMOUS. This article is entirely WP:OR, built off the original observations of various editors, without any reliable sources. WP:OR says if no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. No independent reliable sources have provided WP:SIGCOV of the topic of this theorem in popular culture. Even if such sources appeared, there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this article as it is composed of entirely WP:NOT suitable content. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. I think it's obvious that this article should either be kept or merged into Fermat's_Last_Theorem#In_popular_culture, which is a short version of this article. The topic is of high interest. The claim by Shooterwalker that it is OR ignores the fact that collecting information from outside is what an encyclopedia does; that is not an argument against keeping this. Zaslav (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not merge. The existence of this article is necessary, per Wikipedia:Summary style, as an overflow valve to keep the example farm in the main article from being overrun with minor examples, as it has already started to do again today in edits by User:Piotrus and User:Zaslav in the wake of this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS I also found a publication (in Spanish) overviewing this exact subject: [18]. It is also covered in multiple paragraphs (although not the main topic of the article) at [19]. So there's a case for WP:GNG notability for this specific topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein Uh, do you even look at the content? Zaslav didn't add anyting, but removed much content. I added an example that arguably is not "minor", but arguably the most relevant analytical "big treatment" we have, and that wasn't present in either article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: Did you even look at the edit history? At the time I made this comment, Zaslav's only edit was Special:Diff/1089087979, which was indeed an addition. The removal came later. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you still misunderstood my comment, and Zaslav changed his half an hour later, so... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good argument, but one can't compare the importance of Arthur Porges's classic story, which is all about the mathematics, with a minor Star Trek episode. I'm tempted to cut out the truly trivial from the main page. Zaslav (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding to David Eppstein's length argument: the main page is already overloaded (much too long). Even cutting out "Popular culture" entirely would not make a difference. Zaslav (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaslav I don't understand what your argument has to do with the keep? Are you opposing the merger? That's fine, but why keep the list of trivia on Wikipedia at all? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, but I'm not prepared to decide whether there is enough material here to make an article, so I'm suggesting keep until someone can prune out the inappropriate trivia. If nothing much is left, then we can merge the remainder. If much remains, we can keep it. I hope this answers you well. Zaslav (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you're all missing the actual solution here: create a proper prose article on the broader topic Mathematics in fiction (currently a WP:REDLINK), cover Fermat's Last Theorem there in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, and then redirect this title there. This should be a satisfactory WP:PAGEDECIDE solution to everyone since the topic of Mathematics in fiction actually does have WP:Significant coverage as an overarching topic in multiple WP:Reliable sources. If I find the time, I'll probably do this in the coming days. I must also say I am not sympathetic to the view that we should have articles like this as an overflow valve to keep the example farm in the main article from being overrun with minor examples—if it is indeed an WP:EXAMPLEFARM, the solution is to get rid of it rather than to move it elsewhere (see the essay WP:CARGO: Moving bad content into a separate standalone article does not get rid of the bad content.) TompaDompa (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to propose a compromise alternative, which is to move this to Mathematics in fiction for now, with the explicit possibility of breaking it out into a new article again if 1) the proposed article grows large enough that it merits subdivision, and 2) content on this specific aspect continues to grow (without the addition of trivialities) to the point that it merits more than a subsection in a mathematics in fiction article. As it stands, I think that it does not. However, there are plenty of movies (almost to the point of tropedom), where the janitor or some idiot savant solves the unsolvable problem left on the blackboard. BD2412 T 06:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412 May I suggest that you try to at least stub such an entry first, then we could redirect the current article there? The problem is that most of the examples here are irrelevant (i.e. that listing them fails MOS:POPCULT: "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article"). So just changing a name is hardly an improvement if that cruft will stay. Likewise, mathematics in fiction should not be a listing of all media in which math was mentioned in... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Although shorter than Fermat's Last Theorem, the binomial theorem has a section related to popular culture. --SilverMatsu (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which should be deleted as it is pure WP:TRIVIA failing MOS:POPCULTURE... sadly, nothing to merge to the possibly-to-come 'mathematics in culture' article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:44, 29 May 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 and stubbify. This is an unusual AfD, in that the notability of the underlying topic is not in substantial dispute, even by the nominator, hence a rather unusual outcome. Many editors are in substantial agreement that the article in its current form is in extremely poor shape, has been for many years, and a reset would be the best way forward. It should be noted that, going forward, an AfD is not required for such a step to be taken. If editors believe portions are salvageable, the page history will remain accessible. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture studies[edit]

