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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnaz Angury[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Most of the coverage is articles written by her and not WP:SIGCOV about her. Out of the sources supplied 2,3 and 6 are primary. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete as it seems WP:TOOSOON in her career, although there is one feature article about her in The Chronicle (which quotes her but also includes some editorial prose which was presumably fact checked). Happy to reconsider if another article is found, but at the moment the content itself also seems thin. Draftification could be another option. No prejudice if this article is recreated again in the future once there is more independent secondary coverage about her. Doesn't satisfy WP:NJOURNALIST as I'm not seeing evidence that her work is widely cited (via Google.com.au and Wikipedia Library). Cielquiparle (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete There's this brief mention [1]. Plenty of mentions in the Daily Mail, which isn't an RS. Hasn't met GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Daily Mail, in this case the problem is that she wrote articles for them as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:JOURNALIST seems WP:TOOSOON. Maliner (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:TOOSOON makes one think that in the future the article could be re-created, for which a history would be useful, but there is nowhere to redirect, I suppose. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON Karnataka (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 198 appears to be right on the hairy edge of the upper limit of sequential integers that deserve an article. It is nearly identical to its neighbor articles, 197 (number) and 199 (number), although it has quite a lot more references (probably owing to its more embattled history at AfD, DRV, and AfC). Keep/delete voters are split right down the middle, numerically speaking. Delete voters at this discussion argue that the number isn't notable enough for its own article, and that the number doesn't have enough significant or interesting properties to write about. Keep voters argue that deleting this article would result in an awkward gap in the number articles from 1-200 (which is obviously not based on any policy, but more of an IAR argument, albeit an arguably valid one), potentially causing issues with navigation templates. Keep voters also implied that, in practice, notability criteria for numbers seems to be inconsistently applied, and applying the same level of scrutiny would likely result in the deletion of many other number articles between 101-200, which would be an outcome that most likely wouldn't find consensus if it were proposed.

This is a difficult discussion to close. While the policy-based arguments favor deletion, there are some convincing IAR arguments that pull it back in the other direction and make it impossible to find a solid consensus here. Some participants suggested a further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (numbers) on whether the top end of the range of "automatically notable" integers should be expanded from 101 to 201, and I agree that this would be a useful discussion to have before nominating this article for deletion again. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

198 (number)[edit]

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

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

Nothing has really changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/198 (number) (March 2022) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 April 9. User:Robert McClenon promoted this from draft space over significant objections from participants in those discussions. There still are not multiple properties of any mathematical significance for this number (companion Pell number might count, but that is only one property and doesn't even have its own separate article), and no in-depth coverage of this number in any reliable sources (its coverage in OEIS is merely as one among many other numbers in several unimportant database entries). The article has been crammed with even more junk trivia factoids than the version from the AfD, saving it from G4 speedy deletion, but that does not make it notable. Note that the draft discussion also debunked the claim that there was ever a consensus for the statement in Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers that we should automatically include all numbers up to 200. Without in-depth coverage of this specific number in any reliable source, this does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination, my comment at the previous AfD and my comments during the AfC process [2][3]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Being the only number from 1-200 that didn't have an article, it seems rather sad to not include it. It is far better sourced than many of the others, (I know all about WP:OSE too). It seems to be a net benefit for the encyclopaedia to include it. Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The very first "citation" is to a website that does not include the stated claim (or any other useful content, for that matter). The rest is "this integer appears somewhere in OEIS" level cruft, which is no better than the referencing was in, say, 431 (number), which was turned into a redirect [4]. If we're going by personal feelings of sadness, I'd say that it reads like scraping the bottom of the barrel for bullet points, more like a TV-Tropes-for-Numbers than an exposition of mathematics from which anyone could learn anything, which I find rather less than happy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are articles about numbers necessarily required to be "an exposition of mathematics"? Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're required by policy to not be indiscriminate piles of trivia. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now provided a justification for why the first property is true in the article itself. That citation was an accident. Natureader (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we call "Original Research" and is not suitable for Wikipedia. We don't include mathematical facts, even if provable, if there's no written documentation showing that others have discussed them first. XOR'easter (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have instead found another source. I read in the WikiProject Numbers page that if you can verify it with a pocket calculator, it doesn't need a citation, so I thought it didn't need a citation. Thank you for your explanation. Best, Natureader (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Theroadislong's decision. CastJared (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore the previous redirect along with history. Firstly, I agree this article should be deleted for all the reasons already stated. Secondly, this deletion review resulted in the previous incarnation of the page being restored (as a redirect) in order to preserve history. That history now appears to have been lost - I assume the article was unceremoniously deleted to make way for this new draft? I think we must keep the previous history. IIRC the previous incarnation of the article had a sensible Talk page conversation about interestingness and why the article should remain a redirect. It's a pity that the nature of deletion means we now can't refer to that discussion in this discussion. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ask User:Robert McClenon where the history went — he performed some complicated sequence of round-robin moves between multiple numbered versions of this title in draft space, some of which have been subsequently deleted as "obviously made in error", in order to clear out the title from article space and move the draft into it. Probably the history went into one of those numbered drafts. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer - The history is in Draft:198 (number), right where I put it. That wasn't one of the trivial errors that I made. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment' - 1. Why do you think that I tagged the draft {{R with history}}? But you didn't look at the draft, because you thought reasonably that it was the draft. 2. The next time that I do this, I will put a comment on the talk page of the accepted article telling where the history is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keeping the history in the draft namespace seems unwise. There is a good chance of it being speedily deleted after 6 months of inactivity. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I now also think we need to merge talk page history (if that’s even possible) as both old and new articles now have discussions on notability. If deletion prevails and 198 becomes the lowest number without an article, it will become/remain a magnet for reincarnation, and all these discussions need to be kept visible to avoid retreading the same ground. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't think that the policy of Wikipedia is not for trivia necessarily applies to the details of the noble art and science of number theory. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's policy. It applies everywhere. Number theory is just as susceptible to oddities, frivolous curiosities, and trivia as any other area of human activity. XOR'easter (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and restore the previous redirect and history. -- Whpq (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By that metric of applicability, every mathematical property that is not immediately relevant to an application of Number Theory is frivolous and needs to be thrown out. If we were to truly apply that rule to the articles we currently have, almost no number passes them. Try to tell me 100 has any content if you remove the trivia? It doesn't even have three facts that link to OEIS sequences where it is in the first five terms, which is the metric David Eppstein seems to think determines whether a number should be given an article or not. "But 100 is important because it is too small to not have its own article/significant in base 10." That's completely subjective, i.e. there's a humanistic reason why it should be included in our encyclopedia (we like base 10 and consider that number small). By that standard, there is nothing wrong with including 198, especially since it is otherwise a rather dissatisfying gap in a long list of articles. We're not concerned about space availability, and there's enough content here that it isn't a pointless stub (the primary concern of WP:NUM's guidelines on creation) in comparison to when it was previously deleted. Bass77_talkcontribs 03:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  100 has more than half a page in the Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers [5]. 198 has no entry. 100 is also very early in the nice sequences OEIS:A011557 and OEIS:A000537 both of which have Wikipedia articles (I'll leave finding them as an exercise), and has a lot of cultural significance. (We have numbers whose notability rests mainly on cultural significance; 117 (number) is an example.) 198 has none of that. Also, see WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  198 is "very early" in the nice sequences https://oeis.org/A050250 and https://oeis.org/A001078 too, as I mentioned in the draft comments. Why are they not acceptable as interesting? I think at least the first one (nonzero palindromes less than 10^n) should be interesting enough. This and the property of being the first number representable as the sum of four squares in ten different ways (which has an article about the sequence: Jacobi's four-square theorem) were not mentioned in the previous 198 article, as far as I checked. Natureader (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, let me explain why I don't think A050250, "Number of nonzero palindromes less than 10^n", is an interesting property. The number of palindromes of length , over an alphabet of any fixed size , is easy to count: . The number of palindromes of length at most has a more complicated formula. The number of palindromes of length at most where for some reason exactly one of the alphabet symbols is forbidden in the first position has an even more complicated formula. Now apply that formula to and . There are so many arbitrary choices here that you could make a similar number of arbitrary choices and get any number you liked. There is no mathematical significance to having a palindromic digit representation, and no historical reason (for instance in early numerology) for being interested in decimal palindromes. It's only trivia, of a sort liked by people who like trivia about decimal representations, and not even particularly significant among such things. OEIS lists one published paper counting these numbers [6], not enough to make a case for notability of these counts, and the number 198 appears once in this paper, as a line in a table, not enough for WP:SIGCOV of its role as one of these counts. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If we're going to have articles on numbers at all, and it's not immediately clear to me why we should as someone who has never thought about it before, the natural thing to do for a "non-notable" number would be to redirect it to the list of integers between 100-199 as we do with other "non-notable" numbers, but given every other number in the set seems "notable" enough for its own page, the correct "solution" would be to redirect it to a list where it would be the only entry. Therefore, given this isn't a "normal" topic, we "should" probably keep it just out on IAR/organisational concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we maybe add "just one more" to WP:ATA? If we repeatedly applied that principle to numbers we would get infinitely many articles, which is obviously an impossible-to-maintain situation. How about stopping where actual notability runs out, instead? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the induction of this argument to the ATA hall of fame. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it's not a "just one more" argument, and I don't appreciate you trying to classify my argument as such. I have absolutely no idea why 198 (number) is not notable but 135 (number) is. Is it because 135 has more things to disambiguate? Is anyone arguing the page for 135 (number) passes GNG? Why is the mathematical trivia for 197 (number) valid for notability but not the ones at 198 (number)? Whether we have pages for numbers seems completely arbitrary apart from maybe pi because we're not applying rules consistently, and since we're not applying rules consistently, and the correct thing to do would be to redirect to a page that would list all the "non-notable" numbers between 100 and 200, which for whatever reason is exactly one number. The best option would be to delete this, 135, 197, and all of the other numbers which fail GNG and are only sourced to one mathematical encyclopedia, but I don't expect that would be very popular, so we may as well be inclusive. SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:WAX. The 135 article in its current state is nearly as bad as the new 198 article. Also "more things to disambiguate" indicates some confusion; these are not disambiguation articles. We have a separate disambiguation article 135 (disambiguation); number articles are not and should not be confused with number disambiguation articles. I don't know if the three line entry for 135 in The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers [7] counts as WP:SIGCOV. The existence of other bad articles does not justify one more bad article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear, based on your response, you would be open to an AfD on 135 (number) following this AfD, if it were to close as delete? Because what we're trying to figure out at the moment is whether these numbers are "notable" or not. We do have WP:NNUM, but since this is at AfD it's clear WP:NNUM is difficult to apply, if 198 gets deleted but 197 or 135 gets kept for having what amounts to essentially the same article for the lay reader, down to the sourcing, suffering basically the same problem as other recently deprecated SNGs - it's just that NNUM never really needs to be applied at AfD. I think the decision is between deleting a lot more numbers than just 198 or serving readers like myself who aren't computer science professors and who may not necessarily understand why 198 doesn't have an article when every other integer 0-200 does. (Furthermore, if these are not disambiguation articles, then we should probably be cleaning some of them up. 167 (number) is a great example.) SportingFlyer T·C 19:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not yet formulated an opinion on the notability of 135. It would take more external research. The current article does not convince me of its notability, but it might be notable through material not yet present in the article, or through some kind of significance that is mentioned in the article but buried among all the cruft there to the point where I have not seen it.

