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 Survivor: One World. There is consensus that there is insufficient sourcing for Spradlin to have a standalone page, however there is no clear consensus on target nor any indication further input is forthcoming. Since she won this season, I went with that as the target but this element of the close is an editorial decision and a new target can be chosen through the same process, if needed. Star Mississippi 14:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Spradlin[edit]

Kim Spradlin (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)

Notable for only winning Survivor: One World. Everything else she has done since seems resume-building, not indication of notability, and probably fan-titillating. The Jeopardy reference is just mere reference to her One World win.

Should be redirected to either (preferably) Survivor: One World or (alternatively) List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, how about WP:BIO1E or WP:PAGEDECIDE instead? George Ho (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Television. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge – WP:BIO1E does present a strong case for removal. However, there is one source, Southern Living, that is about her work as an interior decorator. This feature article a top-ten (non-celebrity) magazine suggests that she is moving toward notability for other things. Other coverage of her marriage, false arrest, and pregnancy are not related to the television show and indicate that her celebrity has continued beyond the show, especially given that these articles are from major media. It is challenging to deal with people who are famous for being famous, but there is a demand for reliable content on these individuals in Wikipedia. My biggest push back on WP:BIO1E is that she is known for not just one television show but for two shows. Although both are part of the Survivor franchise, Survivor: One World and Survivor: Winners at War are treated as two different shows within Wikipedia. And the Survivor: Winners at War is where an issue emerges—almost all of the cast members of this show have a stand-alone Wikipedia article; all are similarly notable for being a winner of a prior season of a Survivor franchise show. I looked at a few of these articles; they had fewer sources and less post-show coverage than Spradlin, again indicating that her celebrity goes beyond the show. That being said, I do think the best solution for all of these Survivor-related bio articles is to merge a trimmed bio into the television shows' article. Because merging would be part of a bigger project and might take longer than the duration of this deletion discussion, more time is needed and is reasonable. I do not write about contemporary celebrities and do not watch Survivior, but have edited reality television show articles for the GOCE. Normally, there is a short bio for each contestant within the article for each season. However, short bios are not part of the Survivor: One World or Survivor: Winners at War articles. So, the redirect that I would normally support, would only take someone to the barest of details; content the searcher most likely already knows because they are searching for Spradlin. I support a merge vs. a redirect because there is content and related sources here that will add value to another article and would be lost with a redirect. If the decision is made to keep rather than merge this article, it needs a major copy edit. I have gone ahead and flagged it for this. Rublamb (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two "shows" you refer to are Survivor seasons. Some returnees who appeared in Winners at War have been redirected to their own winning seasons due to their lack of notabilities outside their own winning seasons.

Why must we preserve info about "her marriage, false arrest, and pregnancy", especially at the cost of enforcing WP:BLP? Even returnees' family info didn't save such articles from being redirected. Furthermore, I don't see her notability as an interior decorator verified by multiple sources other than Southern Living. Must we include and preserve every info about her to justify keeping this article?

I don't see any info that is relevant and valuable to Survivor: One World. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding "would be lost with a redirect", the info about this person won't be lost (unless servers would mess up deleted pages?). Just historical revisions shall suffice, shan't they? George Ho (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stand corrected on seasons vs. two shows and will strike that above. I am not saying there is a need for overly detailed information about her marriage and pregnancy in the article and have indicated a need for a comprehensive edit. Rather, the coverage of such life events by mainstream media helps define her as a celebrity vs. a one-off reality television show participant. There is a tipping point between the two; the Southern Living article stands out in this regard. When I referred to information being lost, I specifically meant inaccessible to the people who come to Wikipedia for information—because deleted articles are removed from Wikipedia and Internet search results. In terms of what might be valuable in a merge, a general bio might include where a contestant is from, their occupation, and any personal details that were significant in how they played the game. Photos are also included. Because this is one of many Survivor participant articles that would need to be deleted based on the criteria outlined in your nomination, it is simpler to treat this as a comprehensive merger project that would not necessarily require discussion for every article. I have previously merged articles that fell under BIO1E without complaints; the key is that valuable content is retained while the questionable article goes away. Rublamb (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of what might be valuable in a merge, a general bio might include where a contestant is from, their occupation, and any personal details that were significant in how they played the game. That's something that Fandom can do, can't it?

inaccessible to the people who come to Wikipedia for information—because deleted articles are removed from Wikipedia and Internet search results. I apppreciate your concerns about effects on accessibility, but being removed from search results doesn't mean info is valuable. Sometimes, being part of search engine results, like Google, is more like... clickbait?