Popular culture studies (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 topic is notable, but the article is an WP:ORish essay that merits either a WP:TNT or cutting down to bare bones (the lead), unless someone feels like rewriting this. It has been tagged as a "a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay" since 2010. No surprise, given it was indeed someone's ORish essay from 2004 ([25]). Over the years, it hasn't changed much - it has been wikified and slightly expanded, but it still is mostly unreferenced. Much of the content is not even on topic. The first section, "Traditional theories of popular culture", introduces three theories (with no indication which scholar or scholars think they are relevant to the topic, i.e. traditional theories of popculture). The first two subsections, about mass society and culture industry, don't even discuss popular culture. The problems continue through the article. It is a decent essay, but a terrible encyclopedic article (the title should be "anonymous editor musings on what they thought is meant by popculture studies"). In 20 years, it hasn't changed much. It's high time to blow this up, or at minimum, reduced to the lead section (and bibliography, which should be renamed to 'further reading'), and then expand with proper sources and an encyclopedic style (on that note, the article still uses the phrase "of course" twice...). PS. I hope nobody brings up the AFDNOTCLEANUP. This cannot be cleaned up, 20 years failed at that. It needs radical treatment (deletion of 99% of the content)±. This is why I bring this to AfD (I could just blank everything except the lead myself, but I think that would not be best practice...). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Social science. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The OP is correct that this article needs a major overhaul. It should be nominated at Articles for Improvement perhaps, but it clearly passes WP:GNG as there are countless mentions of the term across scholarly sources and otherwise. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not address the deletion rationale (original research), and articles on notable topics may still be deleted if the circumstaces demand it. Avilich (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would deleting be better than wiping most of it and rewriting? According to WP:ATD, If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I think it's clear that editing can improve this article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pyrrho the Skipper WP:TNT explains the other side of the coin. Although yes, in this case, I think a few sentences (the very lead) are rescuable. But as I said, I don't think it's fair to blank 99% of the article without a discussion (theoretically, according to Wikipedia rules, I could've just redirected this to popular culture, per WP:SOFTDEL, etc., but I also think that's not best practices), and AfD is IMHO the right venue to announce the intention to get rid of vast amount of content. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To address the nominator's points more specifically, I think there is enough here to salvage the article in terms of trimming down to the lead, and perhaps a "History of the term" section. That would be easy enough, and I would be happy to do it, if the AfD tag is removed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pyrrho the Skipper It's ok to attempt a major rewrite during an AfD, and I'd be happy to withdraw this AfD if I think the article has improved sufficiently. Otherwise I'd be happy to recommend draftification of this in your userspace, if you'd prefer not to do anything during an AfD. But withdrawing now risks the article not being changed, and this is not something I am prepared to do. From my perspective, by the time this AfD is finished, the article needs to be fixed, one way or another, and keeping it in the current version is not fixing it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —ÐW-🇺🇦(T·C) 16:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and fix it. In time all things will be fixed. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If someone thinks that this could be effectively stubbified or startified rather than nuked, go for it. As noted, it's a valid topic. I would suggest moving to draft in that case to gain a little leisure, unless surgery on the hoof is intended. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. Clearly not ready for main space, with lots of tags dating back to 2010, and if somebody was going to fix it, they would have done so by now. Sandstein 08:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We also have Cultural studies which states that it includes popular culture. Perhaps it would be better to merge a small of this text there. Though, that page also needs work. --mikeu talk 19:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not terrible. AfD is not the place to discuss improving and article or otherwise fixin' it. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ghastly mess of OR that's been around for more than long enough for someone to improve it if they wanted to. Those offering could request restoration to draftspace, but I suspect that as usual the offers are merely token and if kept no actual work will take place; at most the article will be thrown in a maintenance category and left to fester for another 18 years. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 1 June 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. (non-admin closure) Chumpih t 17:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McKeever (baseball)[edit]

Jim McKeever (baseball) (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)

Didn't find any articles apart from a few catalogue entries, so didn't appear to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Chumpih t 11:52, 20 May 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 List of Lahore Qalandars cricketers. ✗plicit 11:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Ali[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree Emery Cool21 (talk) 11:50, 20 May 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.