  I have been cleaning many of these up, slowly, with continued friction from some editors who like having them loaded with cruft. It was through attempting to clean these up in 2022, and not finding sufficient material to base an article on, that I initiated the first AfD of 198. I have not yet attempted to clean up 135. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the explanation - I understand your position a bit more clearly now. I'm not familiar with the history so perhaps this was discussed elsewhere before the first AfD as well, maybe at RfC. My argument is pretty simple but features a number of conditionals: if WP:GNG applies only, then this should be deleted. If WP:NNUM applies only, if it meets NNUM then it should be kept and if it doesn't then it should be deleted. However, as a SNG, NNUM would let us have these articles and have them not need to meet GNG, which is absolutely fine by me - these are a special category of article, but simultaneously, if the argument is all numbers 0-200 meet NNUM except 198, which is what I believe the initial AfD argued, then we should IAR keep this because the difference between 197 and 198 is not sufficiently different enough in practice that someone who's not into mathematics would understand why one has an article and the other does not, and we should instead keep 0-200 as a set of articles that can be on the site. If we're at the point where everything has to pass GNG, though, after the SNG discussions - I've been on a break - then this should probably be instead merged and redirected somewhere, and we can probably start doing that with other articles in the 0-200 range as well. Barring any specific consensus, I would default to keeping the article in a standalone form. SportingFlyer T·C 21:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a somewhat-related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Move trivia and disambiguation content out of number articles, but more about what content we should include than which numbers we should include. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's worth pointing out here that according to WP:NNUM: "For the sake of completeness... it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others." The cutoff point of 101 seems arbitrary, so there's a case to be made that it should be raised to 200 to smooth out the 198 gap. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Most number articles are written like WP:TRIVIA anyways. We should have a wider discussion about their purpose. Something like 60 (number) is clearly notable for historical Base 60 reasons alone but it's not really helpful to readers - but that's a conversation for another day. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – I !voted weak delete last time, but the article does not seem significantly below the standard of similar pages. (Although that sounds like OSE, it does help define the threshold.) Together with the arguments above, we should probably keep 198 to complete our set of 1–200, but it's still marginal. Certes (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per common sense. Article is just a collection of trivial data. Cinadon36 08:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore the previous redirect and history: Does not appear to pass WP:NNUM and reads as a pile of trivia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I would support keeping, even if this page only had the links to 197 and 199. If the content is a problem - prune it. But don't reduce navigation for our readers by deleting this page. That doesn't make any logical sense at all. - jc37 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep. From WP:NNUM: "For the sake of completeness... it is accepted that every integer between −1 and 101 has its own article even if it is not as interesting as the others. This avoids having, say, a gap for 38." The cutoff point of 101 here is arbitrary and could easily be changed to 200 or 201. I don't see a reason why a single gap below 200 is less unsatisfying than a gap at 38.The Midnite Wolf (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom, the fact that there is a page for 197 or any other number doesn't make this one better. Artem.G (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's a bunch of trivia, with no obvious significance. All of the non-notable numbers below 198 should be deleted too imo, just in case someone wants to use the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "navigational completeness" arguments (the navigational completeness argument makes no sense here anyway, people don't need a list to know what number comes after 197). AryKun (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Who benefits from these articles being deleted? Bass77_talkcontribs 22:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It gives us practice patching up all the number navigation templates, List of numbers, etc. to work around a hole in the sequence. Certes (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, what makes a number notable? That's really the crux of this entire AfD, but this may not be the best place for that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, I would argue most numbers aren't notable, even below one hundred. I would think only small numbers -1–20, fundamental constants like e, π, and i, and then numbers with some real-world notability or GNG like 100, 1000, the -illions, and googol should have separate articles. AryKun (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed the first AFD as "Delete" but this go-round, I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a lot of the arguments are above are about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "niceness", not whether the actual number is notable outside of a set. The "in mathematics" section is almost entirely just math trivia, no different from an "in pop culture" cruft section about a fictional character, and then the rest of it is just run-of-the-mill trivia combined with a disambiguation. There's not actual sources attesting to passing the GNG here, and I don't think any of these articles that are cited to On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences demonstrate notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete and restore redirect, as the keep !votes are largely based on aesthetic arguments without addressing notability. To those wishing to keep the article, I would suggest proposing a change to WP:NNUM so that it includes all numbers up to 201, rather than 101. Based on this discussion, it would probably gain some traction. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think delete !votes are any better on this front: "crammed with junk trivia factoids", "cruft", "scraping the bottom of the barrel", "some editors who like having them loaded with cruft", "pile of trivia", and "bunch of trivia" sound like aesthetic arguments to me. jp×g 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia and cruft are relevant to deletion discussions insofar as they describe issues relating to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that was a highly selective and misleadingly cherry-picked set of quotations. In particular, the "crammed with junk trivia factoids", taken from my nomination statement, was from a part of the nomination statement explaining why G4 speedy deletion does not apply. The same nomination statement concludes with a clear guideline-based statement directly addressing (the total lack of) WP:GNG-based depth of coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Note that, contrary to many claims, the contents of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not "it is forbidden to make any a posteriori claims whatsoever about consensus". This would be absurd, which is why it is not a policy or guideline. What this link actually goes to is a section of an essay about a specific type of fallacious reasoning where somebody argues for an article to be kept on the sole basis that another (very crappy and unlikely to survive AfD) article exists. It's quite unclear to me how this is supposed to apply to situations in which the "other stuff" is the subject of robust consensus. Here are all of the AfDs for numbers under 200: 1 (joke nom), 7 (joke nom), 9 (keep), 42 (joke nom), 69 (joke nom), 134 (keep), 138 (keep), 155 (keep), 178 (keep), 198 (delete). Here, other stuff does not exist as a random coincidence, but rather because people repeatedly agreed that it should exist. Even apart from that, I don't think that saying something is "cruft" or "junk trivia factoids" is a good deletion rationale (indeed, there is a section in the same essay named after this: WP:IDONTLIKEIT). As for the merits of the article: there are indeed OEIS citations, but there are also other citations (like the Brazilian emergency phone number, the dollar-coin ridges, and the NumberADay ref). It is not the greatest article in the world, but it seems basically fine to me. jp×g 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD's for 134, 138, and 155 were a decade and a half ago. It's reasonable to question whether that amounts to a meaningful example to follow now. The article for 178 made a better case for its existence on straight-up mathematical properties than this one (it got two "keep" !votes and one "weak keep", from editors who in this discussion have come down as "weak keep", "delete" and "delete" respectively). XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Kshetra Korthan Khandoba Devastan[edit]