Regarding merger, I don't see any Survivor season article containing a mini-bio of its winner, do I? When a winner was redirected, no info about such winner was merged into the season article, and relevant info about contestants, including winners, have already been included only as long as the info is relevant to the specific season. George Ho (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response: My recommendations are based on articles for other reality television shows where the contestants do not have their own articles. Clearly, the contestant's background info is not included in the Survivor articles because someone expanded that content into a secondary article. When deciding between partially merging or deleting in this instance, we should consider what is wanted by and/or helpful to users of Wikipedia; what is included in Fandom is irrevelant. As discussed in WP:WPINWA, Wikipedia has a different role from Fandom and includes sources for its content. While some content in this article should be trimmed and is better suited for Fandom, it also includes basic details could be helpful to understanding the televison show and the dynamics between cast members. Let's see what other's think. Rublamb (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Rublamb (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 11 November 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!} 23:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject (barely) notable for one event, an exemplary case of that kind. And the fact that the main curators of the text are kamikaze accounts truly does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 26 November 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. There seems to be consensus that a redirect would not work due to other films by the same name, and nor would a DAB as those are also non notable therefore, no ATD available. Should that change down the road, happy to restore the history under a redirect. Star Mississippi 14:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chodhyam[edit]

Chodhyam (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:NFF and WP:NFSOURCES as non-notable, incomplete, unreleased film, lacking significant coverage to establish notability. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Tarka (film): Create a section titled "Remakes". Kailash29792 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge into Tarka (film), as Kailash29792 suggests above, seems a correct solution.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reliable source to claim that this is a remake of Tarka, or that this project has even started filming. Non-notable production, redirect is redundant.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Check page 301. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "Production itself" is non-notable per WP:NFF. Unlikely to search for a non-notable production, hence redundant. There's also other released Malayalam films with the same title: [1][2].--The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough then (possible compromise) Keep as a disambiguation page with at least the 2 films mentioned above, to help the reader. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC) (Edited Nov 21: make it a disambiguation page if that 2017 film can be linked to something blue, if not merge as !voted above)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) (edited Nov, 24, see below for further clarification)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to show notability. Flurrious (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 11 November 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!} 23:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:NFF the production itself would have to be notable because the film was never released – this doesn't appear to be the case. I agree that there's really nothing to merge because there's nothing sourced to demonstrate that this film was a remake of Tarka. Not sure how this could be replaced with a disambiguation page; we would need articles to disambiguate first. Tollens (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, the 2 films to be disambiguated are the ones mentioned above, one being a redirect to Tanka (with the source mentioned above, that is perfectly all right), the other a so far a red link. I’ve only changed to Disambiguate to find a compromise, merge being challenged. This would help the reader as at least 2 films have this title. Best -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I somehow didn't see that source in the discussion above, thanks for pointing it out. I'd support a merge then – the production doesn't have to be notable for it to be included in another article about a notable topic. @Mushy Yank: Is there an existing article you're aware of that mentions the other film? To convert the page to a disambiguation we need more than one bluelink – see WP:DABMENTION – otherwise the current page should be redirected. Tollens (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I can see but The Doom Patrol might know. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: The Doom Patrol Tollens (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Cannot be redirected. I have mentioned the reason above.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you .....But that was not the question! Quite the opposite. A disambiguate page would include the 2 films, do you have an idea where to redirect the second? I still think the redirect/merge you oppose is quite appropriate (it can include a note and source about that other film) and do not find your argument against it compelling; but if others do, then, again, as a compromise, a disambiguate page can be considered, in my view, but in that case it would certainly need something to redirect to, for the second film. (the first has a target, most evidently) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 13:36, 26 November 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn[edit]

Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn (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 meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#09), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.

Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. - this is an abadi (similar to a census tract), and therefore does not get a GEOLAND pass indeed it is explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakest possible keep - The location given in the article points to what appears to be a village called simply Ebrahim Abad (or Ibrahimabad I suppose in another romanisation). FOARP (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 November 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!} 23:30, 18 November 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 11:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Villa Holidays[edit]

James Villa Holidays (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 independent notability; brief one sentence mentions of managed properties in top listings and changes in management/hiring/layoffs does not qualify; see WP:SERIESA and WP:CORPDEPTH lizthegrey (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. lizthegrey (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent notability. Flurrious (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:41, 25 November 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!} 22:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Shaheed Benazirabad, Nawabshah[edit]

Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Shaheed Benazirabad, Nawabshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet notability standards, sources are all just press releases and one is a job listing. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 20:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 20:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Ref 2 is borderline on providing SIGCOV, because it's really a story about other existing Boards being concerned about the creation of this one, but I couldn't find anything else after doing a search. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Educational boards being a government functionary are very much notable. There must be sources about it as they get regular press coverage whenever they announce results. Muneebll (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Muneebll "There must be sources", well where are they? Seawolf35 (talk - email) 20:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry if that came off as brash, but the sources are really not WP:SIGCOV, and also the subject's sources do not show that they meet WP:GNG. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notable or not, what exactly are we learning about the organization from this article? That it exists and was formed in 2015? I'm all for using stubs to get work on an article started, but the dearth of sources about this means that this will likely never grow beyond this empty stub, even if notability can be established. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Ghotmeh[edit]

Lina Ghotmeh (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)

• Withdrawn due to significant work and additions of sources I could not find in my WP:BEFORE search. Kudos to @Hygroscopique: for their stellar efforts. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hygroscopique: Thanks so much ;)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Relies on primary and self-published sources rather than independent, third party publications. Reads like a resume and/or listing of projects and prizes. Primarily promotional in tone. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and France. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Thanks so much ;)[reply]

  Keep this page, I think there is a lot of material to add and the Architect is of good notability Whiteacrobat (talk) 21:00, 19 November 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!} 22:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welfare and Institutions[edit]

Welfare and Institutions (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)