I am extremely conscious of the ongoing debates about guidelines for sportspeople. This debate is one where there is a good-faith disagreement about the interpretation of a guideline. Whilst I am entitled to give lesser weight to contributions that don't have basis in policy, I am not required to write them off entirely. And what we have here is a great many arguments to keep versus a very small, but higher-quality, set of arguments to delete. These in my view net off against one another, and I do not find a consensus to delete.

Anyone who feels merging or redirecting is appropriate is not enjoined from doing so, either by way of WP:BB, or by starting a talk page discussion.

As with all my AFD closures, I have considered this very carefully and will not change my decision based on talk page messages. Anyone wishing to contest the closure may proceed directly to DRV and I waive any and all requirements, expectations, etc. to consult me first. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Kausar[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added a couple sources - her CricketArchive profile and an article on the background of the Pakistan tour she was part of. WP:NCRIC really is at the bare minimum at the moment, but as Lugnuts says Shabana Kausar does meet it as an international cricketer. Mpk662 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An international cricketer, so passes the updated agreed to WP:NCRIC. Sourcing likely exists on all international cricketers. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't delete international cricketers, they have played the game at the highest level. Meets WP:NCRIC and there is probably an abundance of sources in Pakistani print media about this female cricketer. StickyWicket (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We delete any article which doesn't have significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true, articles can be nominated for deletion, but if there is a likelihood that sourcing may exist (potentially offline in more historic sportsmen and women, or in other languages that can be more difficult to find in a BEFORE search) then articles can be kept. I've seen this in a number of football related articles that have gone through AfD in the past few months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That simply isn't the case, international sportspeople who have played at the highest level have presumed coverage. Especially in cricket, where the subject is from a cricket mad country, which will have written coverage. Sadly, Pakistani print media isn't digitalised, but hey... let's create Anglopedia, where only things covered digitally in the Anglosphere count! StickyWicket (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NCRIC says that significant coverage is likely to exist, not that it is presumed to exist or that notability is presumed. It's enough to make a prod inappropriate, but not enough to keep the article at AFD when it fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5 - the latter of which means passing WP:NCRIC is irrelevant, as she fails the broader WP:NSPORT guidelines.
Redirect is not appropriate, as it is ambiguous - other people with the same name are mentioned in other articles, including a Pakistani Javelin thrower. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The search function is more effective for that, as it will allow readers to find all people by this name, while the dab page is likely to be unmaintained and exclude many. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you could say that of any dab page. Perhaps you don't believe in creating them at all? PamD 05:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles. Those that disambiguate between notable topics and significant mentions do this; the search results are often extensive and include many passing mentions on different topics from the one the reader is searching for.
Those that disambiguate between passing mentions do the opposite; they might provide a link to the wrong passing mention, such as linking to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers when the reader wants Pakistan women's cricket team in Australia and New Zealand in 1996–97, or they might miss passing mentions that were added more recently due to the pages not being maintained. For this, the search function is more effective. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For most purposes, the search function is actually pretty awful. It's great at generating a jumble of articles that contain both of two words, but not so great in providing a relevant proximity. BD2412 T 04:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, yes, but when the name is not shared by anyone notable I believe it works better than trying to maintain a disambiguation page - and I note that we aren't going to be adding all the non-notable but mentioned John Smith's to John Smith. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  – passes WP:NCRIC. She played for her national side in 1997, when there were hardly any Pakistani publication online. So finding any online WP:SIGCOV content about her today, is near to zero. But we can't challenge the existence of such sources in offline media, libraries, papers, magazines and books etc (WP:NCRIC also support this assumption). I'll agree with those voicing for deletion, if they can extraordinarily look into all offline medias and then claim non existence of significant coverage. Till then big noo to deletion. Radioactive (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep - the arguments that have been made about a reasonable assumption that sources might exist is a fair one here I think - one appearance in a very minor match and I might suggest otherwise, but three matches against NZ and Australia means I tend to think it's reasonable, even if the team she played in was incredibly weak in comparison. Online sources will be problematic, and the gender bias in cricket sources of any kind at the time she played, especially those from south Asia, means that I have some doubts about proper in depth coverage - there have been cases in the past where we've struggled to find anything at all. In that case we would obviously, and I do mean really obviously, be looking at a redirect to an article such as List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers, if necessary, really, really obviously again, via a dab page if absolutely required - or whenever it's required. There are so many arguments in favour of this approach as opposed to deletion and I do, I'm afraid, struggle to understand the delete votes here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. No SIGCOV has been found, and more importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that coverage generally does exist for 90s Pakistani women's international cricket players. No offline sources that would potentially offer coverage have been identified, so the best option here is to redirect until someone with the requisite access can produce GNG sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rugbyfan22, StickyWicket, and especially Radioactive. StAnselm (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per Rugbyfan22 and StickyWicket. Passes WP:NCRIC. MelvinHans (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NCRIC does not confer notability, it predicts whether GNG is likely to be met. If editors show GNG is not met then passing NCRIC holds very little weight. JoelleJay (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And WP:NCRIC is not met, because the guideline is WP:NSPORT, and WP:SPORTCRIT #5 is failed. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if someone can show me where anyone has shown that GNG is not met? Has anyone attempted to access Urdu written sources, for example? Even attempted to? To suggest that the article be deleted when an obvious and clearly appropriate redirect target exists, without even attempting to see whether there are suitable paper-based sources strikes me as being directly opposed to a reasonable expectation of behaviour. Given that the RfC proposal which applies most obviously here stated clearly that articles should be grandfathered in some way, I find the suggestion that we delete rather than redirect even odder to fathom. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to (re)-closing admin - this AfD was closed on 31st May, and then undone by the closer per this request. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:23, 31 May 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 Vizing's theorem. Result of the redirect to Vizing's theorem. A new paragraph block is added with two sentences, one stating the discovery and one stating the independent discovery with refs. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 08:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. P. Gupta[edit]