Shree Kshetra Korthan Khandoba Devastan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject was not mentioned in the cited book, and the Marathi version of the article relies on the official website of the temple. Searches online only found two Marathi articles, both were announcements of upcoming festivals that would be held in the temple in 2021. Lacks sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, India, and Maharashtra. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. There are no sources that use this name; perhaps this temple is better known by another name. DreamRimmer (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to have a large number of devotees attending the Yatra if this report is reliable. https://marathi.abplive.com/photo-gallery/news/maharashtra-khandoba-yatra-parner-ahmednagar-pimpalgaon-korthan-khandoba-jatra-photo-latest-news-1139136. Also this about a 451 year old inscription https://divyamarathi.bhaskar.com/local/maharashtra/ahmednagar/news/published-marathi-translation-of-korthan-khandoba-temple-inscription-451-years-ago-unveiled-by-pandurang-gaikwad-129686787.html. As it was "neglected" for many years it's likely difficult to uncover historical sources for the site. Rupples (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could not find any WP:SIGCOV in gnews or gbooks. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. – bradv 00:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Tennis Club Tournament[edit]

Delaware Tennis Club Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability for this one-off tournament. Prod removed without improvements and with arguments which don't really address the lack of indepth sourcing. Sources are passing mentions or routine coverage only. Fram (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Tennis, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like the tournament (or at least one with that name) lasted longer than one year - this article from 1925 mentions the "twelfth annual Delaware Tennis Club Tournament" and discusses it a bit. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention of the 1886 edition here, but oddly it mentions C. B. Davis as the runner-up (while teamed up with Leigh Bousall) and Remak as the winner (with Cowperthait)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently it decided the lawn tennis championship of the southern states: [8]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other articles on it: [9] [10] and [11]. The last one makes it seem like there was a doubles and singles event, the former of which Remak/Cowperthait won and the latter I guess Davis won, so that issue is cleared up. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another source discussing it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A one-off tournament held over 130 years ago does not merit an article. Even if it was held annually for some years the answer would be the same. If we had an article on Delaware Field Club, which apparently staged the tournament, we might have merged there; or Delaware Tennis Club, but both are apparently NN; and so is the tournament. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having done extensive research on historical Delaware sports, I can say that the Field Club is almost certainly notable – maybe I could create the Field Club at some point soon and have this merged there, perhaps with the Delaware Field Club Open as well? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron - Single events can absolutely be notable and when they took place doesn't matter.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not sure how it started but it looks to have sources now and is notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Possible merge or redirect to Southern Championships if it can be be established through reliable sources that it was the inaugaural holding of or forerunner to that tournament — it's stated as such in that article. However, the information in Southern Championships seems to conflict with the information provided here, which states it was a one-off tournament. Until this is resolved it's difficult to make a formal recommendation. Rupples (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been working on a draft for the Field Club; perhaps it could be merged there when done? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Merge or Redirect. This discussion does need to be closed whether or not a Field Club article is in main space.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The one person who could help clarify the facts here is the creator of both this and the Southern Championships article Navops47 who I initially thought hadn't been formally notified of this AfD on their talk page and that was why they hadn't contributed here. About to query this, but a check of their Talk page history shows that notification was indeed made. Without confirmation of the position as to whether this tournament was one-off or the forerunner/inaugaural to the Southern Championships we run the risk of merging incorrect information. Rupples (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non notable, one off event. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 13:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It looks like there's enough sources to support an article. The fact it happened once is of no importance. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Less Unless (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Herdem[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTNEWS/WP:ONEEVENT Nswix (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Nswix (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have added more sources to the page, including links to pages for two films which featured the subject as the main subject of the film. I think this certainly counts as 'significant coverage'. Jwslubbock (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge/Redirect into Siege of Kobanî, this is insignificant based on WP:ONEEVENT compared to the siege overall. Tirishan (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)) [reply]

• Keep His life is represented not just his role in the siege, I don’t see how anyone would want this to be deleted on a genuine merit, it’s history and people like to use Wikipedia to read about history Bobisland (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Tirishan. The BInsider reference [12] has some depth but insignificant based on WP:ONEEVENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunitaWorker (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brief mention here [13]. Nothing else found. appears perhaps to be a memorial page, which wiki is not. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom WP:NOTNEWS andWP:ONEEVENT applies.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS andWP:ONEEVENT. Maliner (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Living educational theory[edit]