Should be moved to draft space yvanyblog^(talk) 22:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not enough information to draftify, would've gone for Db-g2. Ping me if the article is improved with RS. dxneo (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly meaningless and pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing in the article suggests notability and no sources are provided. Suonii180 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD:G2. Owen× ☎ 17:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no references provided and fails GNG. I oppose a G2 speedy. Frank Anchor 19:17, 25 November 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!} 22:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BlueNC[edit]

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

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

Article on a non-notable, seemingly long-defunct website, originally created by the editor of the site. Only one of the external links is actually still active, and it would not be considered significant coverage in a reliable source. Searches turned up no additional coverage on the website, making it a failure of the WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. The article was WP:PRODed shortly after its creation in 2006, but that was contested by the article creator, so I am bringing it to AFD now. Rorshacma (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and North Carolina. Rorshacma (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is about all I find [3], unless we have more, that's not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NWEB. Owen× ☎ 14:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Fleishman[edit]

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

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

Despite all the subjects achievement there seems to be little written about him by reliable sources. His books get him close to WP:AUTHOR but there is still a significant gap. So many of the sources are by him or are interviews of him and these do not count for notability. Before searches here in Europe have failed to find anything which really stacks up. As it stands it fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was undeleted for some obscure reason and, not noticing it was an undeleted older article, I sent it to draft because it was sitting on the review queue as new - and so clearly not ready for mainspace and offered such scanty notability. Although that draft was subsequently denied on submission by another editor (confirming my view that it wasn't good enough for mainspace), the move to draft was, correctly, undone by Liz noticing it was too old to draftify. It has since led a charmed life as a BLP of someone clearly non-notable. Not a great deal has changed, the subject still doesn't qualify as notable per WP:GNG as a journalist, author, historian or podcaster. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt Created by "Glenn F", possibly Glenn Fleishman. Reads like a resume. Deleted and restored twice. — Maile (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Partisan Voting Index[edit]

Cook Partisan Voting Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There seems to be a number of sources that use information from the Index, but virtually no sources about the Index, indicating that the Cook Partisan Voting Index is not independently notable. Cortador (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

retain: there are enough varied sources discussing this index in different ways, another example: ^[1]

HudecEmil (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with these sources is that they utilise the CPVI without being about it. Cortador (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

retain: There are several seemingly independent sites about the index, but also---if an article describes the index in detail, even if it's not about the index, doens't that satisfy notability? AriTheHorse 23:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you don't need a source to explicitly be about something to be SIGCOV. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there's plenty of coverage about the index, for example [4]. This is a widely-used metric for covering elections (cited by almost everyone who analyzes US elections, even though most of its mentions don't go into much coverage) and deletion would not benefit our readers at all. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. AryKun (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We need to be careful not to conflate notability with sources that cite Index reports (as both sources presented here so far do) as against those that analyse the Index. So, for example a source such as this [5] indicating that the PVI influenced their own Index would count towards notability (albeit this is a passing mention). I suspect that there's enough out there describing the Index with SIGCOV, but we need to see those sources, rarther than just flooding this with examples of reports about PVI reports. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The cited references are more than enough to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 25 November 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 Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azriel Brown[edit]

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

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

This article was previously deleted and still does not pass WP:BIO. FULBERT (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret, of which he is founder.Djflem (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / Redirect to Yeshiva Gedola of Carteret as he is not independently notable and whatever relevant content here can be merged into the article for the yeshiva. Alansohn (talk) 17:32, 19 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

France–Portugal football rivalry[edit]

France–Portugal football rivalry (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)

Welcome to the next episode of "not every two teams that have ever played each other are rivals". The page is based mostly on primary sources of match data sheets. Only one source, from 2006, mentions a rivalry but it is now lost to time after Eurosport was amalgamated into TNT. We need to remember that journalists and media throw the "rivalry" word around, look here at a recent news headline calling Everton and Luton rivals, two teams and cities with zero connection to each other. [6] Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATS for a comparison between these two teams or what players have played the most times in this random pairing of teams. There are rivalries that exist because the teams every so often meet at tournaments, but the Argentina–England football rivalry is so because of the jingoistic nature of both countries' media, rather than simply playing each other at high stakes a lot. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "not every two teams that have ever played each other are rivals" - These types of comments aren't necessary, helpful or wiki-like. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What else am I supposed to say about a page that purports to show a rivalry between two teams, but has no reference beyond saying that they've just played each other a few times? Is it more polite and formal to blindly believe that every possible pairing of teams is a rivalry, like the absurd Luton-Everton source says? On these discussions [7] [8] [9] pages have been deleted because the community has consensus that sources don't support the existence of a rivalry. Should all of those users be chastised because they didn't see any evidence that a rivalry even existed? Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unknown Temptation - I think you should focus on your critiques of the article and it's sources. KatoKungLee (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I definitely don't think anything in the article shows the tune of a rivalry, but that doesn't mean that articles about it do not exist. Part of the issue for me is that my Portugal France online media is limited. I'll try to find some stuff, but people who can find this stuff on newspapers.com might be able to find something. Conyo14 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, France, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean towards delete Not very expansive! You read the first few opening paragraphs then get to the Background section which has nothing! It's just another head-to-head NOSTATS article after that!! But 28 games between the two countries with not much to write about? Frankly, unless there was decent prose about the topic, I am in agreement to delete this. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no significant number of meetings, nor political factors or recent events within football that specifically instigate a rivalry between France-Portugal. Svartner (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead towards delete - It doesn't seem to be particularly notable. However it worth seeing if there are similar articles. Argentina-Brazil football rivalry is well known and notable. I think if the article is better able to showcase the notability of the topic then it may be worth keeping. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The authors did an impressive job of collecting references. Alas, the references simply amass various game statistics, without establishing any notable "rivalry", which as others here pointed out, is a term coined by the sports media to drum up interest and excitement for routine tournaments. I can think of no useful merge target. All the information is already included in the various team and match pages. Owen× ☎ 17:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject plainly does not meet WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Stats and passing mentions don't cut it. Willing to reconsider my vote if better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Bernole[edit]