R. P. Gupta (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)

Citation counts are in the double digits only. Single decent reference is passing at best. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPROF, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 07:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm always sad to see pre-internet mathematicians and scientists vanish from Wikipedia, because it's so hard for anyone to find out about them and their work. But I admit if there are no sources, there is no hope. All I can find is [26] which does discuss Gupta's work in some depth. It is unfortunate that he has such a common name, too; it makes it hard to search. Maybe there is something else out there, if someone's better at Google than me... Elemimele (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele: I had the same problem, so I got a second opinion before I nominated. I couldn't see much at all. scope_creepTalk 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: I very much feared that might be the case. I posted the one ref I found in the forlorn hope that someone else might come up with one or two more, and we might scrape Gupta into the Keeps, but I didn't for a moment suspect you of a beforeless nomination. Elemimele (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, Ontario, and Ohio. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Weak because, like Elemimele, I'm sad to see the removal of a productive pre-internet mathematician. But as I wrote on my talk page before the nomination, I don't see a case for notability. Citation counts are in the double digits only, the article says he is mostly known for being late to the party, and our source for that only gives him passing coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Our article on h-index states that Google Scholar/Scopus both have limited coverage of publications pre-1990. That said, I wasn't able to find very much coverage. JSTOR has [27], which just confirms the subject's doctorate, but most of the rest of the hits appear to be either authored papers or a politician of the same name. Can we merge it somewhere in case someone finds another source, possibly not in English? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he was notable, there would be academic sources available, from everywhere. There is nothing. Is he is non-notable. Not even a mention at university, another sure sign he is non-notable. scope_creepTalk 12:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there enough here to perhaps support a redirect to Vizing's Theorem (with a brief mention there) as an alternative to deletion? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I suppose I should answer it. I don't know and i'm not sure. scope_creepTalk 18:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vizing's theorem after adding a sentence. His independent co-discovery and first English-language publication 2-3 years after Vizing is sufficiently significant and well-sourced (with both the book source currently in the article and the source that Elemimele found) to deserve a mention in the History Section of Vizing's theorem. Felix QW (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could do this today. I will close it as a redirect, and take the pdf above and the book ref 2 and add a small section. scope_creepTalk 07:33, 22 May 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 author request. ✗plicit 12:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Μόμπο[edit]