Living educational theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As best I can tell, the article relies largely on a Ph.D. thesis (Barry, 2012) which was never published (see https://www.google.com/books/edition/Qualitative_Research_in_Education/FfnjXiMGvDsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=barry%202012&pg=PA145&printsec=frontcover). There also seems to be *a lot* of synthesis and/or original research. Finally, I think its notability is questionable; at the very least, I'm concerned that the article is overly focused on Barry's work instead of, say, Whitehead's. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. Also, created mostly by an WP:SPA, which doesn't really contribute to objectivity attempt. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:OR Karnataka (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Paramaecium. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tompkins[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Relies exclusively on primary sources. He has not demonstrated individual notability outside of Paramaecium, therefore he shouldn't have his own Wikipedia page, per WP:BANDMEMBER. JMB1980 (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Paramaecium. Per nominator, a quick Google and Wikipedia Library search suggests he doesn't have individual notability outside of Paramaecium. He does appear to have a few positive mentions in album reviews, but these currently are not cited in this article and could be added to the article on the band itself. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aldene Forbes[edit]

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

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

This footballer made two appearances for the Cayman Islands. I can find no significant coverage of this player in web searches or Cayman Islands news sources. There is a marriage announcement in the Cayman Compass but it is not nearly enough.

The subject of the article fails to meet GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and United Kingdom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG, best source found was this image caption Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Digital Information Service[edit]

Emergency Digital Information Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails any indication of notability. UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found three items on Google Books which give non-trivial amounts of information about it: [14] [15] [16]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in light of the sources posted by Barnards. jp×g 05:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Nocturnal Emissions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earthly Delights (record label)[edit]

Earthly Delights (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NN record label. The only citation is for the unreliable Discogs. UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible Delete. Lack of reliability pushes me towards delete, unless someone can find at least one reliable source from somewhere, should any exist. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 20:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Another clear Merge since the label's founder has an article. These types of cases can be handled without further burdening AfD. Chubbles (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A plain merge is different than a merge/delete/redirect. Just merging would leave the history intact for any editor to restore, while a delete & redirect would prevent most users from doing that. And that action requires AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But why would we do that, in this case? Chubbles (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I second the merge into Nocturnal Emissions; don't care what mechanism is used, just that the content is maintained. -- t_kiehne (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saptagandaki Multiple Campus[edit]

Saptagandaki Multiple Campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NN school UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, was also draftified and moved back with no improvements. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  21:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Brewster Cotton[edit]

Julius Brewster Cotton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:ENT UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Mexico, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I took a stab but was unable to establish clear notability and forgot to come back to it. I'll have another look this week to see if anything has changed. Star Mississippi 01:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you had the chance? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't turned up anything of note. If this closes as delete and I do down the road, I'll draftify it and flag for you and whoever closes before restoring. Star Mississippi 01:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage, at best. Not notable and I can't find any sourcing. Props for the "what can I do with this degree article" as sourcing though. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shebeshxt[edit]

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

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

Does not appear notable as a musical performer, no charted singles, no awards. The article (and most sourcing found in BEFORE) is largely related to the legal problems the individual is facing. Likely WP:BLP1E Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's difficult to judge how well known he is. The only coverage I've found is news reports that he's facing criminal charges. There's pieces on social media and on websites but these don't appear to be reliable sources and what coverage there is lacks depth, so I don't think he passes WP:BIO or the WP:GNG. Doesn't satisfy the conditions of WP:CRIME as he's not been convicted. Nothing found on his musical career. Checked the South African official charts website https://theofficialsacharts.co.za and got zero results under both "Shebeshxt" and "Malome Shebe" so doubt he passes criterion 2 of WP:SINGER and nothing came up on Discogs search to support criterion 5. Rupples (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Found this: https://sundayworld.co.za/shwashwi/celebrity-news/shebeshxt-releases-new-single-from-behind-bars/ Rupples (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• DeletePer nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to British Columbia Highway 39. History is under the redirect if a consensus emerges to merge the sourced content Star Mississippi 13:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Junction[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG - no Google news hits, and as an intersection of two surface roads it is hard to imagine how it could be notable [17]. Rschen7754 22:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Rschen7754 22:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 03:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No indication of notability, just an intersection Reywas92^Talk 03:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I believe this article is about a community named Mackenzie Junction, not the intersection, despite the way the article is written. This should probably be converted to a redirect to the article Regional District of Fraser–Fort George. Mindmatrix 14:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources describe a community with this name? –dlthewave ☎ 16:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a road junction, this article is not notable. As a community - WP:GEOLAND says that populated places are presumed notable (not making a statement about whether this community fulfills that), but the article seems to be written about the road junction. Rschen7754 00:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I got 7 Google news hits. While the junction is nothing out of the ordinary, it's located in a sparsely populated area and appears to be used as a geographical marker for anything that happens in the area. Perhaps the junction falls within the realm of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer? An alternative could be a redirect to British Columbia Highway 39. Rupples (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into British Columbia Highway 39 for which this junction, tiny community, and service center is a terminal node. The target is short and can use this content. gidonb (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Did consider a merge rather than a redirect but quality of sourcing stopped me formally recommending. I do think "Mackenzie Junction" is a plausible search term and therefore should be referenced somehow. If deemed appropriate a merge is the best alternative to deletion as notability looks insufficient to warrant a separate article. Rupples (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rupples, thank you for thinking this through. Actually, there is nothing wrong with the sources except that these do not support notability or importance. Hence we cannot keep the article. The content only needs sources that support data, a lower bar, which is met. The two sentences that should be copied to British Columbia Highway 39, while once inserting Mackenzie Junction, are the ones that start with it. Plus Mackenzie Junction should be added to infobox as the terminal node. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into British Columbia Highway 39 with "Mackenzie Junction" as a heading in that article and searches redirected there — following Gidonb's and my reasoning above. Rupples (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Intersection has no indication of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let’s attempt to come to a consensus on whether to merge or delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What part of Wikipedia's policy makes the number of Google News hits a criteria for inclusion or deletion? Also, the Google algorithm can be misleading in that stories in reliable secondary news sources stop showing up in Google news hits after a few days, but show up when the articles are first published.--Kerbyki (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, not notable at all greyzxq ^talk 15:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or keep Possibly to Mackenzie? It's clear there exists a place called Mackenzie Junction - it comes up in a Google Books search, and there's an inn, a restaurant, and a RV hookup there in real life. Whether that's enough for a standalone article is a different question (even though that's the one posed by this discussion), but we should make sure the place is noted somewhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thinking about this more, it's the junction for the only road to Mackenzie - I think Mackenzie would be a good merge target for the small amount of information that's here, especially considering the Mackenzie visitor centre is by the junction. SportingFlyer T·C 00:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There doesn't seem to be anything there to merit keeping as a community (based on looking at maps), and no evidence of notability as a junction (junctions are sometimes notable if historically significant or important, but not every road junction deserves an article). If the inn/restaurant was itself notable, we could move, but it doesn't seem to be. Redirecting to British Columbia Highway 39 might be possible if this is a genuinely widely-used name for the junction but I'm not sure of that. What happened there? Why is it notable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because it's widely referred to as a place in articles like this: [18] and in German guidebooks: [19] and here and a reference to real estate being located there - there's not much, but it's definitely a point on the map people refer to in a very rural part of the world. It's probably not going to be enough to keep this article unfortunately but I feel like that's a failure of WP:NGEO more than anything else. SportingFlyer T·C 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A minor intersection, does not meet the notability guidelines. Avilich (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article. Merge the meager content to British Columbia Highway 39. Redirect to British Columbia Highway 39.

