THC Science

< September 10	September 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Dread[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are profiles. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 23:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bio profiles from bylined reliable sources such as The Miami Times in the article here are exactly the type of references we need Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not found reliable sources and does not pass WP:SIGCOV BBSTOP (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is very difficult to verify a discontinued Reggae chart. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 16 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asharq News[edit]

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

Non notable news channel page, Fails WP:GNG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MickeyMouse143. Thanks for checking the article. Asharq News is a recent channel that focuses mainly on economic and finance news -which is important but not attractive to most people as expected. How can page deletion be avoided? Maisa Khudair (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some sources found, but already used in the article. Most are press-releases. Article is somewhat promotional/uses flowery language (high-tech platforms, as opposed to artisanal platforms?). Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Oaktree b, would improving the language help not to delete? Please advise. Thanks! Maisa Khudair (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need better sources discussing the subject, stories in other media talking about the channel, beyond mere press releases. Interviews help but can't be used for notability purposes by themselves. Did the channel launch get covered by other media in the area or by other networks? Those types of stories would help show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for hinting that out. I will check for it for sure. Maisa Khudair (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest to improve notability? Maisa Khudair (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly what User:Oaktree b has already said; Press releases and common interviews do not establish notability in a sufficient way. Has another reputable source said anything about this channel? If so, then that's really all that's needed to keep the article. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable through significant coverage as per the sources cited in the article.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a new channel that tackles important issues in the MENA region. Sources can come over and the article can be improved further. Maisa Khudair (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is in poor shape, but coverage suggests that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MrsSnoozyTurtle, Can you please suggest how to improve the shape? Thanks. Maisa Khudair (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Debate here about whether existing sources establish notability, additional sources have been mentioned but not provided in this discussion and no improvements have been made to this article since its nomination. I'm relisting for one more week but the discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's difficult to get significant coverage of a news channel from a rival news channels. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthapril (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To provide further context to this argumentation, note also the the UrduPoint AfD. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. I was also referring to this discussion. Fifthapril (talk) 09:43, 18 September 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 23:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

María Renée Carmona[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMODEL or other relevant guideline. One-time appearance at a notable beauty contest Miss Earth 2013 without placement, other title(s) if they exist appear to be non-notable events. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Bolivia. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hits on her name in El Pais and El Tiempo, unsure how RS they are. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 11 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MESC-Jordan[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012. Rather small (less than 500 employees) and now extinct company, with little impact beyond its market area. Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP now, if it ever did. Wtshymanski (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Jordan. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article which originated before the WP:NCORP standards under which an article sourced only to the company's own site would not be acceptable. In this case, there is sporadic coverage of the MESC part-owner and financial fall-out since the company's demise ("Amman Court requests executive seizure of MESC-Jordan funds" (22 Feb 2021) and a later settlement) but I am not seeing evidence that Jordan New Cable Company / MESC-Jordan attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 14 September 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 that sourcing is insufficient. I'm happy to provide a copy in Draft if someone wants to improve it with reliable sources Star Mississippi 00:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government Engineering College Raichur[edit]

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

Non-Notable Engineering college with no independent coverage MickeyMouse143 (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Schools, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nominator should stop proposing deletions without attempting doing research on the topic and the guidelines that apply to specific types of articles.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you able to point to some significant independant coverage to show notability? WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is probably the most relevant part of an essay linking to guidance. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  As I understand this is a tertiary education school, which WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES presumes will likely have enough coverage although it may not be online. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES only talks about what have commonly been AfD outcomes, it's not a guideline in itself. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The college seems to be affiliated with VTU (Visvesvaraya Tech.) It's the only government public engineering university in Riachur. Theres alot of information about it online on third party sites such as admissions, reviews, costs, and other miscellaneous info as would be expected of a university. It doesn't seem to have any major online English language news coverage such as incidents, or major newsworthy events that would have been translated to English. Presumably alot more coverage does exist tho. I would say institutions of higher education are generally notable and someone who reads and speaks Kannada would be able to find such information at some point. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  As I'm sure you know, there's no requirements for coverage to be in English. It's beyond my skillset to do something like a WP:BEFORE on this so I'm not going to !vote at all, I'm just cautious of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes I understand. I think the existing sources, and what we can see online, are enough to keep the article but it needs more sources to be come a better article. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An attempt at searching for notability-establishing coverage should be made, and potential sources linked in this discussion. All I see here is hearsay.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 09:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The existing sources don't have to be included in the article as it exists currently but it would help to mention some that are reliable and would provide significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:56, 12 September 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 06:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quad-City Seaplane Base[edit]

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

Non-notable small airport. I can't find any significant coverage, despite a REFBOMB to primary sources. All I get are databases and primary sources. Considering the airport had 80 plane operations in all of 2021, and has exactly 1 plane based at it, there's a very low probability this is notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Illinois. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing available beyond WP:EXIST. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are related to the airport itself. Included citing sources include government agencies, private aviation companies, notable statistics agencies, and a major aviation interest group. This article includes a level of information on par with many other acceptable articles on non-primary airports, and it is directly related to a significant commercial airport that is referenced in the article.slowtationjet — Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are related to the airport itself That's an excellent argument in favor of deletion, I'd say. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent argument in favor of deletion, I'd say. Isn't it critical to have external sources that don't come from the airport? All of the sources are very credible and the fact that the airport didn't publish them boosts that credibility further.

I think I misunderstood your first comment as saying none of the sources discussed the airport. Yes, having them being independent is good, but they're all primary. See WP:SIGCOV. We need significant coverage of the airport in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. Right now we do not have that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Yes, I think you misspoke, User:Slowtationjet, all sources should relate to the airport but not come from or be generated FROM the subject itself. But they should be about the airport, just not be primary sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on Trainsandotherthings's argument. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VASP Flight 210[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a sufficiently notable accident to merit a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Brazil. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A crash of a scheduled airliner resulting in injuries and the destruction of the aircraft meets longstanding consensus for notability. News coverage of the event was picked up by at least the Associated Press and published across the U.S., although since it happened on the same day as the Challenger Space Shuttle explosion it ended up somewhat buried in the news. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RecycledPixels; a fatility accident involving a commercial airliner meets longtime community consensus for notability. Carguychris (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As already pointed out, accidents to major airliners with casualties or hull losses are routinely given their own article within wikiproject Aviation, even if sources may be scant in some parts of the world or for decades-old events. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a significant event. A plane went off the end of a runway with one death nine injuries. We do not have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. As an ATD we can redirect to VASP. Bruxton (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Airline accidents, particularly those involving a hull loss or death, are routinely covered by a single article. Minor incidents involving no injuries, fatalities, or serious airliner damage may be better included within the "accidents/incidents" section of the relevant airline. In this case, there was a fatality, several serious injuries, and so I think this is fine to include as a stand alone article. Distinct care needs to be taken when considering events or article subjects that pre-date the internet age. There is already some coverage included in the article, more coverage is likely to be present in paper materials not reachable through a quick Google. I'd be happy to see this kept for these reasons. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Quezon City fire[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While this wasn't a G4, the new article doesn't overcome the issues raised at the AfD. There was coverage around the fire, but no lasting coverage to indicate this was a significant event. Star Mississippi 21:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Philippines. Star Mississippi 21:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping prior participants: @Hariboneagle927, Jim Michael 2, Shellwood, HueMan1, CruzRamiss2002, Sleddog116, Dunutubble, Dubstar44, Lenticel, Howard the Duck, Nosebagbear, and SBKSPP:

Star Mississippi 21:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and in the event they're not watching, from the speedies on this version: @Justlettersandnumbers, Migfab008, Onel5969, and Mccapra: Star Mississippi 22:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. Tens of fires in QC in 2022; this one last week killed less but affected more than this one. All but one refs deal with the fire as it happened; the other ref explains how fire spreads in slums so it's not really relevant to this exact fire as no two disasters are exactly alike so you can't generalize stuff. In other words, no sustained coverage. Residential fires are almost certainly unnotable; but fires in commercial and industrial areas may be, such as the Ozone Disco fire (also in QC) and Kentex slipper factory fire. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LASTING, nothing historic about the fire and no follow up coverage has been made.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still fails WP:LASTING. Like I said in the AfD before. This is regular occurrence. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still doesn't meet WP:LASTING per same reason from my previous AfD stand. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. Same reasons as above, but if the fire is the most significant one to affect the Barangay UP Campus area, maybe it could be merged and summarized in the barangay article's history section.

Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as WP:NOTNEWS. Still fails WP:LASTING per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyun Hua Achanak[edit]

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

In a thorough search, I could not find any reviews of the film, or any criteria that would make it pass notability guidelines for films. I also couln't find any significant coverage, so failing the general notability criteria as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination. I was unable to find any significant coverage or reviews. The article is also in a bad shape with almost no information. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NFSOURCES BBSTOP (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discreet packaging[edit]

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

None of the article's four sources show notability. Three are just company websites that use the term discreet packaging. The fourth, a satirical blog about a fictional town, alludes to the (real) "brown paper bag" phenomenon. The article is largely original research as a consequence.

BEFORE searches show all kinds of uses of the term discreet packaging but no analyse or coverage more than in passing. Many of the top searches are "news" articles cloned from company press releases about sex toy products. But the term is not restricted to sex toys: it applies to video games and vapes and abortion pills. I have not, however, found anything that contributes to notability. — Bilorv (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and United Kingdom. — Bilorv (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean it's a term, but beyond a DICDEF, we don't need a whole article about it. I only find the routine mentions on various sites selling stuff, but not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scarfolk Council is um… not a reliable source. Or even a source. It’s a work of fiction. The rest of the page is just a dictionary definition sourced to mundane uses of the term, treating them as inherently notable just for existing. Dronebogus (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And why not merge to packaging? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there’s no valid sources? Dronebogus (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning above – it is a notable term (which I didn't realise was UK-specific before this), but this is not Wiktionary. Would also support a merge to packaging. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT Retinalsummer (talk) 22:52, 11 September 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. This article has been completely rewritten and provided with sources. It doesn't resemble the article submitted for a deletion discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington University of Barbados[edit]

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

1. A major contributor (and creater) to this seems to have been associated with WUB but most of their contributions seem to be gone now. Without that, I don't think this article would exist today. 2. There are 4 sources. The 1st appears to be a press release of it opening. The second refers to Barbados Community Colllege and not WUB. 3. The Third is focused on the CEO (which makes it read more like a business than a university) being arrested. I'd argue that might be notable on the individual, but not the University. 4. The fourth link is broken. 5. The lack of .edu address coupled with its uncertainty of it being closed (can't find coverage) makes me feel that this fails notability. 6. No results on JStor or NYTimes. Wozal (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Medicine, Caribbean, and Barbados. Wozal (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good flag! It appears the university has closed permanently. So the question becomes: Is there enough information about the events that led up to its closure (from reliable, independent sources) to justify an entire article about the fraud? (Looking now...) In any case, if this article is kept, it definitely needs to be reframed. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By chance, were you able to find anything? Besides the references (NationNews - which seems to be a regional newspaper) in the article already, I couldn't find anything and I'm not sure if this passes WP:DEPTH & the fact that the outcome wasn't covered post-arrest makes me feel like the event itself would also fail WP:PERSISTENCE. Wozal (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wozal: Leaning toward rewrite and keep. Per WP:ILLCON, even if WUB itself was not notable as an organization, sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct can make it notable according to other guidelines; in this case WP:NCRIME seems appropriate since it's criminal act or likely crime. And per WP:NCRIME, If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable. Like you, I initially questioned whether WP:PERSISTENCE was met, but given the timeline of coverage below, I think it is. Furthermore, the international dimension to this crime means that it's relevant not only to Barbados and other Caribbean countries with foreign universities and medical schools, but also to the Indian medical students, staff, and their families who were victims. Given that WUB still has a live web site and there are predatory businesses that continue to promote WUB, Wikipedia arguably has a role to play in presenting the facts according to reliable secondary sources.