Μόμπο (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 is not in English, I’m guessing its Greek or some Greek-related language MxYamato (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G7 [28] WikiVirusC(talk) 10:59, 20 May 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 11:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Antiguan and Barbudan parishes by number of internet users[edit]

List of Antiguan and Barbudan parishes by number of internet users (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see any reason for having this as a standalone list when the information could be included in Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda if important.

Also nominating the related page List of Antiguan and Barbudan parishes by number of immigrants for the same reason. Sam Walton (talk) 09:16, 20 May 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 11:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statecraft (political science)[edit]

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

This is not a notable concept in the sense that it's used in the article. The most common way of using the term is a notable concept (e.g. [29]) but the concept in the article is primarily linked to one scholar and its meaning seems rather mundane (it's just coalition maintenance). It's also confusing and misleading to readers to state that this is the political science version of "statecraft" when the actual political science version of statecraft means something entirely different (something closer to grand strategy and diplomacy). If there's any content worth keeping, it can be merged with Jim Bulpitt. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:06, 20 May 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 11:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 1 (Primeval season 1)[edit]

Episode 1 (Primeval season 1) (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 only individual articles on two out of the 36 episodes of Primeval, which feels markedly inconsistent (either they should go or more should be created - these two appear to be an holdover since the rest of the episode articles were deleted a while ago). The sources used for both are sub-par and no better sources will be possible to find for the individual episodes. A good article on a single episode (see for instance Ozymandias (Breaking Bad)) should incorporate more extensive information on both reception and production, which will not be possible here. Anything deemed relevant in these could be transferred over to the recently created article on the respective series: Primeval (series 1). This is not to mention that the title is a misnomer since the seasons of Primeval are called "series". Borgor2233 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Episode 6 (Primeval season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Star Mississippi 02:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ImmunityBio[edit]

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

Not a notable company as it is only known for potentially create the first COVID-19 vaccine. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not true. According to Reuters "Its clinical pipeline consists of approximately 26 actively recruiting clinical trials of which 17 are in Phase II or III development, across 13 indications in liquid and solid tumors, including bladder, pancreatic, and lung cancers, and infectious diseases, including SARS-CoV-2 and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." [30] The company is notable. Graham Beards (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any links to references? We need references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability in order to Keep this article. HighKing++ 19:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Since this is a company the appropriate guidelines is WP:NCORP. I have to agree with the nom. We've some references that discusses the product (the vaccine and its technology or its "billionaire" owner) but the criteria dictates we require references that provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*. HighKing++ 16:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 20 May 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 11:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramin Jafarov[edit]

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

Subject fails the general notability guidelines. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 05:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see at least one more opinion about this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be a man doing his job. Article is a puff-piece. Entirely non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 11:28, 25 May 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 11:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DogmaModeler[edit]

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

This article has been without independent refs for more than a decade, almost as long since the software was last updated. Can't find any independent refs on the web or in google scholar (the software appears to have been created in an academic context). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd before
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge/redirect: The original PROD on the day of the article's creation in 2008 was removed by the article creator, who appears to have been associated with the software. The article is just a feature summary, and searches are finding little better than its inclusion in lists of similar software ([31]), which is insufficient to demonstrate attained notability. Merging and redirecting to a new section in the article on the DOGMA project might be an option? AllyD (talk) 12:39, 20 May 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 11:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petio Semaia[edit]

Petio Semaia (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:25, 20 May 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Uaelasi[edit]