Johannes Bernole (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)

Redirect to List of New Caledonia international footballers. The subject made three appearances for his respective national team as a teenager. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG Angelo (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 17:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, unless substantial information and notability is included. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per all. Owen× ☎ 17:48, 25 November 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 Acute accent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A with acute (Cyrillic)[edit]

A with acute (Cyrillic) (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)

Cyrillic letters marked with the acute accent for syllabic stress (as used in dictionaries and readers) are not distinct letters or “stressed variants” of letters, and don’t belong to any national alphabet. The articles about them are not notable subjects meeting WP:GNG, but merely the cross-section of the subject of the respective base letter with Acute accent or Stress (linguistics).

These articles were all previously AFD’d and soft deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic). New edits didn’t discuss nor address the reasons for deletion.  —Michael Z. 18:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Michael Z. 18:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other nominees are:

• Ye with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• I with acute (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yery with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• U with acute (Cyrillic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yu with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ukrainian Ye with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dotted I with acute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

 —Michael Z. 18:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptional article is U with acute (Cyrillic), which may possibly serve as a variant glyph for the letter Ў in the Karachay-Balkar language, but this remains un-cited in any article that I can find, and so also fails to satisfy GNG. (If it were cited, it should probably be only a redirect to the article about that letter.)  —Michael Z. 18:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or redirect to Accute accent). As the nom correctly notes, these are not distinct symbols, but just the combination of auxilliary stress markers with Cyrillic letters. This contrasts with e.g. á as a distinct letter in several Latin-based alphabets. –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all as failing GNG Mach61 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Acute accent. We don’t need a page for every single accent used in the Latin alphabet, only important ones. Also can’t find any sources relating to this page. Also note G4 since this page was deleted because of similar reasons. HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 00:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah, a soft delete is basically like an expired PROD, which anyone can request the undeletion of without question, so this recreation is fine in that respect and isn't eligible for G4. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (without a redirect, as an unlikely search term, and misleading as well). Barring some kind of demonstration that these are in fact distinct letters and not ad hoc dictionary stress markings, this title shouldn't exist, even as a redirect. I can't access the source, but it seems to be a guidebook, which at best is primary and doesn't demonstrate anything other than this one book uses this as a stress marking (or whatever it actually does...I'm making an educated guess here). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, for the reasons given above. I am also adding (1) Ukrainian Ye with acute. The article says "For example, the word прес-пап'є́ (Paperweight) uses this letter". Well, no, it doesn't. I made a Google search for "прес-пап'є́", with the accent, and checked the first 30 hits. Every one used "прес-пап'є", without the accent; none of them even mentioned the form with the accent as an alternative. ...and (2) Dotted I with acute. The article states that the letter is "usually only seen in dictionaries to display when a stressed accent is used in a word with I". There is only one reference in the article, and that one is a general page on the acute accent, which doesn't even mention this letter. A Google search for "Dotted I with acute" produced this Wikipedia article, an image showing this letter on Wikimedia commons, a YouTube video lasting 4 seconds which shows an animated jokey cartoon version of the letter, and a spam site which doesn't even mention the letter, but uses hidden text saying "Dotted I with acute" evidently for search engine optimisation, no doubt having found the expression by trawling Wikipedia. That was all; not even so much as a bare mention in any reliable source. It is perfectly clear that none of these accented letters are actually used in the languages in question, despite claims that they are by the editor who created the articles.JBW (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per discussion. These are not real letters, but just the way to indicate a stressed syllable. As another indication, there are even no corresponding articles about these "letters" in the East Slavic language wikipedias. Regarding U with acute (Cyrillic), there is not enough info about it in the Karachay-Balkar language article to support keeping even a redirection. --Kammerer55 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All Redirect All to Acute accent (I did not know about the linking OwenX points out)-- For reasons very thoroughly beaten above, there is no encyclopaedic subject here. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per above without redirects (very unlikely search terms). Cheers, Dan the Animator 06:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirects per Owen×'s point below (was not aware of that infobox before). Dan the Animator 19:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to Acute accent. Note that deleting would leave redlinks in the popular Template:Infobox Cyrillic letter, tempting others to recreate these pages. Owen× ☎ 18:21, 25 November 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 Hip Hop Pantsula. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O Mang Reloaded[edit]