May 16, 2016 – "Medical schools scoping Barbados", The Barbados Advocate – passing mention
August 4, 2017 – "Bad Medicine", Barbados Today – 2017 article by Ryan Gilkes reporting that 15 out of 80 students wanted to leave the university, citing mistreatment and questions about its legitimacy, as well as outrage on the part of the university dean who said there were no books in library and no drinking water for students
August 15, 2018 – "Medical Schools a Good Move", The Barbados Advocate – report on school's one-year anniversary celebration
September 29, 2018 – "Consultancy raided for seat scam", The Hindu – WUB not mentioned by name but breaking news in national newspaper in India regarding the crime
September 30, 2018 – "Medical admissions: firm cheats students of Rs 25 crore", Deccan Herald – news article in India by Bellie Thomas about the scam and perpretators, doesn't mention WUB specifically
October 6, 2018 – "International hunt for Indian CEO in university fraud ends in Barbados", Loop News
October 7, 2018 – "Barbados police detain head of offshore university", Caribbean National Weekly – by Natalie Greaves
October 8, 2018 – "Barbados: 'Fraud U.'", Cayman iNews
October 8, 2018 – "University CEO charged", NationNews

~~*October 8, 2018 – "University CEO accused of duping students arrested in Barbados, iNews Guyana~~

October 11, 2018 – "Washington Uni Barbados saga a red flag for int’l business sector", Loop News – implications for international business sector in Barbados, need for better due diligence, quoting president of Barbados International Business Association
October 13, 2018 – "UWI Head Describes Scandal at Medical School in Barbados as Embarrassing", Virgin Islands News Online
October 16, 2018 – "Washington University Barbados Director, CEO remanded for fraud", Loop News
October 16, 2018 – "‘Mia cares’ about Washington University of Barbados students", Loop News – Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, addresses the nation and promises that the Indian university students who were victims of the fraud will be given food, shelter, and assistance
October 28, 2018 – "Wednesday deadline", NationNews – 35 university students remain stranded in Barbados with no electricity or water, running out of food, after most university staff and other students have left the country
November 13, 2018 – "University officials granted bail", CANA News via Gale OneFile
January 5, 2019 – "Minister assures Barbadians Ross University is accredited", Loop News – article by Kerri Gooding reporting Education Minister's acknowledgement that "the Washington University of Barbados debacle...left a sour taste in the mouths of Barbadians last year", stressing that thorough due diligence was conducted in the case of Ross University School of Medicine
February 22, 2019 – "Indian Students 'Protected'", Nation News – assurance from Indian High Commissioner that the Indian government would do a better job of protecting university students in Barbados in the future

So there you go. Whatever the outcome, well done to you again for flagging this article for AfD; it definitely was not OK to allow the article to stand as it was previously. If you need anything else, let me know. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those helpful links @Cielquiparle!

:Given those new articles, I agree that coverage on Wikipedia should exist in some form. In addition to the rewrite, I'm not sure if a rename of the article or a redirect of the article would be a better move.

Noting that the majority of the article is focused on the scandal of the unaccredited medical school (and not its history, student life, academics --which I think is what one typically sees in articles about schools on Wikipedia).

Currently, the following pages on Wikipedia also exist:

2015 University of Louisville basketball sex scandal

Corruption in Chile - Would a Corruption in Barbados page be helpful here? Wikipedia does cover other countries.

List of corporate collapses and scandals - I hesitate to call WUB a university because it was unaccredited. I think corporation might be a good word here.

The article also mentions "international medical school scam". Currently, a page of that doesn't exist. Might make for an interesting read later which can be expanded with other pages which also exist.

(Also @Cielquiparle - I'd just like to add that I just noticed your changes in the article. Much much better than its previous state!) Wozal (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see much we can use for GNG, and it's closed, so that's likely all we'll find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After a much more careful read, I'm inclined to agree with @Oaktree b and think that it might have been more notable for the event in the ways that these scams are, rather than the university itself. Wozal (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wozal Trump University was much bigger in scale...but in some ways similar. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's a historical account of a notable educational scam in which 200 students from India were conned out of ₹25 crore (over USD $3 million) to study at an unaccredited medical school in Barbados, chartered by a previous government administration, which had no running water, electricity, or library books, and did not pay staff. Article has been completely rewritten to make it clear from beginning to end that the school is no longer in operation and was part of an (alleged) international scam. Key criteria of WP:EVENT and WP:NCRIME are met, including lasting effects (political repercussions, pressure for better due diligence of foreign businesses in Barbados, described in "Aftermath" section), geographical scope (esp. Barbados and India and Caribbean educational sector more broadly), diversity of sources that are reliable (national newspapers in India and Barbados), and duration (2016 to 2019); depth of coverage is present in a few key articles with analysis, especially the "Fraud U." article listed above, plus "Bad medicine" and "UWI Head". School is also now listed in List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and template has been changed to list school as "defunct". Cielquiparle (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As this is a notable account of a crime. Also, retaining the article counteracts Wikipedia's systemic bias. Closure of an educational institution should not be a reason for deleting an article about the institution. It is a historical fact this institution existed, and what happened is supported by sources cited in the article. Besides, Wikipedia should not be a directory of only open educational institutions, it should also document those that have closed or are defunct and the reasons for being so. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Playing on the Planet[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article on a non-notable band, created by an WP:SPA. Searches turned up no coverage on the band, meaning it fails the WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. The article was WP:PRODed shortly after creation, but contested by the article creator, meaning it needs to go to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Rorshacma (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first hits I find for this term are an article about baseball in Korea and a chess article. Utterly non-notable, not GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if any notability could be proven, it should go through drafts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitskvarts (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A local/regional act that can be found in the usual streaming and self-promotional sources, and an occasional gig announcement. They do not have the reliable and significant coverage that is necessary here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches across Google do not turn any coverage on the band. fails notability. Fabiobengario (talk) 22:56, 13 September 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 clear that this does not belong in mainspace, but it's unclear whether anyone wants to actively work on it in draft space. Ping me and happy to provide a copy. Star Mississippi 00:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helen and Mike Webberley[edit]

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

WP:COATRACK with WP:BLP concerns GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Medicine. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment might be notable, but it's written like an essay. Would likely need a TNT and much better sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (obviously, as I am the author). The Webberleys have received prominent news coverage over a number of years for distinct events. The sourcing is to official court proceedings, BBC News, the BMJ, etc. The fact that Helen Webberley has a criminal record for running an unlicensed online medical clinic (transgender medicine) seems to be a unique event. In addition to the numerous proceedings related to specifically online transgender medicine, the fact that the tribunal linked this to her involvement in two online pharmacies (not related to transgender medicine), which were found not to be safe or effective, is obviously relevant, in the context that while I believe the Webberleys hold that they have a duty to operate in this manner to save transgender people, sources of unimpeachable authority (i.e. UK courts) are quite clear that this had been going on previously as well. The fact that **both** members of a married coupled of GP have been struck off and/or convicted of criminal offences is obviously again highly notable. It is not really clear to me what the 'coatrack' argument is referring to. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify - While the Webberleys are I think notable with sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, and a decent article about them could be made, the article as it currently stands is very close to being an attack page. Any BLP about either of them would need to be handled with a tremendous level of care, and even then would be a frequent target for disruption given the nature of their work and recent history. I only support draftify on the proviso that the BLP sees a significant rewrite, with particular attention paid to the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dubious notability, and this article reads like a hit piece (WP:ATTACK). Funcrunch (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or draftify), AfD is not cleanup. Simply remove any unsourced or poorly sourced material. However, there are numerous high-quality sources listed in the citations per WP:RSP, including BBC News and the BMJ. Well-sourced facts about notable people do not an attack page make, and there is plenty of opportunity here for that. Going the other way, we do not whitewash or censor unflattering material so long as it is well-sourced and on a notable subject. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just having committed a crime doesn't confer notability. See Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. If it did we'd have millions of articles on petty criminals. To keep this article it would have to be about more than crimes. For example, did their "criming" lead to significant changes in a profession or a political body? Also, are there articles that are not focused on the crimes? I haven't found any. What I would look for is a biographic article that covers the entire life of one or both of them, everything else that isn't about the crimes. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ? I'm not sure if you read the article very carefully but it's not about crimes per se, but medical malpractice, which in most cases is (was) dealt with via professional/employment-type proceedings, not criminal ones. Since there are important implications for telemedicine AND for transgender treatment, it's strange to characterise this as about a criminal. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - "In 2018 Helen was convicted of criminally running an online medical clinic without a licence..." Look, it doesn't matter what we call it - if there are important implications, those are entirely lacking from the article. I don't know if there are any sources that consider those implications, but if someone finds them those should be noted in this discussion. Otherwise, as I said, this article is just a listing of "crime and non-crime malpractice" events on the part of two people. Lamona (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see. Well I have now added some context, which is that Helen Webberley's actions in prescribing hormones whilst suspended to children on the NHS waiting lists were supported by staff within the NHS gender identity development services, and whistleblowers explicitly told not to raise this matter. This eventually resulted in £20,000 compensation being awarded. It is rather odd, IMO, to try to claim that the Webberleys are just random criminals or doctors disbarred for being incompetent, and not key figures in the debate/battle about how to treat transgender children. Sumbuddi (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I still don't see anything beyond a list of trespasses. If they are "key figures in the debate" then please link to sources in which they are key figures in the debate. Oh, and explain how their "case" affected the debate. Lamona (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've reviewed the sources, the article, and it seems to be non-notable. I don't think a clean up would help. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I think it should be draftify for the correction BBSTOP (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beecher's Bible[edit]

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

While it is a well known term, I just don't think there's enough substantial content here for a stand alone article-- the article already feels like it's grasping at straws with the section on the Beecher family. Suggest redirecting somewhere, either to a section in Bleeding Kansas (preferred), Henry Ward Beecher, or Sharps rifle. I would love to see more coverage that I missed be discovered, but I haven't found it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs work, that is true. But it is quite a notable term taken from the events that changed the political landscape in America. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s all good, I’m just simply not able to find coverage of the term that would allow this article to expand beyond a dicdef and I think it would be better for the term to be a redirect where it can be presented in the full context. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message @Eddie891:. I am working on it now. Added a few references already; at least we can present the best version of the article. Lightburst (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to head over to the university library near me and check out their books on Beecher/bleeding Kansas as well, perhaps more will emerge…Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this is kept as a stand alone, it should be moved back to Beecher’s Bibles— it seems extremely uncommon to use the singular in this case. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: That makes sense, and I was thinking the same, as all the references use Beecher's Bibles Lightburst (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bleeding Kansas#Early elections where the key information here is already included. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Beecher's Bibles I have done some work on the article and added historical references, background, and news clippings. I believe that this is an important term and our article goes beyond a WP:DICDEF. There is enough coverage to warrant an article and to show that our article meets WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be controversy over how it got its name (on talk page). A traditional view and revisionist view might work. The revisionist view actually seems more reasonable than the story of hiding the guns in a box of bibles which is a bit too good a story. Uncovering stuff like this is what Wikipedia excels at. And what Internet Archive excels at, old out of print material brought back to light. -- GreenC 07:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Beecher's Bible: 310

Beecher's Bibles: 2,538

-- GreenC 07:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @GreenC: for many years I have had a hobby of researching John Brown (abolitionist). I have also hunted down the serial numbers of the Sharps Carbines were used in the John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. To that end I have many books on the subject of Sharps Carbines. The Sellers book that I added to this article is the most comprehensive accounting with careful research, and it was a book that cost me much $. I see they can be had cheaper now on Ebay. I bought that particular book because he lists serial numbers and Sharps factory shipping records. He uses congressional testimony and some primary source letters from those who were involved in the process. His book says the crates were marked "Books and Bibles". Lightburst (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This source contains a lot of information to expand the article. It's ca. 1907 certain things need verification. Whatever the case, it shows how in-depth and complex this episode was, more than a nickname for some guns. -The article could be significantly expanded. - GreenC 05:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: you ever heard of these? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look through my print sources after work today. Hog Farm _Talk 12:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Checked the indexes of several print sources I suspected to be relevant, turned up nothing. Hog Farm _Talk 03:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, although a merge to Bleeding Kansas#Early elections would also be a defensible outcome. Of the sources in the article, I can't access Sellers or Strand, but the Tribune ref is primary and doesn't count, I wouldn't consider Rosa or the Hartford Courant pieces to be substantial enough to count towards notability. That leaves the Guns in American Society, KSHS, and this, although the latter's entry is more about Beecher than the rifles themselves. The Isely 1907 source helps with the dicdef concerns, which I have as well. I can't access the Sellers work although it may be significant as well. Guns in American Society also quotes Allan Nevins regarding this topic, so presumably Nevins has some useful content. I'm not all that impressed with the fact that we're mainly avoiding dicdef issues because of a 115 year-old source, though. Hog Farm _Talk 04:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Redirect or Keeping article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems well and diversly sourced now, appears to have been moved into a saved position after the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added:

Isley, W. H. (April 1907). "The Sharps Rifle Episode in Kansas History" (PDF). The American Historical Review. 12: 546–566.