Matti Uaelasi (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - see previous 2012 AfD Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect - This same user has nominated every Tuvulu footballer for deletion (and a few other mostly Oceania countries). The fact is, the reason we can’t find coverage is that the only major news outlet, Fenui News, is not online (it has a Facebook page but that page only gives summaries). A proper WP:BEFORE would be to go to Tuvalu’s museums, libraries, etc. If there is still no coverage there, then fine, delete. But unless you did such research you are literally wiping out a nation’s sporting history just because they don’t have good internet access, which is unacceptable. A redirect until further research is fine as long as we don’t just wipe out his page. 172.58.110.253 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop lying. I have not nominated "every" article. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent sourcing of this sub-stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. And no need of hyperbole-choked hysteria from SPAs who haven't made a single substantive edit to Wikipedia. A proper WP:BEFORE involves going to a country's museums and libraries? Is the SPA deliberately trying to be insulting? Ravenswing 00:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tuvalu national football team: As a frequent captain with mention on the page, this seems like a good alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-R is certainly worth WP:PRESERVEing, should someone uncover sources from this small nation's small press options. - 2pou (talk) 18:45, 26 May 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. Consensus is for deletion. No prejudice toward creation of a redirect, as suggested by a contributor to this discussion, after the deletion has occurred. North America1000 15:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loisio Peni[edit]

Loisio Peni (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 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. CSD A10 as 2022–23 Borussia Dortmund season was created first. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Borussia season[edit]

2022–23 Borussia season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For Borussia Dortmund season articles, 2022–23 Borussia Dortmund season fits the traditional name for the article. Also, there are two "Borussia" teams in the 2022–23 Bundesliga. Therefore, just using "Borussia" instead of "Borussia Dortmund" is very confusing. Kingjeff (talk) 03:42, 20 May 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 per the sources identified during the discussion. Star Mississippi 02:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1833)[edit]

Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1833) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, a passing mention in a book and an entry in an apparently unpublished database (Hambrecht 2015)? Fram (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: thanks. Do you know if any similar sources exist for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Jackson Charlton (physician, born 1805)? Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can find is an obituary in the Georgia Telegraph on Newspapers.com but I don't have access to read the full details Piecesofuk (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 09:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:29, 20 May 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. Star Mississippi 02:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Albania Friendship Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. I could find no sources for its English name. and gnews is only 1 hit for its Spanish name. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As noted by Soman, there is a bias in available English sources. I'd say that the page should be kept and improved, rather than deleted to be sucked into the black hole like all the other pages on here which are deleted, sometimes to never be seen again. Historyday01 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small, defunct organization and so little is available that there is not anything to write about. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last relist had generated some participation so I’m giving it a 3rd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve per Historyday01. I would like to see more about what the organization actually is or was if sources permit it. All it says right now is that it was an organization. But, what kind? Huggums537 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aside from the sources in the article, the NGO is covered in the eighth chapter of La Transición en directo: narrativas digitales de una historia reciente and Aragón Digital. Its activities (in particular its connections to the PCE (M-L)) seem to have significant coverage from multiple independent RS. Page needs to be improve to include more of this, but WP:DEL-CONTENT reminds us that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. And, since this is a non-commercial organization with activities that had international scope and were covered significantly by multiple independent RS, this article passes the relevant notability criteria of WP:NGO.— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 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 11:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original Gamer Life[edit]

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

Not seeing enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, web search leads to a number of press releases and sponsored articles. The few longer sources I do find appear to discuss related topics, such as DieHardBirdie (Abbe Borg, who appears to have more notability), more than the topic itself. 4 of the 5 cited sources appear to be discussing this individual, and the other is a press release. ASUKITE 03:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources I could find online are press releases and other primary & primary-sourced stuff as well. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Merko (talk) 23:32, 21 May 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RockstoneSend me a message! 01:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metabolic age[edit]