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

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

This is an extended version of O Mang?. If I'm not mistaken, a deluxe or extended version is not eligible for a standalone article therefore this should be merged into O Mang?. dxneo (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why a deluxe album wouldn't be allowed its own article. It's less likely to happen because deluxe albums don't usually get the same level of coverage, but articles such as Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection are completely valid. However, notability is required for any album, deluxe or otherwise to receive an article, and I don't see evidence of that for either version of O Mang, so I say delete redirect both articles to Hip Hop Pantsula. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QuietHere, my point exactly. I don't know a way of nominating two or more articles at once so I thought it would be great to merge or redirect then delete them altogether as I don't think we can discuss notability of another article here. I stand to be corrected. dxneo (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo follow the instructions at WP:MULTIAFD and you'll have it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QuietHere, the related article (O Mang?) is marked as redirect, i guess this should also follow in that direction since the nomination looks stupid already. dxneo (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to write "redirect" rather than delete above and forgot. Adjusted my vote. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is only one article included in this AFD deletion discussion. To do a bundled nomination, please see guidelines at WP:AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting seems a bit inadequate as there are no sources and redirect is probably the way to go. dxneo (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you would disagree with a relisting but I don't understand how it is "inadequate". I think you probably meant another word. As for me, I just wanted to hear assessments from more than two editors. That's my preference and it's only the first relisting. I don't think that is asking for too much. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hip Hop Pantsula per above discussion. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Palazzo[edit]

Luca Palazzo (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 footballer with just two seasons of experience in the lower ranks professional football. He fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV ([10]), all sources in the article are non-independent (transfer reports from his clubs at the time, and name mentions from Football League reports). I could not find anything relevant or even close to noteworthy by searching for the subject around the Web. Angelo (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep From my view, the general criteria is fine for GNG, there is just enough for me. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep enough coverage to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. The only independent source currently in the article (notiziariocalcio.com) isn't enough to pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, Does indeed fail GNG per nom, but I tend to try and not side with deletionist thinking and aim to keep when possible. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - sources not showing in-depth coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:31, 20 November 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. In addition to being a clear minority, arguments in favor of keeping the argument did not provide evidence to refute the core claims of the deletion argument, which is that lasting notability for the session in itself, independent of the notable matters that were discussed in it, has not been demonstrated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Special Session of the Parliament of India[edit]

2023 Special Session of the Parliament of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

In India, Parliament sits at least three times a year - in the Budget, Monsoon, and Winter sessions. These sessions last for months, and discuss and promulgate many pieces of legislation, similar to the sessions of other countries. When even the Budget sessions, arguably the most important parliamentary sessions, do not get their own individual articles, I fail to see how this five-day session, that passed one single piece of legislation, is notable.

Most of the article is either a list of individual statements and minor speeches made by politicians or a load of media speculation that turned out to be nothingburgers. We shouldn't include these since WP is NOTNEWS (nor is it the Hansard).

There are two, and only two, notable things in this article, and none are inherent to this special session - Parliament started functioning in a new building, and the Women's Reservation Bill was passed as the 106th Amendment. The Amendment already has its own article, and the information about the inauguration of the building more properly belongs to the New Parliament House, New Delhi article. Other articles that can absorb info from here include 17th Lok Sabha and second Modi ministry.

The article subject - the special session itself - shows no enduring relevance; searches for "special session" dropped sharply after the close of the session, and even the sources themselves talk less about the importance of the special session and more about the Amendment. Thus, in my view, the article should be deleted. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Event of no lasting significance, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:Event has not demonstrated enduring relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro-Koji (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/selective merge to 17th Lok Sabha. I don't see any other articles on Indian parliament sessions, so I don't see why we'd need such a detailed news-style agenda of a two-day session. Reywas92^Talk 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, albeit cautiously. I do agree that there are weird implications of this special session being played up as especially important when other sessions don't have such detailed articles. I also think it may be worth adjusting the tone to make more clear that this did indeed turn out to be a "nothingburger". But, well, nothingburgers in politics that have hype at the start but is unfulfilled happen, and can be relevant to document, too. If we have more detailed articles in the future on what each session of the Lok Sabha does, that's probably okay? As a fallback, redirect/merge but do not think the content is worthy of outright deletion. SnowFire (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Information in this Wikipedia article is verifiable and there are numerous reliable independent sources which can be found on this topic. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a topic. Content in this article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, data in this article is put in context with references to independent sources having "significant coverage". Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Policy clearly states - If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).

This article page was created as an offshoot of Special session of the Parliament of India. Requesting fellow editors to help the community to preserve the editorial effort and this useful information on 2023 parliament session with historic significance.