It's a significant source, in length and content, academic journal, and often cited by other sources. The age is a factor but many old sources are often cited, even remain authoritative on certain things. -- GreenC 04:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found and work on the article has been done. Dream Focus 13:25, 18 September 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 Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#USFSA XI. Consensus is clear that sourcing is insufficient. History remains under the redirect should that change. Star Mississippi 00:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. Duparc[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5; we don't even know his first name. Tagged for notability since March.

Prod reverted by Das osmnezz with the justification helped France achieve silver in the Olympics which was regarded as the top worlds football competition before introduction of World Cup also definitely has off-line sources as a result, but as only three teams participated in football at the 1900 Olympics fails WP:NOLYMPICS. BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Olympics, and France. BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#USFSA XI. Note that not knowing the full name is entirely irrelevant for notability, plenty of example of notable people whose identity are a mystery. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Looks like a 1E case to me given that nothing seems to be known about him other than that he was apparently in the squad for an early Olympic "tournament", and didn't even play. I also don't believe the claim that in 1900 the Olympics "was regarded as the top worlds football competition" is true -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note, but I firmly believe the Olympics as being the world's "top" football competition in 1900. The world's first international football match was only played in 1872, and that was between England and Scotland; FIFA, which organises international football, did not exist until 1904. Having multiple nations competing against each other for more than one match would have been novel; maybe the Olympic football tournament was not well-regarded, but it would certainly have been the "top" competition simply by default.
This was probably brought up in relation to the notability because, like with international footballers today, Duparc was likely one of the best in France and probably one of the best-known. It suggests there are likely sources. Whether we can find them is another question. Kingsif (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#USFSA XI, while sources may exist, I was not able to find anything. A search of both newspapers.com and Google Books turned up nothing more than passing mentions in a couple of books. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added something from a mention from searching old French newspapers on Gallica archive. I'm not going to chime in with a !vote until I've seen if there's really not much to be said, but there is at least some coverage of what his playing was like so far. Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding my thoughts now, having gone through the archive more and finding - and I've only looked at two months of one newspaper so far - regular coverage of Duparc's team in the sports pages; when the column spreads to more information than just scores and team lists, it also bothers to give some detail on him (and other significant players), so I don't find this coverage to be always trivial. Added what I think is an appropriate level of detail (if we're comparing to one modern football season) to the article. Kingsif (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a lot of sources you've added, but all the ones I have checked are passing mentions. If there are some that are not, could you provide the best WP:THREE for the rest of us to review? BilledMammal (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean, they're not all passing mentions (especially in a cycling newspaper of eight pages, where more than a summary is really quite a lot in context); there's even one issue with mini-bios of the important players, and the story about the burglary is in the sports pages but is a whole separate headline story itself, with some focus on Duparc as the main victim (with the elision of the teammate's name, I interpret the story as being like a "celebrity interest", that such a burglary is news because readers of the time were interested in who it happened to, Duparc). I would prefer to be able to go through the whole archives of at least that newspaper before being asked to "show the best", or someone else can if they want to help. Of course, there are some sources that are just passing mentions, added for small verification and because perhaps that match sounded interesting and an article about at least that Championnat could probably be created from the sources. But I would really argue that getting regular coverage for being involved in the top domestic league, with a newspaper also bothered to comment on their prospects/style of play, and winning several titles, should pass sporting GNG. The logic being that if someone isn't that interesting off the pitch, what besides their sports record do we have? Which seems to be the standard for inclusion as regards some minor current footballers. Kingsif (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at the burglary story, all it says about Duparc was they stole the shoes of Duparc, as well as his wallet, and that Duparc had to borrow money to return to Paris. I would consider that a passing mention, since it is a trivial mention of him as a victim within a much larger story. BilledMammal (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, the philosophical argument there was that a racing newspaper isn't picking up that story without some reason, is it? And since the other footballer wasn't named, the reason seems to be this guy. So, important in his day. Kingsif (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But I would really argue that getting regular coverage for being involved in the top domestic league, with a newspaper also bothered to comment on their prospects/style of play, and winning several titles, should pass sporting GNG. The logic being that if someone isn't that interesting off the pitch, what besides their sports record do we have? Which seems to be the standard for inclusion as regards some minor current footballers. The problem is with assigning importance to where, when, and under what context coverage is published based on our personal expectations; we can't just add those factors in to bolster SIGCOV because we can't actually use them for coverage in the article. Doing so would also introduce a lot more subjectivity and bias into AfD -- what one person considers an indication of significance could be viewed as routine or promotional or unimportant by another. On top of that, sportsperson bios require a source of SIGCOV to already be identified before we can make any assumptions about nonspecific additional coverage existing. Since nothing has been found, none of the subject's accomplishments nor the presence of non-significant media attention can be used to justify keeping. JoelleJay (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources added since the article was nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above and that the article was vastly expanded with many sources added. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best there is only 1 source that provides sigcov, which still falls short of meeting GNG. Whether even that actually constitutes sigcov is also up to debate, per above; there is a match summary, which is not typically regarded as establishing notability, and some very routine stuff like someone "was kicked so hard in the stomach he had to go off". Avilich (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. A sentence or two discussing someone's performance in a match recap is never SIGCOV, otherwise we would have articles on every single moderately successful high school athlete. Also, coverage in one brand-new, low-circulation (<25k), sporting-specific newspaper is far from showing the subject received broad, sustained media attention. JoelleJay (talk) 04:14, 18 September 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 List of museums in Ukraine. Star Mississippi 13:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Museums in Chernihiv[edit]

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

It is unclear if this list article meets the criteria for notable list topics, WP:NLIST as it doesn't seem to have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I'm bringing it here so that the community can discuss and decide. An alternative to deletion would be to merge to List of museums in Ukraine. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Lists, and Ukraine. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of museums in Ukraine. Notability concerns aside, there's not enough content here to warrant a separate list, and we're into WP:NOPAGE territory. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of museums in Ukraine per above. BilletsMauves^€500 17:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of museums in Ukraine as suggested above. Three museums, two of which do have Wikipedia pages, do not justify a separate list. Topshelver (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of museums in Ukraine. Orientls (talk) 05:23, 15 September 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. No merger target was ever identified. Star Mississippi 00:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adgully[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Advertising, Websites, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject has almost 200 uses as a reference source in enwiki. This stub article gives the context for those references. Clearly used as a secondary souce (X told Adgully, According to Adgully). And RSs quote Adgully's awards as notable. Would support merge to some suitable list page (Indian media/websites) Bogger (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No merge target has been presented. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Bogger, do you have a Merge target in mind that you might suggest?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search didn't find any independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in any depth. It's true that some reliable sources occasionally cite Adgully or note in passing that someone received an award from them, but none of that is the sort of significant coverage that WP:NCORP, WP:NWEB, and the GNG require. Generally we don't merge/redirect to the sort of lists that Bogger is talking about (e.g. List of news websites in India) since they're written to include only notable subjects (see the first bullet point at WP:CSC), so in this case I think deletion is the best option. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smithmore Castle[edit]

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

This article lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. ~~The sources in the article~~ The sourcing in the article at the time of nomination was:

Smithmore Castle's concierge page - clearly not an indepndent source
A Southern Living article - an actual article in a magazine that contrinutes to notability
Lonely planet - a listicle entry - not significant coverage
Katherine Elena Photography - personal blog and is just mentioned as the site of the photo shoot
WRAL - a listicle entry - amazingly, the name is not even mentioned
New& Observer - article is about the wedding photshoot and Smithmore is mentioned as the location, not significant coverage
Smokies - web site devoted to covering local attractions - unclear if this is a reliable source, and or what sort of audience is served
Only in your state - travel promotion web site so not a reliable source, see [1]
Smithmore castle history page - clearly not independent
Narcity - unclear as a reliable source - but the article reads as a travbvel fluff piece
Thrillist - listicle entry - not signifcant coverage
High Country Press - listicle entry - not significant coverage
Cheapism - listicle entry - not significant coverage

In considering the type and depth of coverage, this is insufficient to support an article. Whpq (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not an NRHP historic property, the one good source described above helps, we'd need a few more like that. Leaning delete, feels promotional otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete advert. No indication of Notability. And very poorly written. ~~The originator’s edit history has a very strong whiff of undisclosed paid-for editing.~~ Strike as grossly unfair. The editor in question has disclosed they have been paid by the venue’s chef to create their article. Although there’s nothing on their own page that says they’re being paid to write this crap. Truly horrible. And stet for the Delete. KJP1 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq analysis of referencing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 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. Both titles protected from recreation unless editor is extended confirmed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avdheshanand Giri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article, recreated after deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Avdheshanand Giri and Articles for deletion/Swami Avdheshanand Giri (2nd nomination). Third nomination, same issues. No independent coverage of the subject in reliable media. Only passing mention in articles related to his org that does not have its own page. Dependent sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This is getting silly. Non-notable for all reasons discussed above and in the other two deletions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Being the nom for the first AFD of this subject and having done an analysis of the references in question, I find no new references that aid WP:SIGCOV. VV 18:08, 12 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Miranda (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix, was 44th in the middleweight rankings, which is far off from the top 10 requirement. Also never previously appeared in Sherdog's top 10 rankings. Also fails WP:GNG, quick WP:BEFORE shows no significant or in-depth coverage on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 17:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Brazil, and Washington. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 17:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet either WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. The coverage consists of standard fight announcements and reporting of results. None of that is unusual for a pro fighter, so I see no indications of WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:05, 18 September 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. Feel free to create a redirect from this title to the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chavel Cunningham[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much out there unfortunately. I found a few pieces of coverage on Cunningham's career, but they're limited. There's this (couple of paragraphs on an award win) and this (three paragraphs on the same award). The rest is just passing mentions. If anything more substantial is found, feel free to ping me. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines national football team: no sources that pass WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant prose coverage, failing GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 18 September 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prom Pact[edit]