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

Article is a stub, and seems non-notable. Little references available on google scholar. RockstoneSend me a message! 02:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Anderson C, Sloan A, Dupree L, Walker B (June 2019). "Younger Relative Metabolic Age Is Associated with a More Favorable Body Composition and Plant-based Dietary Pattern (P21-038-19)". Curr Devel Nutr. Jun (3(Suppl 1)). doi:10.1093/cdn/nzz041.P21-038-19.
  2. ^ Majzoub, A.; Talib, R.A.; Canguven, O.; Elbardisi, H.; Arafa, M.M.; Khalafalla, K.; Alsaid, S.S. (2017). "Metabolic age versus chronologic age effect on the gonadal state". Fertility and Sterility. 108 (3): e46–e47.
  3. ^ Kevin O'Sullivan (7 February 2019). "Q&A: Everything you need to know about your metabolic age". The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
  4. ^ Paolisso, G.; Barbieri, M.; Bonafe, M.; Franceschi, C. (2000). "Metabolic age modelling: the lesson from centenarians". European journal of clinical investigation. 30 (10). Wiley: 888–894.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per SailingInABathTub. Clearly a notable topic. SpinningSpark 11:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a little confused by the proposer's comment. I have given it a google scholar search of my own and it turns up almost 1,500 articles, the first 3 pages of which seem to contain articles that are related to the topic that this wikipedia page describes. It is clear that it is a phrase with multiple meanings, however. If Rockstone could explain what they meant I would be grateful. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I checked the article's sources before looking at the above votes, and similarly came to the conclusion that it passes the GNG. I am glad to see that others agree. Toadspike (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having reconsidered this, and spending more time looking on Google Scholar, it appears I was wrong. Yes, this is notable. Please close this AFD as keep (or I can). -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:43, 21 May 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 02:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi Roll[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. I can only use Google translate, but the only plausible source cited appears to be a promotional blog at a glance. ASUKITE 02:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Japan, and Mexico. ASUKITE 02:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not meet NCORP, existing content is extremely poorly sourced, and I could not find additional reliable sources online. Toadspike (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If was notable I'd expect to find references that meet WP:NCORP's criteria - but I haven't been able to find any. HighKing++ 19:50, 25 May 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 02:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Thomas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 01:37, 20 May 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 12:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amish in popular culture[edit]

Amish in popular culture (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)

Could this be a proper article? Probably. But the current TVTropic listicle is not the way to do it. Like dozens of similar lists of trivial mentions, this poorly referenced piece fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, partially WP:OR and WP:V. Information like "In George Romero's horror film Diary of the Dead (2007), a deaf Amish man appears and helps the main survivors before killing himself, after being infected." is pure noise and not even on topic. Once again, a listing of all media which mentions the term Amish is not the same as analyzing, in an encyclopedic style, the connection between Amish and the popular culture, or their portrayals. This needs to be based on reliable, WP:SIGCOV-meeting secondary sources, and an ORish dupe of https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Amish is not the way to go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has a valid point when it comes to this article. I support merging all the reliably sourced information to Amish#In popular culture. That way there would still be something about popular culture and the Amish, but it wouldn't need to be its own article. However, this page could also be a redirect so that someone in the future could, if they so chose, follow the advice of the OP, add appropriate reliable sources and avoid the list becoming indiscriminate and falling into original research. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 How does merging refenced trivia like "Crimson Stain is the true story of Edward Gingerich, the only Amish man ever convicted of homicide, that is involuntary manslaughter, while being diagnosed with schizophrenia." or "The Simpsons, Season 6, Episode 1 (1994), Season 14, Episode 19 (2003)" (that doesn't even explain the context, I guess Amish appeared in that episode?) would benefit the Amish article? What we need for that section (or the article) are secondary sources that discuss the relation between Amish in pop culture, which is not the same as listing of media in which Amish are mentioned. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying, but if someone carefully went through the sourced content and organized it in a correct manner, then it could be a substantive section in that article. Historyday01 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 I do believe I looked and I didn't notice any analysis, just description (as in, "Amish appeared in work X"). If you saw a single sentence that you think is worth rescuing, please tell us which - such content can always be merge to the main Amish article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, brushing past the usual barrage of irrelevant policies brandished above. Like most of these articles it's fairly crap, but not crap enough to delete, and should not be merged back to the main article, from which it was split off. Actually this one is much better than most. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TNT, although it can be restarted in Amish if someone wishes to make a presentable popular culture section of prose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - List of trivia with no sourced content actually covering the overall topic. The majority of the listed items are extremely trivial, and the sourcing is poor, so nothing should be preserved or Merged. Rorshacma (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a reason these popular culture sections get split out of the main article. It's because they are full of crap and this is an easy way to clean up the main article without causing a fight. Merging it back in is entirely unproductive. There is no encyclopaedic discussion whatsoever of the portrayal of Amish in popular culture, just a list of plot snippets. A proper encyclopaedia article would make connections between these disparate works. The absence of that makes this a classic case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Piotrus is quite right that an article at this title might be possible. The is The Amish in the American Imagination for a start and The Amish and the Media for seconds. However, there is nothing usable in the current article either in its prose or its references making it a WP:TNT case. SpinningSpark 11:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is entirely WP:OR, and the policy says that we shouldn't have articles about topics that aren't covered in reliable independent sources. The Amish are definitely a suitable topic, but this spinoff article does not have any WP:SIGCOV. It's conceivable that the sources are out there, but there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this WP:OR, as the article is entirely material that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:16, 20 May 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 12:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brahim Ghellab[edit]