P.S. - Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. --Anand2202 (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Find the response on my talk page here

Above comment posted by Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI. -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings, Anand2202. You wrote: "[E]ditors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." I truly cannot understand what that task could possibly entail. We search for sources but find none, yet we should continue to believe sources exist?! They might, since that probablity is never zero, but how does that help our search, or, more importantly, our assessment of an article's notability? It smacks of "well, sources might exist". -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails the notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, NOTNEWS, LASTING.  // Timothy :: talk  14:37, 26 November 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. I leave the suggested page move to regular editing. RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Country Cousin[edit]

Our Country Cousin (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)

Apparently non-notable short film, unsourced since October 2007. Newspapers.com only turned up advertisements or theater schedules with no significant coverage and I could not find mentions elsewhere. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to withdraw my nomination with the sources that have been found - Thank y'all so much! I always learn new research tricks from these nominations. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fatty Arbuckle's films have been covered in a variety of books over the years including Rediscovering Roscoe: The Films of 'Fatty' Arbuckle. [11] DonaldD23 talk to me 21:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless the GBooks search is broken, this book does not seem to mention the film at question. Any chance you have a direct quote or a page number? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Some mention of a play from the 1890s by the same name, nothing found for this film Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least redirect to Roscoe_Arbuckle_filmography#1914 (with that source, indicating its survival status is unknown). But not opposed to keep, especially if other sources can be checked.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Changed to full Keep, after checking sources provided by Cunard here and on page. Thanks!)

• Keep For a film that was released in 1914, I think there is enough coverage and independent analysis to support a standalone article.
  1. Walker, Brent E. (2010). Mack Sennett's Fun Factory: A History and Filmography of His Studio and His Keystone and Mack Sennett Comedies, with Biographies of Players and Personnel. Vol. 2. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 295. ISBN 978-0-7864-7711-1. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "Our Country Cousins [KC-240] (June 6, 1914) Ir (943/1000 ft.). D: Mack Sennett. C: Unknown. WT: Rube Elopement. A country boy elopes with a farmer's niece pursued by cops, who must rescue the girl when she falls down a cliff. Keystone releases list, NYMPC negative and release records and Motion Picture News all give title as above. Contrary to previous secondary source speculation, Dell Henderson did not direct this film. Previous speculation on the presence of Rube Miller and Charley Chase in the cast is unverified but unlikely, and comes from a secondary source that has proven inaccurate with regard to verifiable Keystone credits. [Filmed 5/8/14-5/18/14; Finished/ Shipped 5/24/14; Rec'd in NY 6/1/14.]"

  2. "Mutual Program: Our Country Cousins". Motion Picture News. Vol. 9, no. 25. 1914-06-27. p. 68. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Internet Archive.

     The article notes: ""Our Country Cousins." (Keystone. Sat., June C.) — The arrival of the cousin at the farm causes a lot of trouble between two of the farm hands. She decides to elope with one and the two go over a precipice. The remainder of the reel is employed in their efforts to get up again. The comedy is sure to produce a laugh, but is not equal to the usual Keystone."

  3. "Comments on the Films". The Moving Picture World. 21 (1): 65. 1914-07-04. Retrieved 2023-11-19.

     The article notes: "Our Country Cousins (Keystone), June 6.— Farm characters and an elopement that has the Keystone flavor and is sure to make laughter. It has unexpected and very funny incidents and will surely make an excellent offering,"

  4. "The Story of the Films". Kinematograph and Lantern Weekly. Vol. 16, no. 393. 1914-11-05. p. xxv. ProQuest 2594735242.

     The article notes: "Our Country Cousins (C). The farmer's niece arrives on a visit and everyone falls in love with her, more so the farmer's two sons. One of the sons decides to kidnap the maiden. He does so, but the priest refuses to marry them, and the Keystone police are forced to give assistance. This they succeed in doing only too well, and the whole thing ends in a glorious scrimmage. Released Dec. 14th, length 1000 ft."

  5. "Our Country Cousins". The Bioscope. 1914-11-05. p. xli. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Google Books.

     The article notes: "Our Country Cousins.—The farmer's niece is carried off by one of his sons and the Keystone police are called in to the pursuit. The niece falls down a cliff, and most of the rest fall down a great number of times in the attempt to rescue her, their antics being certain to cause tumultuous laughter. (December 14th. 1,000 ft.)"

  6. "Pictoria". Maitland Mercury. 1914-11-19. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "The big Keystone comedy "Our Country Cousins" was clever and amusing, the audience being impelled to laughter by the extraordinary antics of "Fatty and Mabel." The comics were good, and the orchestral music with special effects proved an enjoyable feature of the evening."

  7. "The Lyceum Picture Co". The Riverine Grazier. 1914-10-20. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: ""Our country cousins," a Keystone comedy, was like many comic films, somewhat overdone, but it was most successful as a mirth producer."

  8. "Features At Bijou Tonight". Lewistown Daily News. 1914-07-04. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: ""Our Country Cousins" is another of those screaming Keystone comedies only this is said to be even better than a good many of them."

  9. "Central Picture Theatre". Folkestone Herald. 1914-12-19. Archived from the original on 2023-11-19. Retrieved 2023-11-19 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: ""Our Country Cousins" was a very funny Keystone release featuring the famous Keystone Police."