I looked on Google Earth. There is nothing there except one combined Petro-Canada gas station / RV park (tiny) / restaurant. There's a building out in back of that which may be housing for workers. There's a cluster of what looks like about a dozen mobile homes on the other side of the Parsnip River. That's everything within a one-mile radius.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Abada High School[edit]

Esteban Abada High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NN school UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Philippines. UtherSRG (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Did WP:BEFORE and was unable to find any sources that were not passing mentions or Facebook posts. I searched scholar and there are a couple mentions about how the school was the site of some earthquake improvements but nothing in de[th enough to establish notability. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My searches could not find significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Redirecting to Division of City Schools – Manila could have been an alternative per WP:ATD but that also has no supporting cites. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Sampaloc, Manila#Education: as WP:ATD. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To the delete voters @Dr vulpes:, @LibStar:, @Lenticel:, @33ABGirl: and @The person who loves reading:: is it okay with you guys to merge this on the target I mentioned? ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a cite for that section then I'm okay with the merge per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that sounds fine, if there's anything you want me to do just ping me and I'll do my best to give you a hand. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing useful to merge. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sampaloc, Manila#Education, do not delete or merge since there's nothing worth merging. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SBKSPP: Why redirect it to a page where it's not even mentioned? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade. Less Unless (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Beirne[edit]

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

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

While there are some mentions of them, not enough in-depth coverage of them to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dear Onel5969, permit me to present an alternate vista upon this rich panorama of sources. The array of evidence available, I argue, draws a vivid portrait of our subject that fulfills, if not surpasses, the parameters of WP:SIGCOV.

Reflect, if you will, upon the sheer diversity of contexts in which our subject appears. From being the voice of authority as a parade administrator, to sharing personal insights in a magazine interview, his presence permeates a wide spectrum of discourse.

Furthermore, his inclusion in a political committee carries weight, especially when the announcement of such is is accompanied by a profile and direct quotes - an indication of his significance within the milieu

Similarly, the honoring by the Westchester County board of legislators and the Aisling Irish Community Centre of New York are not mere passing platitudes, but substantive statements describing a community's recognition of his achievements. Such accolades do not find their way to individuals of ordinary standing, but to those who have made substantial impact.

Consider, too, the quality of the sources. The Irish Times, a publication of undisputed credibility, deemed our subject's views valuable enough to include in a discussion of national import. This is not the mark of an individual of passing interest, but rather of one whose insights hold weight.

Esteemed colleague, upon a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the sources at hand, it is my conviction that they provide the 'significant coverage' required by our revered guidelines. The collective breadth, depth, and diversity of these sources underscore the subject's noteworthy influence and contributions in his sphere, thereby affirming his rightful place in the annals of Wikipedia. I propose that the evidence at hand is a testament to our subject's multifaceted significance.

His influence and the recognition he's earned, coupled with the breadth and depth of coverage across a range of reputable sources, come together to advocate strongly for his retention within our compendium. It is my belief that his journey and contributions warrant our attention, and that his tale should remain within Wikipedia's archives, for the edification of all who seek knowledge. Jack4576 (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade. While Jack4576 has offered a lengthy opinion above, my own review of the sources (in the article and found elsewhere following a WP:BEFORE) indicate that much of the subject's notability relates primarily to his connection with the NYC parade/committee. Otherwise, apart from local/regional sources (like the Roscommon Herald and Sligo Champion pieces) most of the sources are either press releases, interviews, and opinion pieces written by the subject (and therefore not independent). Or are mentions by/about the subject in news pieces which are substantively about something else. A redirect (as an WP:ATD) seems reasonable in this sceanrio... Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG, not notable.

Hadal1337 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think his contributions are particularly significant, but that's not what GNG measures. They have gained enough international publicity, in the form of in-depth stories about him in multiple reliably-published and independent newspapers and magazines in Ireland, to pass GNG. And some of them are about one thing and some another (his work with the parade, and with the treaty organization) so WP:BIO1E is not in play. The WP:VAGUEWAVE comments visible above do not convince (although neither does Jack's prolixity on the other side). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – per the well-argued Spiderone and David Eppstein above. The "Delete" votes do not argue why this fails WP:GNG. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Leaning more towards a delete/merge per Guliolopez's argument. The case for WP:GNG seems weak.-KH-1 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any relevant info to New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade. The sources don't indicate general notability outside of this context. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:GNG. At most this might warrant a mention at New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade, particularly if that article were to be fleshed out in more detail. – bradv 01:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Koskeridou[edit]

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

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

PROD by User:TimothyBlue which I endorsed as we are not a Soccerway mirror site. Recreated in what appears to be the exact same form, with no attempt to address the issues. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Appears to be a footballer playing at a very low level in the Greek women's football system with no claim to notability whatsoever. In Greek searches, I found only trivial coverage. Sport Drama is a copy of a press release from Amazones Dramas and is clearly not independent of Koskeridou. Xronika Dramas is probably the best source but it's nothing more than a quote from her, a squad listing and two passing mentions in the minute-by-minute match summary. Aelole (translated) mentions her once. Proinos Typos mentions her twice in passing. None of the above demonstrates the need for a stand-alone article, especially for a player with such an insignificant career. Should her career take an upward turn and if significant coverage is ever produced, then this can be recreated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - from looking at the user page of the creator, this is possible WP:AUTOBIO or WP:COI. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, as with GiantSnowman if sources are found please ping me. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a single source in Greek ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lsdxoxo[edit]

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

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

Not meeting MUSIC, no charted singles, nothing found in reliable sources; some coverage in DJ Mag, nothing I can find for extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll add more references then?? BiggestBidder (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking for extensive coverage of the person in reliable sources, not blogs or websites. If you can find some, please share with us. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some good ones. If you want me to add these to the article, I will. Not sure what's wrong with the current sources though? There isn't even much information that would need many references.

https://www.documentjournal.com/2023/05/interview-at-the-feet-of-rj-glasgow-lsdxoxo-nightlifes-deity-of-dance/

https://djmag.com/cover-features/lsdxoxo-x-education

https://mixmag.net/feature/lsdxoxo-cover-interview-xl-pop-techno-berlin BiggestBidder (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are not so good. All three sources are interviews which is neither secondary nor independent of the subject. The nom already mentioned "some coverage in DJ Mag", but the second link and another on the article are interviews with the subject. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article now references a significant piece in DJ Mag, a full review in Pitchfork, a bio on AllMusic and other coverage that passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The piece in DJ Mag is an interview (primary information and not independent of the subject), which does not meet GNG. The Pitchfork source is a short review of an EP and says nothing of the subject himself. The bio on AllMusic is not significant coverage, not RS, and submitted by a "Paul Simpson", whoever that is. Other coverage is weaker in making a case for GNG than these which already fail. Aside from not passing GNG, GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. It's a remarkably low threshold to say that on a superficial level one can assume without sounding preposterous that there's a case for notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources on the article are a mix of non-RS, primary sources, not independent of the subject especially interviews, not significant coverage, which do not help make a case for notability. Research done by the nominator, BiggestBidder, and I have turned up more of this. Take the McCollum piece in DJ Mag on the article, probably the best source available. It's an interview with the subject, which is primary information and not independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, which is only a minimum bar presumption for notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic is an established reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. and has a byline written by Paul Simpson who is a staff writer at AllMusic. The Pitchfork review is four paragraphs long and the first paragraph is biographical information directly about him, and it is also independent criticism of his music which of course is relevant to him. The DJ Mag piece is significant coverage in a reliable source so there is enough to pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to each one here.[20] Adding a little more.