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

Article about non-notable footballer who apparently played 3 matches in the Algerian first division (with CA Batna) in the past, but the article fails WP:GNG. All online coverage in English-, Arabic- and French-language sources is trivial (i.e., database entries). Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the Arabic-language wiki, it is: براهيم جيلاب (I think that's Ibrahim, not Brahim, but it should yield the same results). Jogurney (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 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 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot Yourself[edit]

Shoot Yourself (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)

doesn't appear to be a notable work of art, just got some minor attention for being removed. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Work of art has widespread political coverage. work was not created just to get attention but to bring attention to the gravity of the subject's crimes against humanity. And the artist Dmitry Iv is exhibited internationally.[1] Strattonsmith (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.agora-gallery.com/exhibition/Chelsea_2_16_2021-Artist-Dmitry_Iv.aspx
  • Delete - Not a notable work of public art, it received some press due to its removal, but this does not mean it meets our notability criteria. It has not had indepth coverage over an extended period of time. There are hundreds of thousands of works of public art out there and it seems that the coverage of this one is trivial, the citations seem to reflect be the same report covered by the New York Post (not a great source) and the last citation is a mirror of that as indicated at the bottom of the "article": This entry was posted in nypost. WP:DOGBITESMAN possibly WP:TOOSOON. As an event, it does not seem to have lasting significance, fails WP:LASTING. Netherzone (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the coverage was more for the work's content than its' removal. That said perhaps it was too short an impact and maybe it will reappear, so perhaps right now it is too soon.Strattonsmith (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see "widespread political coverage" contrary to the claim above. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I follow art news, Ukraine news, and political news, but haven't heard about it anywhere other than here. (Not that whether I've heard of it is necessarily a sign of notability per se, just that it doesn't appear to have been that widely covered.)Jahaza (talk) 20:25, 21 May 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 11:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Mwashinga[edit]

Christopher Mwashinga (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:AUTHOR. No significant coverage. Ploni (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Many sources are and can be found to support the article. Literally, almost no reason to delete. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 03:14, 20 May 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 02:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young Benjie[edit]

Young Benjie (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 found no sources relating to this song, so it does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The helper5667 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it has the same problem:[reply]

The False Lover Won Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 02:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Conrad Therrien[edit]

Troy Conrad Therrien (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:ARCHITECT and WP:NPROF. Ploni (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article fails to meet the subject notability guidelines mentioned above. It also fails the WP:GNG, with three primary sources, one non-sigcov source, and an article in which the subject is mentioned twice, none of which count towards the GNG. Finally, the article is written a little too much like a resume. Toadspike (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Head of a curatorial department at the Guggenheim is definitely something that could lead to notability, either through WP:GNG or WP:PROF, but we don't have evidence that it has in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 25 May 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_May_20

Leave a Reply