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

Article about an as yet unreleased film, not properly demonstrated as the subject of sufficient production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFO. This was originally created in draftspace, and had been declined by an AFC reviewer for not yet being shown to meet the notability criteria for films -- but then earlier today it was arbitrarily moved out of process by an editor who is not an AFC reviewer on the grounds that "This movie has completed post production. Typically an article is moved to the mainspace once it has started filming".
Except that the standard rule is not that films are automatically notable just because it's possible to verify that they're in the production pipeline -- under normal circumstances a film is not notable until it's released and getting reviewed by film critics, and making a film notable this far in advance of its release requires a significant volume of production coverage going far, far beyond just a couple of stray casting announcements. But this is just sourced to a couple of stray casting announcements, and the page-mover did not add even one new source that wasn't already in the article at the time of its AFC decline in July.
So obviously no prejudice against recreation next year when it is released and starts garnering the critical reviews that are essential to establishing a film's notability -- but a couple of casting announcements is not sufficient coverage to already get it in the door today. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There just isn't enough coverage at this point in time to justify it having an article. We can keep the AfC article around (whomever is watching it can just make sure it doesn't go 6 months without some type of edit) and then once/if coverage comes available (as you said, likely reviews), it can be moved live. But at this point in time the coverage out there just isn't sufficient. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jahvin Sutherland[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding any significant coverage. A search of Vincentian newspapers turns up only passing references. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines national football team: as the player is listed there. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude I don't think we normally redirect national players to the national team. Sure, he's on the article now, but the squad changes regularly and he likely won't be soon. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:35, 12 September 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. A strong consensus to delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena[edit]

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

This seems to be a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVFORK of Unidentified flying object, with little or no redeeming value as an article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Aviation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. This is a clear and unambiguous POV-fork of subject matter already covered elsewhere, cobbled together to promote a fringe perspective. It is full of blatant synthesis, misuse of sources, and off-topic editorialising (see e.g. "See also: Epistemology and Axiom" under the section header for the highly-questionable 'Table of proposed explanations' subheading. Who exactly thinks readers be directed to an article on epistemology here? The article creator does evidently, but why the heck should we give a damn about what they think?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my deletion rationale a little, I think we should also take note of the title - 'academic research...' - and the sourcing being cited. Shouldn't an article on academic subjects be cited to academic sources? Or at least, to sources actually discussing academic research? Instead, we are being foisted with tabloid-style news websites, (e.g. [2] which is written by some guy plugging a book on 'UAPs') as sources for third-hand quotes etc. The article title seems to have been concocted to hide the blatant POV-forking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the sources being cited see WP:RS. If only references to academic studies were sufficient that would be great and even more reason to keep the article, but then you'd complain about WP:PRIMARY.

It is not "foisted with tabloid-style news websites", I know what quality refs are and these are used in large number within the article, such as The New York Times, NASA, The Washington Post, nonprimary scientific studies that were picked up by news media, BBC, NBC News, Scientific American, Science news, Science Magazine, etc. The sources are actually discussing academic research (as well as the topic within academia and the history + status + backgrounds of the research).

Your rationale does not make sense, it's not "POV-forking" and you violate WP:NPOV. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To expand yet more on my rationale, I suspect that WP:AND may also be relevant to this discussion: Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research. The article is entitled 'Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena', but who exactly decides the 'and'? Who decides what is or isn't 'related'? More specifically, which sources (amongst those actually discussing 'academic research') link SETI and UFOs? SETI concerns itself, as far as I am aware, with attempting to detect evidence of 'intelligence' amongst the interstellar radio wave background. It doesn't concern itself with unexplained anecdotal observations of flying objects. The claim that the two different topics are generally considered 'related' within academic research seems highly questionable, and further evidence of POV-pushing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author: it uses countless WP:RS like quality secondary sources like The New York Times, NASA, The Washington Post, nonprimary scientific studies, BBC, etc. Why do you think it would be violating WP:PROFRINGE or WP:POVFORK? It's fine and compliant with policies, redirecting/deleting it is not, please make specific concrete points and see WP:RS, WP:NPV & WP:DEL and especially WP:DEM.

it's not a content fork, I wrote basically all of that anew (nearly all of it except parts of a transclusion) and it's not the topic of the redirected-to article (also there's e.g. Effects of climate change and Effects of climate change on oceans ...or Herpes simplex research, Spinal cord injury research, NASA research, Artificial neuron, Academic study of video games as a medium, etc despite of their larger-order topic parent/related article). For example, the article is too specific and extensive to be included in the broader UFO article.
I already added a section "Status as a field" with lots of WP:RS which call it like in the page title and show it's a valid very notable subject (as do all the other refs, including for example statements by Director of national intelligence Avril Haines or NASA administrator Bill Nelson that appear to affirm the validity of this subject as a topic of academia in principle).
Deleting it would violate WP:NPOV, the article does not push any view. If you think that's needed, you could further expand the section "Research about the status of the field" if you found it too short. I already moved it up and added even more clarifications that many scientists consider this a topic of pseudoscience or the respective work pseudoscience. This does not make it any less notable, even if the article in your opinion and in the assessment of nearly all scientists would really only describe a failed approach of academics / something that is "stupid" or harmful or shouldn't be done by academics.

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given your evident inability to actually understand the Wikipedia policies you are citing, I can see little point in responding to any of that. AfD discussions are resolved by general consensus amongst participants, and not through back-and-forth arguments with article creators. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And these should read, cite, and know Wikipedia policies like WP:DEM to base the consensus on.

You need to do more than basically say "I don't like this article because I find it pushes a view I find stupid" – you should also say why you think that is and address the points.

To address the two policies you have mentioned so far: why would they even apply to the article. The article does not violate them. For example, "if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory" does not apply to the article which uses WP:RS. For the second policy actually named by you, the article is not "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)" "to be developed according to a particular point of view" – the article is about academic research of UFOs and I already explained that, for example by referring to examples Effects of climate change on oceans and Spinal cord injury research.

It does seem you would hope to be able to ignore any actual arguments and implement your personal opinion without any basis in objective arguments and policies while violating the policy that says "Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting".~~Along with a circle of other guardkeepers, you routinely somewhat single-topic-esque work on keeping out certain information you don't like or find inappropriate. That's~~ The way you participate in decision-making, does not appear to be compliant with WP:DEM. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork, and per nom and Grumpy Andy. -Roxy on tour 16:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems well researched, ref bombs out the wazoo though (five or six citations for "psychological effects"). Could perhaps trim it down, seems NPOV otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you no opinion about the POVFORK from UFO, which also seems NPOV??? - Roxy the dog 16:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'ref bombing' is there, certainly. Citing sources for things they don't say, and/or cherry-picked only to support the article POV. See e.g. this BBC article, [3] and the content it is supposedly being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an easy way to discard WP:RS, it's not "ref bombing" but proper definitely sufficient reliable sources that you can't just discard. The specific article you linked is one in no less than six refs. If you object it for some reason (why?), you could remove it, it wouldn't make any change to the content. Sources are not cited "for things they don't say, and/or cherry-picked only to support the article POV", if you find a section too short or missing add to it, but I don't think something major is missing there, these were not cherry-picked and I think you misunderstand WP:NPOV. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of simple questions: What specific article text was the BBC article I linked above being cited for? And do you consider that citing it for that specific content was compliant with Wikipedia policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"it's not "ref bombing" "The specific article you linked is one in no less than six refs" do you see where this might confuse people? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a valid point, I only used this many refs in places because I knew people here would complain, not because it's really needed to be sufficient WP:RS. If I don't you'd complain there's too few sources and that the article does not meet notability criteria, if I do, you complain that it's "ref bombing". I copyedited the respective section to make things clearer and separate the refs. I'll work on it further, you can't expect an article to be perfect in its first revisions, it would be constructive if you pointed out what specific flaws are and/or improved the article yourself. I'd remove redundant refs if that's preferred but not before the article is kept because otherwise people complain about notability / a lack of WP:RS. --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This starts out sounding like it's a summary of the lit, but quickly morphs into presenting idiocy in WP's own voice. Might as well create an article "Academic research about Orange Americans", with the primary conclusion being that Trump is a lizard and not even mentioning the possibility of cosmetics.

Creating a duplicate article like this is commonly done to avoid oversight. IMO, the responsible approach would be to expand the corresponding section of the UFO article, subject to the review of the editors guarding it against pseudoscience, and then if justified by WEIGHT splitting it off into its own article. — kwami (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "not even mentioning the possibility of cosmetics" in this analogy? This is false and to address it further, I'll repeat my earlier comment:
- I already added a section "Status as a field" with lots of WP:RS which call it like in the page title and show it's a valid very notable subject (as do all the other refs, including for example statements by Director of national intelligence Avril Haines or NASA administrator Bill Nelson that appear to affirm the validity of this subject as a topic of academia in principle).
- Deleting it would violate WP:NPOV, the article does not push any view. If you think that's needed, you could further expand the section "Research about the status of the field" if you found it too short. I already moved it up and added even more clarifications that many scientists consider this a topic of pseudoscience or the respective work pseudoscience. This does not make it any less notable, even if the article in your opinion and in the assessment of nearly all scientists would really only describe a failed approach of academics / something that is "stupid" or harmful or shouldn't be done by academics.

it also has content on literature about the psychology of UFO witnesses etc, that for example suggest things to be caused by sleep paralysis or camera artifacts / optical illusions etc, this is a summary of the literature without cherry-picking. Again, if you find something too short or missing explain what and why and/or add it with WP:RS (and I used and searched for anything about academic research, not for any particular conclusion) but nothing major is missing or misleading/misrepresented there (albeit the first revision of an article is always rather unlikely to be perfect). Prototyperspective (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per author, who I thank for their work. The article is a welcome and reasonably neutral addition to an area of discussion that has been controversial for many decades, and is a well-sourced overview. Opposers arguments to delete this article are unconvincing. Jusdafax (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having alternative views on Wikipedia is fine, but the Ufology article already captures the scope of this article. Merging the new content in this article with Ufology might be the best way to prevent a POV fork and keep the author's additions, which with editing, would become reasonably neutral. tofubird | ✉ 20:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This well-referenced article proposed for deletion allows for additional detailed material in a rapidly-expanding area of academic research beyond the general scope of the Ufology article. Jusdafax (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why, if it is about 'academic research' as it claims, is it citing tabloid news websites (including, I note, the New York Post, which is explicitly Deprecated at WP:RS/P)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an exception, removed that source.

There are plenty of refs right next to it anyway. I don't think any other tabloid news websites are cited in there and if there's one or two more, please remove them.

Concerning why it's so many WP:RS news articles instead of scientific articles, that's because otherwise people would complain about WP:PRIMARY, not because it would (currently) make (much) sense. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not going to clean up your conspiracy-theory-peddling (as in "See also: List of asset management firms, List of richest people in the world, and List of largest companies by revenue") POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing there that needs to be cleaned up for it to be kept.

It's not "conspiracy-theory-peddling". These three wikilinks just clarify the "Advanced human technology by private sectors" hypothesis a bit (relevant articles as in explaining what such may refer to). I find that hypothesis ridiculous, and the article certainly doesn't indicate or imply that it isn't, but it should be there for completeness. It's not a POV fork. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you think adding links to 'List of asset management firms', 'List of richest people in the world' etc (not even remotely discussed in the source supposedly cited) is 'clarifying' what 'private sectors' means? We are rapidly approaching WP:CIR territory here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly modified to more closely match the source which said "commercial entity". Prototyperspective (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have won the Internet 'Missing the Point entirely' award for September 1922. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. The 'general scope' of the Ufology article isn't some law of nature descended from the heavens. Why don't we increase the scope of the Ufology article to include the well-referenced stuff you find in this article? Currently this article is an obvious fork to avoid the issues of giving undue weight to the fantastic theories vs. the mundane theories pertaining to the phenomenon. As it stands, attributing UAP to aliens and the supernatural is still a minority (although slowly growing) position, but let's not mislead readers by forking the Ufology article with a substantially longer, biased, and honestly messy article on its "academic research". In good faith, I'm happy to merge and rewrite relevant information here into the Ufology article. tofubird | ✉ 00:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few small clarifications:
aliens and "the supernatural" are very different, if not antagonal, things.

>90% of this article is very well referenced so that's too extensive (the remaining 10% is at least sufficiently referenced, especially when considering the respective content such as its length).

It's not a fork just like Effects of climate change on oceans is not a fork of Effects of climate change or Spinal cord injury research is not a fork Spinal cord injury or at least no more than these with there being no policy against such (rather the opposite) and there being countless other examples of child articles.