• The AllMusic source, in just 280 words, is puffery and discography in all but 50 words. Hardly prime biographic material.
• The Pitchfork review on an EP has a whopping 2 sentences about him biographically, mentioning 3 cities he's lived in.
• I'll repeat, the DJ Mag piece is not independent of the subject and is mostly primary sourcing, being an interview. It's as dependent on the subject as it could possibly get. WP:GNG does not accept this and neither does NMUSIC: "This criterion includes published works in all forms .. except for the following: .. publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves"
• GNG is not met. The nomination still stands. The subject appears to be a minor DJ with a smattering of low depth coverage. Worth reminding that GNG is not any guarantee to keep an article either. It's a bare minimum threshold to consider notability without sounding preposterous. Unfortunately, Lsdxoxo does not meet this low threshold. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think the AllMusic bio and Pitchfork review provide significant coverage of this artist; I don't buy the argument that their focus on a musician's musical output disqualifies them as sources. Hatman31 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning to Keep as meets WP:MUSICBIO. Allmusic is a reliable source with a staff writer bio, and subject also has a short bio in Resident Advisor which is also an WP:EMRS. Seems notable enough to have done a cover mix for Mixmag - here. Mixmag also included his single 'Burn The Witch' as one of the 120 best tracks of the decade: [21]. ResonantDis_tortion 16:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also has a residency on a major national radio station BBC Residency and has done a substantial 2 hour broadcast on Pete Tongs Essential Mix - here. Further points which meet musicbio#12. Lsdxoxo is more than a 'minor DJ'. ResonantDis_tortion 16:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derrell Simpson[edit]

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

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

NN... author? UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Washington, D.C.. UtherSRG (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, PROMO, not meeting GNG. Name is rather common, turns up in various USA media, with no relation to this person. Seems to be a municipal employee, but I can't tell from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, promotional only. Karnataka (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Waud[edit]

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

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

This footballer played 2 games for the Cayman Islands in 2008. I don't see much coverage searching online and in Cayman Islands news sources. I can see some passing mentions in the Cayman Compass and one piece that provides a little more prose.

All told I don't believe the subject of the article meets GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and United Kingdom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ebanks[edit]

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

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

This footballer played one game for the Cayman Islands in 2008. I can find no coverage of this player online or in Cayman Islands media.

It seems he does not meet GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and United Kingdom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abiyyu Fauzan Majid[edit]

Abiyyu Fauzan Majid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG, NBAD. Per BEFORE there is no SIGCOV article about Abiyyu Fauzan Majid. Stvbastian (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - good nomination. Appears to get only trivial coverage in the likes of Bola and Tribun News, despite winning a doubles title in Iran. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awn Hussain Al Khashlok[edit]

Awn Hussain Al Khashlok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent reliable sources anywhere. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Iraq, and Greece. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a single source in Greek. Totally unknown ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Poket[edit]

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

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

NN musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Dominican Republic. UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pavane for a Dead Girl[edit]

Pavane for a Dead Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. One passing mention, one non-independent source, one review. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; found quite a few sources when looking at websites listed at WP:ANIME/RS: Sequential Tart, Comicbook Bin, ICv2 (which is already in the article), and its review from ANN meets WP:100WORDS. Link20XX (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Link20XX, plus some coverage from Manga Bookshelf [22]; Kono Manga ga Sugoi! [23]; and Natalie [24][25][26][27] Xexerss (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources brought up by Link20XX and Xexerss. Fulmard (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Durhamtown Plantation[edit]

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

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

Tagged as an advert since 2012, and, apparently, now out of date. The only accessible source in the article is an archive of the resort's own website. My searches haven't found any significant coverage of the farm or the resort. John of Reading (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's definitely some coverage, mostly about a "wrongful death" case against them that they lost. [28][29][30][31][32] -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 13:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to have been transformed into a non-notable off-road park/track. Still a Delete. The wrongful death case isn't helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Appears that isn't notable. CastJared (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Council High School (Idaho)[edit]

Council High School (Idaho) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

sourced entirely to primary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Idaho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This school has been in existence for over 100 years. We generally keep public high schools (not policy, but that's what happens). Sources do not have to be in the article, they need to WP:NEXIST, and they don't have to be online. This is the second oldest school I've ever seen nominated. As to the article, it is at this point a pitiful stub, which needs great improvement, but why delete it instead of fixing it? Jacona (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't presume notability due to age, notability comes from sources which must be shown to exist, improvement of an article requires sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page 3 of the August 29, 1922 issue of the Idaho Statesman (based in Boise) has WP:SIGCOV about the expansion of the high school from a 3 year to a 4 year curriculum. That's the oldest WP:RS I've found thus far. I have found trivial mentions as far back as 1901. — Jacona (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • One source is not WP:SIGCOV, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Trivial mentions do not count towards WP:GNG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lavalizard101, First, this is not a trivial mention. Second, it's not the only source, but I've provided this one to show this school has existed and has significant coverage as far back as over a century ago. I don't really intend to waste a lot of effort to show that sources exists for a public high school in the U.S. that is so old, as experienced editors should know that sources are going to WP:NEXIST, both online and off. Just as a comment, before I nominate any articles for deletion, I always do a search on newspapers.com. There is a wealth of coverage. You can access it for free at the Wikipedia Library — Jacona (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying that that source is a trivial mention, my comment about trivial mentions is a response to your "I have found trivial mentions as far back as 1901". Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also WP:NEXIST also states "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is why Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com are important, as one can check some newspapers. One issue is that not all sources are online and some sources require visits to in-person centers for microfilms. This puts a very large burden on ordinary people trying to get sources for articles. We are lucky that the Idaho newspapers do have articles about the school online. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSCHOOL --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just made a clipping of "May Enlarge Curriculum: Council High School Seeking to Teach All Four Classes" so Wikipedians can see the article for themselves and determine whether it meets SIGCOV. There should be a priority in ensuring articles on government-run comprehensive high schools have the necessary sources to meet SIGCOV, because Wikipedia does function as an almanac, and documenting public facilities such as schools are an important ingredient in being a good almanac. As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools, any American school operated by a school district which doesnt meet notability should be folded into the respective school district article. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I checked Newspaperarchive.com and found coverage of the school fire and the subsequent efforts to build a new building from the Idaho Free Press of Nampa, Idaho. A school fire almost completely destroying the building is not routine coverage, and the articles delve into Wikipedia:SIGCOV WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Jacona's argument is compelling, and between the sources he and WhisperToMe have brought forward, GNG is clearly met. Aa a side note, the community it's located in had a local newspaper up until the early 90s. It hasn't been Archived anywhere online, but is available in both the local library and the Idaho state repository library at Boise State University. It's a fair assumption that there would be some highly detailed articles in it. And as the newspaper of record for the county, it should be considered a reliable source. There's a vast world of information beyond the internet. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources provided by Jacona and WhisperToMe easily meet requirements for non-profit schools under WP:ORG and WP:AUD: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. (Italics mine.) The tip above about the local newspaper is also an appreciated reminder of life beyond the internet. Finally, notability requirements for public (non-profit) schools are WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and this article meets both. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Met WP:NSCHOOL and now WP:GNG. I commend users @Jacona and @WhisperToMe for adding sufficient sources proving WP:SIGCOV.