  Cunard (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per recent expansion, which together with sources above demonstrates the topic is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Has enough reviews per WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - indeed reviews are sufficient per WP:NFILM.BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved and expanded using multiple reliable sources also identified in this discussion that show significant coverage such as reviews so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per expanded sourcing and move to Our Country Cousins which all the sources agree is the actual title. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 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 Draftify‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hide and Seek (2023 film)[edit]

Hide and Seek (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreleased film. All sources talk about Dhanya Ramkumar, not anything else. Draft till release. DareshMohan (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify then. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or delete. The article says that it was released earlier this year but I couldn't find any sources to confirm. It needs a verifiable release and some better sources such as full reviews to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:33, 25 November 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!} 22:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec Soccer Club[edit]

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

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Consensus is that NPSL teams do not have the presumption of notability, and that page is at Boston Aztec already. A cursory search returned no significant coverage of the organization, just lots of routine local coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To me this feels like a case of WP:PROMOTIONAL content. Govvy (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:51, 19 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gheorghe Bantîș[edit]

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

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

The article is little more than a database entry and my searches didn't yield anything that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources were FMF and NOI, both trivial mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Moldova. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Mbdfar (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xela Arias[edit]

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

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

Article does not pass GNG Iljhgtn (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Poetry, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Lots of coverage in Spanish, the look like RS [12], [13]. Could really use a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Arias easily meets GNG as a basic internet search might show to anyone who might never have heard of her....To make things short simple and in English, just open Galician_Literature_Day#List of authors honoured on Galician Literature Day to have an idea of her notability. I am inviting nominator to kindly withdraw. (Very strong Keep)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Oaktree B, sources seem to demonstrate SIGCOV. Also more coverage here [14], so looks like there's enough for WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Reliable sources abound.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:06, 19 November 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. Passes NPOL as Minister in national cabinet. (non-admin closure) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uju Kennedy-Ohanenye[edit]

Uju Kennedy-Ohanenye (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 person is not notable (per politics or general notability), and the page is too promotional and flattering. Lulakayd (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, Law, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person is a Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the only female presidential aspirant of the ruling party in the 2023 election.

On the view that the article is flattery and promotional, can you outline words or statements that I need to remove? Deborahudo (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: A minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is inherently notable. Princess of Ara 10:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep — a member of the Cabinet of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. May be promotional but AfD is not for cleanups. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:NPOL as a cabinet minister and has likely has enough coverage for an outright GNG pass; deletion is not cleanup. Curbon7 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly passes WP:NPOL (WP:NSUBPOL). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:25, 22 November 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 23:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Stransky[edit]

Tanner Stransky (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)

Working journalist and author, but doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tempography[edit]

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

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

It exists but I couldn't establish that it meets notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Tempographs and Tempography is a thing that exists (I found references for the use of the term that go back to 1911), however, this article is about a "conceptual video art project" by Anthony Bannwart from 2003 that was titled Tempography. According to the article history, the article was originally about the technique/technology of Tempography, but was hijacked in 2008 by an editor named Anthonybannwart who turned it into an article about his video art project. The art project is a non-notable art work failing GNG. With the exception of one news article all I can find on it are primary sources and social media. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, Sweden, and Switzerland. Netherzone (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per criterion G5. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qaiser Baryar[edit]

Qaiser Baryar (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 fails as Politician, fails WP:NPOL and also fails notability as a Businessman. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Pakistan. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G5, sockpuppet of Sazmancrpo. Wikishovel (talk) 15:23, 18 November 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 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jin-e[edit]

Lee Jin-e (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)

Failed WP:GNG, WP:NBLP, and WP:SINGER with WP:BEFORE on Google/Bing (English) and Daum/Naver (Korean) showing lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. While, she has released couple of songs, none of it charted on the Circle Digital Chart, the national chart of South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: source 4 is listed as a RS, but it's trivial coverage. I can't see any other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 18 November 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 Chink#United Kingdom. The history remains for a merge, which can be done editorially. Star Mississippi 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chinky[edit]

Chinky (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)

But you wrote this‽

I rescued this in 2007 when it was nominated for deletion. At the time it looked like this and was about some slang. I rewrote it to be about a type of restaurant, on the basis that this appeared to be the common name for that type of restaurant in the U.K. and it then looked like this. There was no mention of slang.

But it's about slang now‽

People keep trying to bring back the rubbish. I tried to keep this focussed on the type of restaurant and put the stuff about the name, which I was even the one who provided actually sourced content on, as a parenthetical aside, so that it then looked like this. A year later when it was re-nominated for deletion it was because random editors had put it back to being about slang rather than about a type of restaurant. The small amount of stuff that I had written about the restaurants's cuisine, which I had little doubt could be expanded upon, had been blanked by vandals, so I put it back in. Discussion of the cuisine got removed again for — bizarrely — being irrelevant to the class of resurant whose cuisine it was (sic!), a year later. And we were back to nothing but my originally parenthetical side discussion of the slang name again, rather than the type of restaurant.

Surely you can rescue this again?

It would be foolish to do so. It's a slang title, and experience shows (very notably from the edit history of this article) that slang names are not proper article titles. Back in 2007 we didn't have a Chinese restaurant article. We only had the disambiguation that is now at Chinese restaurant (disambiguation), which was all that we had on Chinese restaurants until 2011. We didn't have a Chinese takeaway article and it redirected to the U.S. generic take-out at the time. And it wasn't until 13 years later that we gained British Chinese cuisine. If I were writing any of the content (such as about the cuisine of Chinese restaurants in the U.K., not that we need my start-off edits any more on that subject) that I wrote then, today, I'd put it in those articles with non-slang titles, and put the discussion of whether "chink" and "chinky" are pejoratives in the U.K. in the chink article. We have properly systematized this in the intervening 16 years, and have non-slang-titled articles now.

So what about a redirect?