"attributing UAP to aliens and the supernatural is still a minority [...] position" as is is a statement of personal opinion. You need to be aware of that fact.
Then, please, again, disentangle these two attributions, at the very least they are not necessarily linked. Then, please actually look into what the WP:RS say about that. Some indeed call it a minority opinion, however a significant one (see WP:NPOV)! Others don't and these include this reported by WP:RS which said: A smaller but still sizable share of the public (51%) says that UFOs reported by people in the military are likely evidence of intelligent life outside Earth. Most of this sentiment comes from people who say that military-reported UFOs are “probably” evidence of extraterrestrial life (40%), rather than “definitely” such evidence (11%), according to the survey of 10,417 U.S. adults, conducted June 14 to 24. On the other hand, 47% of Americans say the military reports are probably (36%) or definitely (11%) not evidence of life outside Earth.

Many other sources only implicitly saying it's not a minority view at least at this point. Moreover, if you read the article you'd know that NASA administrator Bill Nelson stated that UAP could be from a civilization that is civilised and organised like ours, the U.S.' Director of national intelligence Avril Haines has stated There’s always the question of 'is there something else that we simply do not understand, that might come extraterrestrially?'. It is a valid possibility to take seriously. There are further WP:RS, many of which in the article, that show this to be a significant possibility that is not to be precluded (or reduced to ~one small sentence which nearly ridicules it) and to be (sufficiently) covered via WP:RS.

Maybe things were different in the past concerning this subject (note that the "slowly growing" part is also a statement of your personal view as is) and I can totally understand the view – and I'm not saying that it's yours – that it's just silly to really think these may be aliens (as a very valid possibility) rather than weather balloons, hoaxes, military tech trials and issues with sensors like cameras as I did think so too for a long time.

It's very important for the public perception of and quality of Wikipedia that we do not make decisions based on opinions (see WP:DEM), but on WP:RS & WP:NPOV (facts, not our views), and policy-based-rational-and-specific arguments.

Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it uses countless quality secondary sources, nonprimary scientific studies, BBC, etc. This is a topic that is being studied academically. Deleting it could be considered as WP:NPOV.--Joji (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Joji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with ufology, as this article is misleading about its content, given that it is purportedly about "academic research" yet it doesn't cite any actual academic research. The "and related phenomena" in the title is ambiguous, and WP:SYNTHESIS seems to be present (as in connecting the subject with SETI, which has nothing to do with UFOs). The article devotes attention to tangential subjects like this, basically making it a WP:COATRACK. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: concerning why it's so many WP:RS news articles instead of scientific articles, that's because otherwise people would complain about WP:PRIMARY, not because it would (currently) make (much) sense. I'd love it if people were okay with me citing more of the papers there but it seems like to them they would need to be mostly reviews. However, it already does cite many academic studies (along with other outputs academia), albeit there surprisingly aren't yet as many as one may expect on this topic, but the body of literature is growing rapidly by now and what you said is quite frankly false.
- The "related phenomena" isn't really ambiguous and you can't name each of those in the title because there too many / too different ones.
- SETI does have to do with UFOs – for example some prominent SETI scientists have spoken about UFOs (positively and negatively) or are also involved with research about it plus UFOs are considered by some as a potential technosignature or solution to the Fermi paradox or even part of SETI by some etc. It certainly doesn't "connect" the subject any more than appropriate. Sometimes, the terms SETA or SETV or search for technosignatures are used for more related segments of SETI, but usually they aren't and SETI is the respective topic and the explicitly named field of research in WP:RS.
- Coatrack is an essay, not a policy, and the article doesn't devote attention to tangential subjects. The respective studies often can't be cited directly for the reason named above so one had to use secondary WP:RS that at the same time aren't books outside of academia. The covered topics, each with due length here, are not tangential.
Prototyperspective (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to re-hash the same arguments; I read and considered your other responses before I commented here. I find your response unconvincing, and it doesn't invalidate anything I wrote. I stand by my comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Rework needed: I don't see any reason for deletion as the strongest argument in support of that, "POV-fork of subject matter already covered elsewhere", rings hollow. The scope of the Ufology article encompasses much more than the subject covered in this one. This article already has enough content to stand on its own. It's essentially a section in the Ufology article, but it already has much more content to be the reduced to just a section. Keep this, and summarize it in the Ufology article with this linked as the main article. The citations here are solid and thorough by typical WP standard. But I do think this article needs some editing in tone to be more neutral and not sound like an apologetics. Loaded language is used too liberally in the article and there is a lack of precision in the prose. But a need for rework is not enough reason for deletion. EyeTruth (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that EyeTruth (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is false.

Moreover, editors advocating for a delete have made relatively few contributions outside of removing & reverting UFO etc related contents & participating in associated discussions if that is relevant here too then. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't canvassed into this discussion. I've been keeping a close watch on UFO-related articles in the last few years, but too many of them are so terribly written that it leaves me with little motivation to get involved. Your accusation is very nonsensical, and there is no way I can imagine that you aren't engaging in this discussion in very bad faith. EyeTruth (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that he is not the only editor who lost motivation to edit UFO-related topics. Another example is Deathlibrarian, who like me pointed out the grave and very clear violation of WP:NPOV at Pentagon UFO videos and edits a variety of many UFO-unrelated topics: his goodbye from the topic. Not even a hatnote about concerns of WP:NPOV or alike were allowed to stay at that article but removed from the same editors who participated with delete votes in this discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, Keep & Rework per EyeTruth. Saw this discussion advertised on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Academic_research_about_UFOs_and_related_phenomena, came here expecting to make a pro-forma delete. Despite its pseudoacademic name, "Ufology" is a much broader scope that encompasses primarily pseudoscience. Wikipedia could probably benefit from article on this specific topic -- if editors are open to writing one, let them try. Feoffer (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject is studied academically. Current and past academics include J. Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, Stanton T. Friedman, Garry Nolan, Avi Loeb, and members of the Invisible College. ArdentMaverick (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— ArdentMaverick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 13:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a classic WP:POVFORK. The claims that ufology cannot adequately cover the subject because it is broader is because the academy has ignored and derided the subject. If you think that's a problem, your task is to go fix that out in the real world, [[not on Wikipedia. The claims by a lot of the UFO WP:POVPUSHers on this page including not a few WP:SPAs and accounts that have made edits as to call into question that the hoaxed answer to the Arecibo message wasn't really a hoax harken back to a time when Wikipedia was overrun by internet conspiracy theorists and fringe proponents. This sort of game-playing is really not great for Wikipedia and the fact that the author is pretending at once to say that he only used academic sources while playing defense in removing all the websites, blogs, and laughably absurd WP:PROFRINGE sources he credulously included makes WP:CIR a legitimate concern here with respect to most of the "keep" !voters. jps (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the other concerns before and you did not substantiate them much (e.g. the article is more extensive and specific/narrow), so I'll just address the plain false second part of your rationale:

"pretending at once to say that he only used academic sources" is false – I said nearly the opposite of that. I did not remove "all the websites, blogs, and laughably absurd WP:PROFRINGE sources" because there were none. I think I have removed one source that was insufficient, the New York Post. Please see WP:RS and the actual references; the referencing of this article is far better than in most of Wikipedia articles. Concerning what you, in your personal opinion / assessment, find "laughably absurd", please see WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove "all the websites, blogs, and laughably absurd WP:PROFRINGE sources" because there were none. competence is required. I can see that most of the sources are problematic in this article. If you don't understand that, you probably should not be editing in this area. jps (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & Merge the best nonduplicated content to a new "Academic studies" section in Ufology. See these redirect examples: Academic studies about Chinese economic reform and Academic studies about foreign electoral intervention. There is currently no other article on Wikipedia broadly titled "research about" a particular topic. 5Q5|^✉ 11:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plain false. Please read my comment(s) above. Examples include Herpes simplex research, Spinal cord injury research, NASA research, but also Artificial neuron despite of Artificial neural network, Academic study of video games as a medium despite of Video game and Effects of climate change on oceans despite of Effects of climate change.

A short summary of the article could be included there, possibly using transclusion, but it is too extensive and specific/narrow to be included there in full. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Proto - ya did good to try to make a great article. It needs a lot of work, but I see what you're going for... If I were you, I'd hang back and let others take the ball and run with it it. Some vested contributors have stepped up to say they want to help rehabilitate the article, let's give them a chance. You're not going to convince anyone that the current version works, but if you hang back, others might agree to step up and help the article get where it needs to be. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & Merge because of perceived bad title is not a strong reason. All suggestions of merging into Ufology fall flat because we will easily end up exactly where we started, which is a need for a standalone article. Merging this 5000-word article into Ufology as just a section, even if half the content is dropped on merge, will start pushing the article toward the soft limits suggested by WP:SPLITSIZE. EyeTruth (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from mainspace and move to user space. Users first attempt at an article has too many editorial policy problems they don’t seem to grasp, e.g.WP:FRINGE, WP:FRIND, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:AND, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POVFORK etc. and the “ufology IS science!” WP:ADVOCACY subtext is pretty obvious. Userfication and discussion may eventually unearth some usable bits appropriate for a section in Ufology, but the article is definitely not a candidate for mainspace at this time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, version of the article was already created in draft-space at Draft:Academic research about UAP and related phenomena, after original mainspace article was created and a few hours prior to this AfD being filed. Seems to be a potential implicit agreement from original author to move to draft-space, delete from main-space, and follow the standard review process of the draft article. While there seem to be reasonable arguments that userify or an outright delete would be the right course of action, draftify seems like the minimum agreed to and may be an interim solution pending the draft. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I only put it there because a user threatened me with a block for no reason so I didn't want to risk reverting the Wikipedia-policy-uncompliant blatant deletion (redirecting to the article UFO). I disagree with moving it anywhere but within article mainspace. If people have concerns, they should be specific. However, the article is in a good state and is based on lots of WP:RS, there is no need or valid rationale so far to move it (nor for any implied required changes if it's not to stay there indefinitely). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that if you earnestly think that the potential of being blocked was unwarranted and had no policy basis, and that there's no possibility you could be wrong about that, you should have stuck to your guns. The simultaneous draft- and main-space articles risk muddying the waters of any discussion at best, and could be perceived as an attempt to WP:GAME the system at worst. As an alternative, I'd suggest agreeing to keep only the draft version until it can be submitted for the standard approval process, as an indication that you are indeed WP:HERE to work collaboratively to address the concerns presented above. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note the pre-emptive assumption of bad faith Prototyperspective included as a 'comment' at the top of the draft. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why that? Why would "simultaneous draft- and main-space articles" be advantageous to me at all? I did not mean to "game" anything with that and have already explained why I put it there. Please point to e.g. specific parts of the article and cite policies, I don't understand your concerns as of the latest revision of the article, it's fine with all these policies. What exactly are the concerns? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the length of the article and pace of updates, I don't have the time or energy to do a more thorough review of the content. Hence restricting my comment to the dispute resolution and collaboration side. In this case, having thousands of characters of revisions in the two days since creation suggests being a draft could be the best option to work such issues out, particularly when there's significant concern and contention over the content. Then having the content forked into a mainspace and draftspace article makes it even more difficult to know the 'real' revision intended to be critiqued and edited, and muddies the water for this particular discussion: do we delete this article and leave the draft, keep it and delete the draft, delete both? To more directly answer your question, I'm saying the forked draft could be interpreted as WP:GAMENAME. Not that this was your intent, only that it could be perceived as such, and providing recommendations which could make collaboration easier. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much done with the article now and most characters were refs. I can't delete the draft, but if somebody can do so, please go ahead and delete it. Sorry for the draft, I don't know how WP:GAMENAME would apply but hope this is solved by deleting the draft. (Please keep the article and delete the draft) Prototyperspective (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sprawling, rambling article that reads like POV-pushing right from the WP:AND in the title. If serious academic research has been done on the subject, use that to reference the UFO and Ufology articles instead. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it sprawling or "rambling"? Where does it read like "POV-pushing"? Have you considered that this is what the WP:RS said and that meeting WP:NPOV can be offensive to some? What's the problem with the title and which alternative title would you propose? The article is too extensive and a too specific / narrow topic to be included in either (or both) of these articles in ~full. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info about article blanking – in the midst of this AfD two users, both btw heavily involved in many prior similar deletions within this topic, have blanked most of the article despite of (the points I made and) WP:RS for these contents. I then moved the article to Research about UFOs and related phenomena by scholars to address the user's concerns and for reverting the WP:RS-backed content. Another alternative name would be "Scholarly research about UFOs and related phenomena" or "UFOs and related phenomena in academia" (or similar or simply the original title).
Here is the removal, which I'd like to revert per WP:BRD, and find incompatible with Wikipedia policies, especially given the given rationales for these blanking-edits. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to your incompetent and pointless title-meddling, this AfD is no longer linked to the article it refers to. As for blanking, if you showed to slightest evidence of actually understanding the policies you parrot endlessly, I might consider a detailed response worthwhile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is still linked to the article it refers, only the title is the former title.