BurgeoningContracting 02:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Castleford High School[edit]

Castleford High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

sourced entirely to primary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Idaho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found references at newspapers.com that date the high school back to at least 1924. Jacona (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then add those references. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sufficient sources and evidence of WP:SIGCOV present. Passes wp:nschool

BurgeoningContracting 15:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sufficient sourcing exists to meet GNG. Nominator should be reminded that AfD is not about the article, but rather about the subject of the article. Your comment was inappropriate. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a few sources, and there are more on newspapers.com, which I will add in the next few days. Meets WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update -- I've clipped articles through 1975, excluding the quarterly/annual honor roll listings, reports of Future Farmers of America and of Future Homemakers of America, band performances, theater performances, Boys' State attendees from Castleford, dances, and commencements. In short, there were MANY articles I have not clipped about school activities. There were two article (so far) about bomb threats, and multiple articles about the school's dress code, involving girls' skirt length (too short) and boys' haircuts (too long), that in 1975 resulted in expulsion of nine males and multiple stories in local and statewide newspapers; all nine were readmitted with their too-long hair. I'll be adding what I have found so far to the article's talk page, for any editors who want to expand the article with content that could be an ode to small-town American life. I will try to return next week to newspapers.com for stories from the last half-century. Now for some corn on the cob and strawberry shortcake with my grandkids...

  — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Belles[edit]

The Oxford Belles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BAND. UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article now has some reviews and coverage in independent secondary sources, which help to satisfy WP:BAND, including the 2001 review in The Scotsman and the 2010 review in ScotsGay Magazine at the Edinburgh Fringe, plus the 2018 article in Mashable. That said, more work could be done to improve the article, including adding more secondary sources about the organisation, and replacing the deadlinks. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there's enough turning up on a news search [33] to pass WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Valley Christian High School[edit]

Cole Valley Christian High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

sourced entirely to primary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Idaho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article from the Idaho Statesman appears to be enough on its own to satisfy GNG. Additionally, the athletic achievements detailed in the article, along with the achievements this small school has achieved in music not in the article would indicate more sources are available. Please understand that notability guidelines are not proscriptive (telling us what we can't do); but rather descriptive (telling us what we usually do). Most US schools have sufficient sources somewhere; high achieving schools even moreso. And if it's a toss up, we keep. Although notability is admittedly weak for this school, IMO it's sufficient to keep. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the "Cole Valley Christian to double enrollment with new ‘state-of-the-art’ Meridian campus" article and sections of the "As educational choices grow, Valley religious schools fight to attract families " article. I will check Newspapers.com for other articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a few historical details supported by newspapers.com sources, and as a non-profit, the school meets WP:GNG and WP:NORG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is enough coverage identified in this discussion and referenced in the article for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There is sufficient sourcing in the article to meet WP:GNG, so we should Keep this article. Jacona (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Moldova[edit]

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

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

No indication this passes WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Internet, and Moldova. UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaad Megahed[edit]

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

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

1) This was created by a blocked user. 2) There are concerns about paid edits. 3) I've gone through WP:PROF and I don't think the subject is notable. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Egypt, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment appears to be a working dermatologist, I can't comment on the citation or impact factors. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under G5. CastJared (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources insufficient, mostly papers written by the person. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Indian Institute of Science[edit]

Kendriya Vidyalaya Indian Institute of Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to be a good reason why this school should be considered notable. Fwiw there appear to be many schools affiliated to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan which have WP pages but with questionable notability JMWt (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. JMWt (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If any schools in India are not notable, it will be deleted because, it can't pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. CastJared (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The school doesn't meet the notability requirements stated on WP:NSCHOOL Ertrinken (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N. DreamRimmer (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Less Unless (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn, Ohio[edit]

Lynn, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A Teahouse visitor has asserted, with coherent argument, that this place was never inhabited, and is merely a railway siding. I will copy their text as comments. Elemimele (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The teahouse-guest, ClevelandExPat asked for correction of this article, initially posting the following text:

• "I have found an article that is very inaccurate in that it has turned a former mail stop along the old Pennsylvania Railroad tracks in Ohio into an "unincorporated community," which it never was. (No streets, no buildings other than an exterior platform and at most a mail distribution point - before Rural Free Delivery started in 1905. This place had no school, no churches, no grange or hall of any sort. Its simply a grade crossing created by a railroad. Portraying this as "community" is causing problems on other sites that insist that place was more than it was and as an unincorporated community that there were members of said "unincorporated community," when there were none. I just want the correct information to stand and remove this fictitious portrayal of what was a mail stop and perhaps a small post office that only functioned from 1895-1905 as an "unincorporated community" The factual information is already assembled, what remains is what to do with the "box" used for places. I just want this to be accurate, without deepening involvement. Is it possible to make this happen?"

They subsequently added:

• "Thank you for the reply. USGS has a point on a map. And evidently, McGraw Hill maps do as well. However, Lynn, the railroad siding, was never occupied. Even as a postal sub-office, it existed as "Benzler" or "Lynn" had no residents, no place for people to gather. As for the defunct, yes, as of 1905 when its reason for being was closed with the advent of RFD routes. So it should be labeled as defunct in that its purpose for being ended 118 years ago. And it should be labeled as such, because there is nothing there. As for why people continue to list it on maps, it's probably "We have always done it that way," and the decision is being made by people who have never been there. If you look it up on Google maps, you'll see that there is just a crossing, nothing else. "

Based on these arguments, it's not clear that this is genuinely a notable place. I am not an expert on US inhabited locations, and am therefore bringing it here, for the attention of those who are. Elemimele (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I edited the article to say "...is a former post office and railroad siding ..." The article already had two references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Unincorporated community" was sourced only to GNIS which is unreliable for that claim; the train station and post office do not indicate the presence of a community nor do they meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Post offices from that era do not necessarily correspond to communities; often they were just run out of a home or store and named after the owner. Better sourcing would be needed to establish as a notable place or community. Reywas92^Talk 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GEOLAND. There is no automatic notability for ex-post offices and railroad sidings, only for legally recognised communities, which this wasn't. The passing mentions cited clearly aren't enough to meet the WP:GNG. Hut 8.5 18:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Something not delete Are we sure the information is correct? I've found [34] which shows someone was the pastor of a church in Lynn, Ohio earlier in the 19th century and [35] talks about electors from Lynn, and also mentioned here: [36] - I don't know where that comes from, but are we absolutely sure about this one? Even if we are, the information here should be merged elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• See also [37] and [38] which shows the post office pre-dates what we currently have in the article, and [39] this from 1911. Though this could very well be referring to some other place in Ohio? Something's odd about this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The electors are from Lynn Township, presumable Lynn Township, Hardin County, Ohio. –dlthewave ☎ 12:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND. Avilich (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I entered the coordinates in Google Earth. All that's there is a one-track railroad crossing over county road 123 (not even a state road). There's no sign of a station or a siding. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I could find no reliable sources to establish notability. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus here is that there is not sufficient reference material to demonstrate notability. If anyone would like to work on this article as a draft, let me know and I will put it in draft space for you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Battle[edit]