I do understand the policies. You don't need to make a detailed response, just make actual specific points (like referring to specific parts and specific sources along with specific quotes from a policy). You didn't do so even despite me addressing any concerns as far as I could with that inspecifity.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources check (until your removals)

making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) check (until your removals)

If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. check (there are plenty)

Prefer secondary sources check

News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. check

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. check

Sponsored content is generally unacceptable as a source

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view check

etc. I don't see how the article doesn't perfectly meet this WP:RS. You violated WP:NPOV by removing lots of relevant WP:RS due WP:NPOV content that you don't like.

Prototyperspective (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated citing of policies you have already been shown not to understand is going to achieve nothing. Read WP:BADGER, and let experienced contributors decide the fate of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective, where does it read like POV-pushing? For example when it read "[Harvard professor] John E. Mack [went] on television with alien abductees",[5] as if 'alien abductees' was an established category of people, like hurricane survivors or war veterans. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Did miss that and thought that's the term used also by e.g. psychologists who think these were sleep paralysis. The correct term to use there would be alien abduction claimant. If there's more issues like this, they need to be fixed.

@Slywriter: Note that first section was only added afterwards to address criticism and lead already got trimmed. The article is not about a summary of academia opinions on the topic (which would be difficult to write about due to lack of surveys or reviews) but about research work&findings within ~this domain of society. Pentagon UFO videos exists to present a specific POV but that's another topic.

Sorry for having moved the article, it's name could be changed later. Also see part more in-depth discussion, I appreciate the increased specificity of recent commenters. --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious WP:POVFORK. Maaaaybe merge some of the more WP:RS stuff into Ufology in an appropriate section. PianoDan (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per PianoDan and others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Headbomb, would you mind adding a little bit of more info why exactly you think this is inappropriate/to be deleted? Commenting mostly to inform you to that most of the article has been removed by now, please see this for a version before most of it was removed despite the WP:RS (or this after some acceptable trimming). Re some of the more WP:RS stuff – that is 90-100% of the (former) article, please do check the refs. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prototyperspective you appear to be bludgeoning in this AfD. This can be considered disruptive behavior, and can have the effect of discouraging participation from other editors wanting to get involved in this discussion - which actually harms Wikipedia. I just want to let you know. Also, see your talk page for more commentary from me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add - please stop bludgeoning. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well since WP:RS has been brought up at this AfD I am also commenting on that. WP:GNG says reliable sources are not a guarantee that a topic is notable and merits inclusion on Wikipedia. Quoting from GNG: "...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article...". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fork attempting to present fringe views as credible. The article exists to present a specific POV. It's title, lede, and first section all fail neutrality policies as they present a curated argument, not a summary of academia opinions on the topic. There is the rest of the web to peddle such opinions. Slywriter (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I vote delete for many of the reasons highlighted above, but I will point out that some weird redirects are now happening, clicking on the article itself and we get redirects, Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena redirect to Research about UFOs and related phenomena by academics and now redirect to Research about UFOs and related phenomena by scholars. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been restored to its original title [6]. It is now consistent again with this AfD thanks to User:Liz. Please do not move the page again during this AfD discussion. Also, please see WP:EDITATAFD for a list of inappropriate editing or actions while an AfD is ongoing. This includes prohibition of page moves during this type of discussions. In particular please see #3 and #4. Thanks. --Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic WP:POVFORK. Even major topics of academic interest, like Lung cancer or other prominent fringe topics, like Shakespeare authorship question manage to avoid having a separate "research" article. This topic is dealt with at Unidentified flying object#Studies where it makes much better sense anyway per WP:NOPAGE. Bon courage (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:POVFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK. I lost any hope of WP:NPOV at the sight of this table entry

Origin of AAV / objects	Description	Notable counterarguments
Advanced human technology by (a) commercial entity/ies^[1]	See also: List of asset management firms, List of richest people in the world, and List of largest companies by revenue

all too reminiscent of hand-waving invitations to do the research yourself, join the dots and see the conspiracy, all suggestion and no evidence that our lists of asset managers etc have anything to do with UFOs, let alone academic research about them. NebY (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunn Mill, Indiana[edit]

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

Previously bundled, re-nominating individually. The "unincorporated community" description appears to be a GNIS error; sources simply describe this place as a mill, and there's not enough significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. –dlthewave ☎ 15:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous participants pinged here to avoid multiple noticfications. –dlthewave ☎ 15:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this one seems non-notable. Unlike actual towns such as Lee or the nearby Arcola, I can't see evidence that it was ever so much as even a small village: it doesn't appear from property maps to have any sign of lots or streets, and it doesn't show up at all on detailed old 1898 and 1907 township maps. I'm fine with either deleting it or (preferably) redirecting it to Lake Township, Allen County, Indiana. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I found lots of info on newspapers.com, it referenced the mill, not a community. A redirect would be fine as well. Jacona (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete No sign it was a really town, and I oppose the redirect to the township as uninformative. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 13 September 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. JBW (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please Be Quiet[edit]

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

It exists, but no WP:RS as to why it is notable. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The plot summary is longer than the portions of the article that do have citations, I find no sources. Appears to be a blog post or something similar. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a very poorly created article, that should have never been created.Catfurball (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and sources include IMDB and what appears to be a blog. Rob3512 (Talk) 15:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This recently created article has about a dozen new editors contributing to it. Think there is some sockpuppetry going on? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 18 September 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 12:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namify[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this as two of the three keep voters in the previous AFD were UPE spammers: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy. Likely non-notable. Undisclosed paid-for spam, clearly not a good faith attempt at an encyclopedia article. I would delete this G5 except for the previous AFD. MER-C 11:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. MER-C 11:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search brings up PR hits and not much else. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any significant, third-party coverage to establish notability for the company. Fabiobengario (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also can't find notable sources about this dime-a-dozen website. Skynxnex (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial independent coverage. Thparkth (talk) 03:15, 17 September 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 10:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garjanai (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased film per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 10:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis it appears to be WP:TOOSOON. The 2016/17 'articles' were very sketchy about the film and I can't see anything reliable to confirm the film has been shot, or will be released any time soon. Fails WP:GNG at the moment unfortunately. Sionk (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has not progressed or received media coverage for quite some time. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet NFF requirements. Ab207 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 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 10:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulai Seidu[edit]

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

Previously hijacked article, which I have now reverted. I'm concerned that this semi-pro footballer fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Searches in Google News, DDG and ProQuest were unsuccessful in locating in-depth coverage of Seidu. I found one possibly relevant hit in Africa News Service (EDIT: article was published in 2000 so won't be about this Seidu), I can't seem to access the entire article, but the chances of it containing significant coverage are quite low. In any cases, I am unable to find multiple WP:RS addressing Seidu in detail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaning towards delete He is 30 years old so I assume he must have made few appearances (if not many) in Ghana Premier League which is a professional league but I was unable to find any stats or coverage online. The article also does not provide any information about his appearances. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthapril (talk • contribs) 12:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: topic appears to fail GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Google search shows me nothing about this footballer. But he might be notable next year, so I suggest this article to move it to draft. Mr Alebiii (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given we know nothing about what happened with this footballer after 2008 and given the current age of the player, I'd say it's highly unlikely there'll be any chance of future notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:37, 15 September 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 10:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased film, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 09:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Likely shelved film, does not meet NFF requirements. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 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 Gimme 5 (group). (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Bermundo[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. No evidence of notability. AmirŞah 08:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Philippines. AmirŞah 08:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gimme 5 (group). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gimme 5 (group). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion best way is Redirecting to Gimme 5 (group). Nassimela (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gimme 5 (group) as WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:MUSICBIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gimme 5 (group) as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:34, 18 September 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madeinox–BRIC–AR Canelas[edit]

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

Non-notable cycling team: fails to meet the WP:GNG or even get close. The only source is database-esque, indiscriminate, and only gives the roster (not significant). WP:BEFORE yielded nothing beyond the roster except for the fact that they were in the 3rd tier of UCI road racing for a few seasons. The relevant SNG at WP:NCYCLING says Significant coverage is likely to exist for a team if it [is] a men's road team in the 1st (UCI WorldTeam), 2nd (UCI ProContinental), or 3rd (UCI Continental) tier. However, I don't think that significant coverage is likely to exist for this article specifically because it only competed in the first two seasons, it is far from meeting the GNG, and the team did not place well (going off of 2005–06 UCI Europe Tour, complete standings might be lost to time).

The article has also been problematic and tagged with a reference needed template for 16 years. It cannot be fixed. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 06:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling and Portugal. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 06:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found some sources for team and their results. I will do some digging to find some more but the article does meet WP:NCYCLING. Paulpat99 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking at this! I am aware that it meets WP:NCYCLING. However, there is zero coverage that I could find that is even close to meeting the GNG. This includes all of the sources you added (none significant; either a mention in a results list, or an indiscriminate stats database). I believe this (and the fact that they were in the lowest tier under the SNG) adequately shows that the presumption that it will eventually meet the GNG is unwarranted.
- In addition, the (discussion-supported) Q1 on the FAQ for the sports SNG states that The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it (emphasis mine). As I stated in the nom, the article has been tagged with some flavor of references needed template for 16 years (the only one since 2010 being a link to the UCI website). It's been deficient for such a long time that there's been sufficient time to locate the required coverage for an article. The SNG should not stop the article from being deleted. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More sources now, meets WP:NCYCLING per above. Also just because there has been sufficient time to add more sources does not mean none exist, only that no one has actually set out to do so. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarification, my point with 'the sufficient time' was not that no sources exist (extraordinarily difficult to prove anyway), my point was that since there's been sufficient time to locate sources (and other factors), the SNG should not replace the GNG in this case (per FAQ quoted above). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 11 September 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. Regardless of the recent discussion, consensus appears to be clearly in the opposite direction this time. Star Mississippi 02:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India that is Bharat (book)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This book does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS:

CIS is a blog within the Hindutva ecosystem. Do not be misled by its association with a private university of no repute.
Hindu Business Line != The Hindu. Reviews in the former are mostly promotional. See Paid news in India etc.
Book review by a first-year law student at a random website fails RS.