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

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails GNG as fight announcements and fight results sources are merely routine reports Subject also fails WP:NMMA for not ranked top ten in the world. As present he ranked 131 in welterweight. Cassiopeia talk 04:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and South Carolina. Cassiopeia talk 04:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject won The Ultimate Fighter 29 and after research I can say subject meets WP:GNG with significant independent coverage from multiple sources such as MMA Junkie, MMA Fighting, MMA Mania, Yahoo!, Sportskeeda, B.J. Penn, North State Journal, The Charlotte Observer and WCNC-TV. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: to win TUF 29 is not a qualify for GNG nor NMMA. And not sources url are given. Note: Yahoo is not a source where we need to have original independent, reliable source and Sportkeeda is not are reliable sources and some of the articles in the site are written by fans - see "SportsKeeda.com is owned by the fans. Yes, you read it right; We have placed the control of the website right in hands of the fans. As a fan,, you are invited to write an article, comment on articles and even do interviews wiht sporting celebrities. You cannot only just create your own content; you can easily shere it via social media such as Facebook, Orkut and Twitter. Today, we live in the digital age and there is no digital sport site in India which has handed over control to the user" - see source here.
• Cassiopeia I know TUF does not constitute notability, GNG is number 1. I just mentioned it because fans want to read about subject because of this accomplishement and it's the reason why he gets so much coverage. I listed 9 sources, even if you remove Yahoo and Sportskeeda, subject has plenty of significant independent coverage. Subject definitely meets WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepPer Lethwimaster also fighter have 3 or more bouts in UFC also with his recent win he is more then enough notable.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment, 3 or more bout in UFC does not meet NMMA or GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I won't change my vote. Period. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not close to meeting WP:NMMA. Fight announcements, fight results, and MMA databases are not enough to meet WP:GNG. The number of UFC fights is not an indicator of notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:MMA is not needed if subject meets GNG. Subject meets GNG with significant in dept coverage from different sources. WCNC-TV[40], The Charlotte Observer [41], MMA Junkie [42]. Lethweimaster (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a local news article about him winning the Ultimate Fighter, the second is a local news report on a victory, and the third is an interview. Fight results and interviews do not generally constitute significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON Nswix (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It seems a thoroughly comprehensive and well-researched article. Wafflesvarog (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this is your first AfD, you might want to familiarize yourself with WP policies such as WP:N. Editors often disagree, and even change their minds, so I would be interested in hearing your specific reasons for saying this subject is WP notable. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Also think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON HeinzMaster (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems ok. Does seem like TOOSOON, likely in another year they'll hit it big. NO pun intended. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNP fighter is enough notable espically with his latest win also additional source has been added.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)(striking duplicate vote)[reply]

Please strike one of your !votes. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Papaursa. If he's notable in the future this can be undeleted or a new article can be created, but as it stands now he fails GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pelusium (343 BC)[edit]

Battle of Pelusium (343 BC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm bringing this here and not to RfD because articles that have been boldly redirected seem to be rejected procedurally there.

There was no "battle of Pelusium" in 343 BC. The creator copied without attribution information on second Persian conquest of Egypt from Artaxerxes III#Second Egyptian Campaign (old diff from 2015), and apparently invented the title as an analogy to the battle of Pelusium of 525 BC (the first Persian conquest of Egypt). Since the name is wrong and the content is already in the edit history of the original page, and the second conquest is already covered at second Achaemenid conquest of Egypt, I don't see how a merge or redirect would be useful. The creator was blocked for copyvio and hoaxing, and of all his creations this is one of few which haven't been speedied yet. Avilich (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Sentence added Avilich (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt, Iran, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What you say seems reasonable, and full deletion is better to resolve, but I notice that the confusion might be more widespread then even in Wikipedia per this in the Encyclopedia Britannica, who use the title "battles of Pelusium". Aszx5000 (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but only one of the entries, the one of 525, actually has "battle of Pelusium" verbatim; the 343 one merely speaks of a defeat. According to the sources I checked, Pelusium was simply one of several fortresses (the most important, and I assume that's why the Britannica has telescoped the entire conquest to that location) that surrendered during the conquest, with no actual pitched battle fought near it. Avilich (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is more often called the siege of Pelusium. A bad title is no reason to delete. Nor is there any reason the material belongs more to Artaxerxes III than Nectanebo II. The battle is covered in extenso in chapter 18 of Stephen Ruzicka, Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BC. The primary source is Diodorus. His dating, however, is wrong. This is noted in P. J. Rhodes, A History of the Classical Greek World, 478–323 BC. Srnec (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is WP:CONTENTFORK, an especially malformed one. If you wish to propose a split, do so on the talk page, not the AfD. That has nothing to do with the appropriateness of this article in particular. Avilich (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I saved you the trouble and created second Achaemenid conquest of Egypt. I don't have Ruzicka's book, but the others I looked at have very little on the siege of Pelusium (only the extended conquest), so that doesn't seem to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nominator, the article seems to largely be the product of confusion. Ifly6 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nominator and Ifly6. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hashmat Kevalramani[edit]

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

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

Contested draftification. Was returned to mainspace without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked for sources to support this when it was first created and found nothing. If anyone else can find anything to support this I’m prepared to reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mccapra Coverage is offline (most of it) and is in Sindhi language. We need help of someone who understands Sindhi. That being said, there are two in-depth articles just about him cited already and one of them is an in-depth entry in Encyclopedia Sindhiana. You should reconsider your vote. BookishReader (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Hashoo Kewalramani. Some additional coverage is given below:
  • The Wire India has described him as "the founder of the modern nationalist ideology of Sindh" ([43])
  • Per this, there is a school named after him called "Hashoo Kewalramani School of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences"?
  • This article says "Ayaz was deeply impressed by leftist intellectual Hashoo Kewalramani".
  • This magazine article notes "Under the able leadership of Hashoo Kewalramani, 'Sindhi Samaj' Delhi also worked hard in this respect. Various Sindhi sammelans were held after 1951."
  • What about this complete book on this dissident by Madad Ali Sindhi.

I think the coverage is more than enough and would like to kindly ask @Onel5969: to please withdraw this nomination. Thank you. BookishReader (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more in-depth article in a Sindhi newspaper and there are more if one searches well. BookishReader (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book is certainly significant and the new newspaper source is also good. The other refs you posted above are passing mentions and don’t help demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured, I only create an article if it is really notable. Even though I'm not Sindhi, I managed to locate another in-depth book for you that covers his biography:

[44], pp. 53-54 and onwards on archive.org. BookishReader (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This magazine article notes: "The pioneering role was played by Hashu Kewalramani, a journalist trained at the United Kingdom (UK). Hashu remained in the UK for seven years and was a close associate in India League of Krishna Menon, a Leftist, who later became a right-hand man of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Hashu returned to Karachi in 1936-37. He organised the students and brought them under the banner of the All India Students Federation with himself as the President and Kishin Motwani and Abhichandani as its General Secretaries. Very soon the organi-sation became a powerful movement and spread to all the towns of Sindh. At Karachi an office was set up to solve the problems of the students and to discuss the political issues. Pritam Tahiliani, Santosh Kumar Dharmani, Rocho Pardasani, Sarla Ahuja, Moti Motwani, Radhakrishnan Wadhwani, Sukhram Virwani, Rijhu Abichandani, Rochi Pardasani, and Hashu’s own younger brother were active members of the AISF." and "they arrested a large number of students including Hashu Kewalramani, President of the AISF, Pritam Tahilramani and Santosh Kumar Dharmani. Hashu Kewalramani was prosecuted and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment." BookishReader (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve struck my delete vote as there’s apparently enough in Sindhi to take that off the table, but since I can’t read Sindhi I can’t really vote to keep. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented by BookishReader.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BookishReader.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. In hindsight, it was inadvisable to bundle the nominations of these pages together into a single AfD. The AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. No prejudice against creating AfDs for individual articles, if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian dynasties and countries[edit]