A review over Firstpost and a mini-review within an op-ed (The Print) do not make it. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat hesitant rename to page about author. There's a lot of noise about the book in blacklisted sources, and some passing mentions here and there. There's also a review in what seems to be a very questionable law journal, that says very little that is comprehensible or substantive, and is apparently written by a university student; I assume that's what TB refers to above. All of these sources imply that the book is engaged in some amount of historical revisionism: this isn't by definition a bad thing, but it does mean we need secondary sources that actually examine the text in detail. Of these, the First Post review is the only one that does so: the only other source of arguable reliability, Krishnan's, does little more that regurgitate the book's content. However, there is some coverage of the author's role as an attorney in high-profile cases; the sum total of coverage may be sufficient for a stub about him. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. My own searching agrees with nominator. Lack of significant coverage. No review by reputed publisher or author. Promo type coverage or interviews are dependent coverage and do not count towards notability. I am opposed to a rename to non notable author. This is also linked with a hatnote from Constitution of India that I find disturbing. --Venkat TL (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"India that is Bharat" gets less than one hit per day on average. I'm simply going to redirect it to the book, and remove the hatnote; otherwise the hatnote is verging on promotional, regardless of whether it was intended that way. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; I see Tayi Arajakate made the page move, and as such it's a contested redirect; I'm not messing with it. We'd need a separate discussion, unless Tayi Arajakate wishes to undo their page move, which led to the hatnote. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't the hatnote just be removed? I moved the page from "India that is Bharat" to "India that is Bharat (book)" and redirected the former to the Constitution. The term is known for being the starting phrase of the Constitution (see this article for context) so I thought it was promotional to have its Wikipedia page be about the book or the redirect towards it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support removing the hatnote. Venkat TL (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure of any guideline that deals with hatnotes over redirect, so I've removed it. Though if there's any and this causes too much problems, anyone is free to revert my page move. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't quite understand the discussion here as this article was just at AFD six months ago and had substantial support. What has changed? Did sources get removed from the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: One "keep" from the previous AfD was blocked for socking. Also, procedural niceties aside, I don't find the evidence at the last AfD persuasive; I believe evidence of reliability wasn't examined closely enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was my premise behind launching this discussion, as well. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that insight, Vanamonde and TrangaBellam. I appreciate you looking at the last AFD. I was just surprised at the swing of editor opinion on this article. But, as I've learned working with AFDs in 2022, decisions are based on arguments put forward in a discusssion but also on who decides to show up and participate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS.4meter4 (talk) 01:48, 19 September 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 WorldLink Communications. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Net TV Nepal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nepal. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WorldLink Communications, its parent company; it's now just another generic triple play IPTV service using an Android box. Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Net TV and IP TV are really different. Hence, delete instead of redirect. DIVINE (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I can agree that it appears more like an advertisement than an article and doesn't adhere to the WP:ORG standards. DIVINE (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards a redirect to WorldLink Communications but want to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to WorldLink Communications per above. Rob3512 (Talk) 09:29, 11 September 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. In the absence of sources, WP:SOURCESEXIST is not a valid argument to retain an article. ✗plicit 10:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government Engineering College, Ramanagaram[edit]

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

No reliable coverage. Fails, WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Schools, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Presumably there are sources that establish notability. Lecturers are appointed by the provincial government. There is likely much to be found in Hindi and perhaps in English on this topic. The discussion is about the notability of this university, not about the present state of the article.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 11 September 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 Judge Dredd#Major storylines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Robot Wars[edit]

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

Identical situation as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour of Duty (Judge Dredd story) (pinging editors who commented there, User:Handmeanotherbagofthemchips and User:Rorshacma).

Tagged for notability 2 years ago, still no reception section, just a plot summary, and publication history. That said, while some Dredd story arcs have ended up as redirects to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines, others made it through AfDs in the past, so let's discuss. Can we find sources to rescue this, or should it be redirected? My BEFORE isn't showing much, and right now the only reference this article has is to a passing mention on a blog... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was sceptical of this article when it was created. Can't see how it is notable. Richard75 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as the other one, so Redirect to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines. Id be happy to change my vote if adequate notability is found. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given its status as the first extended Dredd story, I was expecting to find more, but there seems to be surprisingly little coverage of it in reliable sources. Its briefly mentioned or summarized in a number of places, but I am not finding a whole lot of what would be considered significant coverage. I'm honestly finding more results on the tabletop RPG supplement that was named after the storyline than on the actual storyline itself. That said, I did fine one book that has a two page discussion of it, that does analyze it beyond simple plot recap, here. If we can find some additional sources like this, the article may be possible to save, but otherwise, Redirecting to Judge Dredd#Major storylines would be the best choice. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found some passing mentions ([7], [8]) but if that's the best we can do, there's no viable article here. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines. There are insufficient sources (surprisingly) to show that it is notable in and of itself. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Austin McBroom vs. AnEsonGib[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A quick before obviously shows that there is not any significant coverage for the event in the article, Google results show routine coverage from a few MMA blogs, and some coverage from unreliable sources like the Daily Mirror and the Sun. Neither Gib nor McBroom are even considered notable by our guidelines, which again begs the question of why this page was created in the first place. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability. A simple Google search shows no significant reliable coverage for the event, with unreliable sources such as Daily Mirror only reporting on the event. Edl-irishboy (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:49, 12 September 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 10:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkeshwar Shivalaya Mandir, Tareythang[edit]

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

unable to find any WP:RS for this temple -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, India, and Sikkim. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has a credible claim of significance, but websites such as "helpmecovid" aren’t reliable enough. There were a few hits for unreliable sources on Google, but nothing else at all at Jstor, Books, or News. Fails WP:GNG for inadequate sourcing. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timur Kydyraliev[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. I created the article in 2007 when NFOOTBALL was in effect, but there is no SIGCOV available online. PROD was declined without providing any evidence of SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kyrgyzstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Russian Wikipedia has a much more detailed article for him but it's only referenced to passing mentions. Searching "Тимур Кыдыралиев" didn't yield any WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sources. --Suitskvarts (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fayiz Al-Zoubi[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. I created the article in 2006 when NFOOTBALL was in effect, but searches for online English- and Arabic-language sources yield nothing that is SIGCOV. PROD was declined without any evidence of sourcing provided. Jogurney (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject clearly fails WP:BASIC. Not notable. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Edwinson[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who only played 4 matches in the Mexican top division and which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. I created the article in 2008 when NFOOTBALL was in effect, but it has languished in the same state ever since because there is no SIGCOV available online. A PROD was contested on the grounds that a Marca Claro article showed the GNG was met, but I don't think so. The coverage is non-routine for sure, but not in-depth. Also, to satisfy GNG we need another couple of SIRS to get there even if that article were counted as one. Jogurney (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. The Marca source is good, but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough here at the moment. If some coverage were to emerge of his time in American soccer, that could push him over the edge. Ping me if anything additional found. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical area (computing)[edit]

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

Undersourced; fails GNG -- lomrjyo ^talk 01:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- lomrjyo ^talk 01:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per the sources now added to the article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't my area of expertise, but it does seem that there are plenty of sources on the topic: in addition to the ones now in the article, there's this article, this article, a chapter on "Critical Area and Fault Probability Prediction" in this book, and many more in Google Scholar and elsewhere. Appears to meet the GNG, though it could certainly use some expansion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obscure but evidence of notability. Thparkth (talk) 03:16, 17 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwolf[edit]

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

Even factoring in Nightwolf's controversy for being an ethnic stereotype, the reception of the article is solely based on trivial mentions and listicles. In fact, it is unintentionally ironic that a section about how he is a reductive stereotype would cite the article "Top 11 Native Americans in gaming". There is no basis here for a standalone article, and it should be redirected to the character list at most. The article suffers from WP:REFBOMB to give the appearance of notability when it really fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Too much of the content comes from unreliable listicles, relying on extensive quotes to pad out the content. Everything else seems to be mostly trivial mentions, so it doesn't appear there's any substantial discussion on the character. TTN (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters. I'm certainly guilty of having padded many Mortal Kombat character articles, especially the reception sections, because I was told that it was the right thing to do back in the day. However, time is not kind to the majority of MK characters and they have remained no more than bit players despite their longevity in the series, and Nightwolf is no exception. If this nomination is successful, then there are many other characters that should definitely follow suit. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Lots of trivial mentions, not seeing WP:SIGCOV (ping me if I missed something). But merge, not delete. The passing mentions are valuable for a list of characters or such. PS. I did a GScholar search to see if there's any academic discourse of him from the ethnic discourse dimension, but I see only a (very) few mentions in passing. PPS. That said, Nightwolf#Ethnic_representation, while cobbled from passing mentions, is pretty impressive. I'd really prefer to see this rescued rather than merged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Well, since you prefer to see this rescued, what do you think of the sources Haleth and I just provided? MoonJet (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They reinforce my preference here for weak keep over merge, although I'll note a pretty much identical case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soda Popinski (2nd nomination) which ended up with a merge. Shrug, if a source is found, this can always be restored again, here or there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's identical, since Soda Popinski was never released as standalone DLC content for any video game, which then became subject to critical commentary from RS. Haleth (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Nightwolf is a paid DLC character for the most recent MK game, which happened to have attracted some critical commentary. There's an IGN review for the DLC, as well as one from TheGamer. Eurogamer published a an original opinion piece which reflected on the similarities between the DLC character and a previous iteration from a early 90s cartoon, one week after a brief article which announced the DLC itself. There's further coverage from Comicbook.com and ScreenRant surrounding the character's depiction per the DLC. If Nightwolf is a completely new, previously unknown character then I'd question whether there is enough coverage from the aforementioned sources to write a short article at the very least. That is clearly not the case here. Piotrus also made a convincing point, in my view, in that there is enough aggregated coverage from a variety of different sources with regards to ethnic representation of Native Americans in popular media. Haleth (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that pretty much all of these sources are trivial coverage. Some of them might analyze his moveset a little, but mostly ignore Nightwolf as a character. Wikipedia is not the place for gamecruft analysis of characters' moves, they should be put in context of why they are important to a typical reader, which these sources cannot really do. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're splitting hairs. The reviews from IGN and TheGamer specifically treat the subject in a non-trivial manner, as if it is any other video game commercial product. It's not as part of a compilation of recommendations like this one or as a section in a long form article about the DLC's of MK11. A long form video game review aspects of the subject in detail, but not necessarily with the same proportional focus: it might focus more on gameplay mechanics or character analysis or some other aspect like potential controversies, that's the author's prerogative, but it is still the kind of material that demonstrates evidence of significant coverage. Your argument about WP:GAMECRUFT refers to sources like this or this: these provide detailed instructions on how to perform the character's moves, so they probably cross the line of what Wikipedia is not, but it is irrelevant since this types of material is neither cited nor relied upon in the article or in this discussion to demonstrate notability. The purpose of an AfD is to determine whether significant coverage from independent reliable sources about the subject exists, not to scrutinize the potential level of "gamecruft analysis" contained within the prose because that is an editorial concern best handled in talk page discussions with interested editors that want to improve the contents of the article or its parent article. I'd point out that you have actually provided a clear WP:ATD merge-and-redirect solution while failing to provide a proper deletion rationale in your nomination, so there was never any prospect for deletion and another editor could probably close your nomination as speedy keep on procedural grounds, but whatever. Haleth (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The context of sources and their suitability for use in an article are factors related to determining if they are significant coverage. Articles covering a character solely from a gameplay perspective belong in the article about the game, if they belong anywhere at all. Articles that are purely covering the release of a character in the context of being included in a popular game are completely procedural and inherently do not show notability. It's coverage of the game itself, not the character. If those articles provide meaningful commentary on top of the procedural coverage, that's one thing, but covering it for the sake of covering it is trivial coverage. If you cannot gleam any meaningful content from a source, then it either is completely useless or only useful for meeting verifiability standards. TTN (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then please, do a proper source analysis for our benefit and articulate how the reviews for IGN and TheGamer lack "meaningful content" or that a review specifically about the character as DLC content is somehow not "coverage of the character" as alleged by you and the original nominator. Everything you just said is generic stuff that can be copied and pasted in any discussion, without being relevant to the actual issues at hand. Haleth (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's used in the article speaks for itself, two completely arbitrary fluff quotes on gameplay that don't have any place there. The discussion of the gameplay aspects of characters is only relevent when discussed from a very specific standpoint, not the random assortment of quotes currently used in the article. If it's something you couldn't reasonably expect to see in the main article, it doesn't belong in a character's article. TTN (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's used? Read the material again. The aforementioned sources have never been used or cited in the article until I brought them up in this discussion. I haven't edited the page to add content to the prose because that is not the purpose of an AfD. As for your assertion that "it's something you couldn't reasonably expect to see in the main article, it doesn't belong in a character's article", you're going off topic. There's the question of due weight here: without going into excessive detail, there are viable reasons as to why not every minute aspect of a broad topic can, should or need to be covered in significant detail within one page, specifically, the MK11 page which is what you are alluding to. The aforementioned sources represent ongoing, continued coverage of an existing topic, which lends credence to the idea that it is potentially notable to begin with. We are not debating whether a Nightwolf (Mortal Kombat 11 DLC) article should exist, but per common sense, of course coverage about Nightwolf (Mortal Kombat 11 DLC) should be included in an article about the character. If you still refuse to support your statements by scrutinizing in detail, from your point of view, why the content of the reviews are inappropriate or unsuited to be cited and discussed on Wikipedia at all, even within an article that is directly relevant, after I've repeatedly asked for your input, then we have nothing further to discuss Haleth (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please refer to Doomfist#Description, a GA-rated article, for comparison. As long as it does not go into excessive detail or violate the due weight or "not game guide" guidelines and policies, I don't see any valid concern that prose about a character's gameplay mechanics is somehow inappropriate to include on a Wikipedia article, especially on a page that is specifically about the character. Haleth (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources are currently being utilized in the article, to no particular effect. The point about the main article is simple: Is this valuable content that would reasonably exist in the main article under different circumstances, that would then be split out if it took up too much weight, or is it content that would be simply cut from the main article because it has no value? My assertion is that it is the latter because random, unfocused commentary on gameplay is not suitable for a general encyclopedia. There is a reason most fighting game character articles don't have much discussion on it, and those that do are done poorly, like this article. TTN (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your characterization of the reviews as "random, unfocused commentary on gameplay", which is ironic considering that factually, they aren't brief snippets as part of a general review of the game or the paid character pass which collects a number of other single-character DLC's. As for the quality of the prose paraphrased from the aforementioned reviews as it currently exists in the reception section, that again is an editorial concern, not a question of notability, which is irrelevant to a AfD discussion per WP:ARTN. Your idea of "value" is subjective, and certainly not a concept that is part of a deliberation as to whether a topic meets the threshold of WP:GNG, so long as they don't violate clear provisions articulated under the information page of what what Wikipedia is not. In spite of the fact that you still haven't provided a detailed source analysis from your perspective, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but my position still stands. Haleth (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the issue is either. These sources talk about more than just his moveset.

Also, the reviews of the character in the game would not fit into the game's article anyway, because giving individual focus on the character there would constitute as WP: UNDUEWEIGHT. While it's about a character as he is portrayed in the game, it's still about the character, at the end of the day. MoonJet (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Haleth. Nightwolf has some controversy for being an ethnic stereotype, and there's some sources discussing that. I just added one to the article yesterday that goes a bit more in-depth, and here's another one that I have yet to add. And since he was DLC in MK11, we have reviews of him, such as the ones posted above. And here's a lengthy article about the character from CBR. And while I'm more lax with listicles than some other editors (and I must note that even some of the listicles talk about the cultural importance behind the character), these sources I provided are not listicles, nor are they trivial mentions.

That being said, the article definitely could use some cleanup. There's some other sources that can be removed from there too, since Dorkly and Cracked seem to be unreliable, as they are largely humor sites. MoonJet (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while a lot of the secondary sources are of questionable reliability, there is enough there to indicate a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Devonian Wombat: Which of the top 3 sources would qualify the article to pass WP:GNG with significant coverage? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm:, this article in Indian Country Today provides a few paragraphs of coverage, and this research piece published by the National University of Distance Education provides SIGCOV also. Admittedly, that is only two sources, but two sources are enough to just barely cause a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat: The Indian Country source mostly paraphrases a totally different article, and ostensibly an unreliable source. The only original opinion whatsoever from it is that he is characterized as "savage". Not SIGCOV. My browser marked the PDF as potentially harmful but as CZAR mentioned below, theses are user submitted and not published, so it's not a WP:RS and is totally unusable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources and arguments above do not make a good case for notability and therefore keeping the article. Nightwolf has remained a peripheral character in the Mortal Kombat series since his debut in MK3 way back in 1995, and basing his GNG requirements on being a paid DLC in the latest game is ridiculous. Other mentions of him are utterly trivial (an entire article comparing his current design to a decades-old forgotten cartoon — seriously?) or standard glorified press releases typical of a gaming site that are either announcing a new design, moveset or "Easter egg" or simply regurgitating old information borrowed heavily from the MK wiki, all minus any original insight or commentary. He does not have the legitimate non-gaming third-party coverage that major series characters (Sub-Zero, Scorpion, et al.) have received. Heck, Nightwolf isn't even the basis of ethnic stereotyping of Indians in gaming as a lot of folks seem to believe, and is instead just a face in the crowd of listed characters in the two works cited with obligatory brief coverage and then that's that. He receives no special individual attention in either case because he is not worthy of it. It's a cinch in this day and age to look up stereotyping of minority groups in popular media and find a plethora of results. Hence, my previous vote for redirecting to the main MK character article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Nightwolf has remained a peripheral character in the Mortal Kombat series since his debut in MK3 way back in 1995, and basing his GNG requirements on being a paid DLC in the latest game is ridiculous."

A character's role in a series means little when it comes to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While having a big role does often help a character get more coverage, it doesn't mean characters with lesser roles won't get similar coverage and shouldn't get an article. Why is it ridiculous to base GNG requirements on his DLC appearance? That argument seems to nothing more than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion, rather than something based in guidelines.

"He does not have the legitimate non-gaming third-party coverage that major series characters (Sub-Zero, Scorpion, et al.) have received."

Define "legitimate non-gaming third-party coverage". There's no guidelines that dictates that elements from a game needs non-gaming coverage.

"Heck, Nightwolf isn't even the basis of ethnic stereotyping of Indians in gaming as a lot of folks seem to believe, and is instead just a face in the crowd of listed characters in the two works cited with obligatory brief coverage and then that's that."

So what if he's not the "basis of ethnic stereotyping of Indians" as you claim? There's roughly a page worth of commentary on Nightwolf's ethnic stereotyping in this source I've added, which clearly passes our requirements on significant coverage. This shows he has more importance outside of being just another Mortal Kombat character. MoonJet (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, redirect or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just so we are clear, everyone else is entitled to a dissenting opinion as to whether the coverage meets their standards of "significant", but the arguments advanced in favour of keeping this article hinge on the individual editors' position that evidence of significant coverage is partly represented by the critical commentary from reliable sources in response to the character as paid DLC in MK11, not the fact that the character is paid DLC in and of itself. Haleth (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Define "reliable sources" in this case in regards to Nightwolf being a paid DLC, other than the usual gaming sites that are more or less shills for developers nowadays and are thus obligated to make such menial content sound important. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Define? Why are you asking me to speak for the community, when this speaks for itself? The IGN and TheGamer reviews are written and treated no differently then any other previously published video game review writeups on these sites. You have not provided any evidence that these specific reviews are paid advertising or part of the gaming sites' alleged activities as developer "shills". Anyway, the views you've expressed are irrelevant to this AfD discussion because it is not based on any guideline or policy. It has nothing to do with whether the character is subject to adequately non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but from your personal opposition to community standards and norms about how to differentiate reliable sources among the various gaming sites and video game journalists known to us. Haleth (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters#Nightwolf. Reviewing the above sources, the character is covered as an ensemble cast member, among the series roster and with no significance external to the series, and thus should be covered in that context. No one is making the argument that the prolific gaming press's coverage of standard DLC itself confers independent notability or that a series character's appearance in related series media warrants a dedicated article to house that coverage. This is another instance of knowing "when to split": there isn't a preponderance of coverage that sets this character apart from every other MK character and it should all be covered evenly in its existing article before warranting a split for undue weight. I'll note too on the ethnic stereotyping, this source listed above is a thesis and unsuitable for citation altogether, nevertheless for purposes of notability. The ICT citation is a brief mention that can be fully covered within the parent character list's relevant section. Merger is the appropriate compromise for any character with this average level of coverage and an existing series character article. czar 19:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think with the IGN and The Gamer sources, we're at GNG. If he never came back again and was only around in the 90s game, I'd argue he wasn't notable enough for an article. The fact that he's back and still getting commented on, 20 + yrs after the first appearance of the character (and a not insignificant discussion either) is enough to prove sustained coverage, hence notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Eurogamer article also discusses the character and ties it in the the franchise cartoon; the article has a by-line and seems a RS. I think we have enough for the article to be kept here. He was also the subject of an empathy study in a psychology journal [9], where they used Nightwolf and another character to define empathy. He was also described in this thesis [10]. The psychology paper is the better of the two, but it discusses the character. Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Masters theses are not reliable sources. They have no systems for editorial control and are essentially unchecked manuscripts, same as any pre-publication.

TheGamer.com similarly has no hallmarks of a reliable source—I don't know what that VG/RS thread was thinking but @Sergecross73's comment about clickbait and "articles about nothing" rings true a year later. Even if you want to send that source back to discussion, it should absolutely be used as a low quality source for our purposes in this discussion.

The fact that Nightwolf is namedchecked as part of the method in a psych study is trivia, not grounds for independent notability. There isn't any coverage of the character's importance independent from the series.
czar 02:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while there was a slim majority of people who were in favor of TheGamer being usable, there's also a fair amount of editors who believe that notability really shouldn't hinge on their shoddy output. The subject is in rough shape if it needs TheGamer coverage to clear the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Eurogamer article also does not have any sort of commentary, it is pretty much just a news post on the fact that he appears as DLC, and a summonable ally references a cartoon. That is not SIGCOV in my book. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage appears GNG-sufficient to me, perhaps a victim of escalating assessments of what coverage really needs to be to be "non-trivial". Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Per WP:NOTAVOTE I would ask for you to list which top 3 sources make the article pass GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets out notability requirements. Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 19 September 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.

^ Roulette, Joey; Gorman, Steve (17 May 2022). "U.S. officials say Pentagon committed to understanding UFO origins". Reuters. Retrieved 10 September 2022.

[reutersofficials-1] Roulette, Joey; Gorman, Steve (17 May 2022). "U.S. officials say Pentagon committed to understanding UFO origins". Reuters. Retrieved 10 September 2022.

[1]

Johnny Dread[edit]

Asharq News[edit]

María Renée Carmona[edit]

MESC-Jordan[edit]

Government Engineering College Raichur[edit]

Quad-City Seaplane Base[edit]

VASP Flight 210[edit]

2022 Quezon City fire[edit]

Kyun Hua Achanak[edit]

Discreet packaging[edit]

Washington University of Barbados[edit]

Playing on the Planet[edit]

Helen and Mike Webberley[edit]

Beecher's Bible[edit]

R. Duparc[edit]

List of Museums in Chernihiv[edit]

Adgully[edit]

Smithmore Castle[edit]

Avdheshanand Giri[edit]

Mario Miranda (fighter)[edit]

Chavel Cunningham[edit]

Prom Pact[edit]

Jahvin Sutherland[edit]

Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena[edit]

Dunn Mill, Indiana[edit]

Please Be Quiet[edit]

Namify[edit]

Garjanai (upcoming film)[edit]

Abdulai Seidu[edit]

China (upcoming film)[edit]

John Bermundo[edit]

Madeinox–BRIC–AR Canelas[edit]

India that is Bharat (book)[edit]

Net TV Nepal[edit]

Government Engineering College, Ramanagaram[edit]

The Robot Wars[edit]

Austin McBroom vs. AnEsonGib[edit]

Tarkeshwar Shivalaya Mandir, Tareythang[edit]

Timur Kydyraliev[edit]

Fayiz Al-Zoubi[edit]

Chris Edwinson[edit]

Critical area (computing)[edit]

Nightwolf[edit]

Leave a Reply