This article is a massive attractive nuisance, and people cannot stop writing about slang, even when they clearly know where the article on the slang is. It could redirect to chink, but that is going to fall afoul of Project:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects. And I predict that it would be back to a rubbish unsourced article about slang within a couple of years. But the biggest argument against it is that, contrary to my research in 2007, it seems that Chinese restaurants in the U.K. aren't even commonly known as "chinky"s. They are known as Chinese restaurants and Chinese takeaways. The picture at right is one of many.

But, but, but … it's sourced!

Some of it is. I know. I wrote pretty much all of the sourced parts apart from just one extra sentence about slang from one of the foolish editors who tried to make it all about slang yet again in its history and a second small addition about slang. Everything else is the same sort of unsourced rubbish that got this article nominated for deletion twice already.

Shouldn't you tell the article writer that you nominated it for deletion?

I consider myself notified.

Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Language, Discrimination, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a disambiguation page. Link to the slur and the Chinese restaurant articles and most likely some people who have as a nickname or different spelling (Chinki Yadav). Love the intrapersonal communication style nomination. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that idea is that all of the supposedly conflicting redirect targets are invalid, and the disambiguation cleanup people would object to them. "Chinki" is not "Chinky", the slur is not neutral and uncommon, and the restaurants are not neutral and uncommon and not really an established alternative name outwith slang usage (as challenged in the edit history of chink as far back as 2007). Amusingly, the fact that you copied my and another's writing in 2022 into chink alongside the ever-churning unsourced rubbish in chinky as it stood at the time, some of which was about "chink" in the sources (including the OfCom document and the contemporaneous reporting of the OfCom document), outright tells us that even the redirect chinky → chink is unsupported as a common name. There have been numerous objections to this as an alternative name actually edited into the article over the years (many reverted as vandalism). It has been nominated for deletion twice, and merger twice. This isn't a "main article". This is a best-of-a-bad-situation article from 2007 when we had no alternatives and nothing about Chinese takeaways nor British Chinese cuisine, which we've long since superseded with other proper articles, and it's time for it to go. Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is part of culture it should have some mention on Wikipedia. It is in the Oxford Dictionary of Slang as both a slur and a restaurant. That is a stronger evidence of significance then most slang that gets pushed for inclusion. However, I would like to see other opinions and perhaps I will change my mind. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Chink and Chinese restaurant as appropriate. Redirect to Chink#United Kingdom. People certainly still do use the term for Chinese takeaways in the UK, but in my experience it's now generally older people who always have done and have a hard time seeing something they've always used as offensive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Necrothesp. It would be non-neutral to have Chinky be a redirect to Chinese people, but in this case it's a synonym for a term that itself is offensive. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Necrothesp. Let's be done with such sorry bagatelles. -The Gnome (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nir Yitzhak massacre[edit]

Nir Yitzhak massacre (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)

Low number of casualties. Not notable. We have a dozen of articles of massacres about the 7 October attack. We shouldn't give an article to every village where civilians were killed. That's a very low and unprecedented threshold of notability. This article is also pretty similar to most of the articles of that dozen. It can easily be merged and covered in another one as it is short. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - I don't see why its a problem. Common that events are broken down into components. Especially with 2023 Israel-Hamas war article being so big. Massacre mentioned by several sources. [15],[16],[17],[18] (A TV documentary filmed on the event). Article is also extensive enough for it to be adequate.[19],[20],[21],[22],[23] more sources that mention it. Actually the event has a rather unique interesting story. Also received lots of media attention, especially in Hebrew. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Furthermore, the 2023 Israel Hamas War talk is trying to make more articles to take down the load from the heavy main article. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, where all of the less notable attacks on locales near Gaza should be clumped. Worth noting that the source quoted for the three deaths at this locale refers to the '7 Oct massacre' as a collective - it's not really asserting that the events at this locale individually constitute a standalone massacre, but rather that the events at this locale form part of the wider '7 Oct massacre' across the Gaza-adjacent locales. The NYT and BBC sources do not even appear to mention "Nir Yitzhak", making whatever information is linked to those particular sources WP:SYNTH, and leaving us with only the Times of Israel, Ynet and a few other Hebrew sources, and no WP:RSP. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, not really significant enough to be merged. AryKun (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into article about Nir Yitzhak where it is already mentioned in a single sentence in the History section but not wiki-linked from that article. This article should be a sub-topic of that kibbutz's history. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Hamas attack on Nir Yitzhak; It's important to clarify that notability in Wikipedia is not based on the number of casualties. As per WP:NOTABILITY, the key criterion is whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In this case, the Nir Yitzhak incident has been reported on extensively by reputable sources, as evidenced by the links provided by Homerethegreat. This coverage demonstrates the global and persistent interest in the event, fulfilling the general notability guideline.
  • Furthermore, the argument for a "move" rather than a "delete" or "merge" is supported by WP:EVENTCRIT, which emphasizes the lasting effects and historical significance of events. The fact that a massacre was prevented (to a significant extent) by the Kibbutz's rapid response team who were able to repel the invaders, adds a dimension to the story, highlighting its significance in a broader context. The term "attack" provides a more accurate description of the event . Marokwitz (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Hi, I read the rules for this so hopefully my contribution is allowed here (did not see an EC tag). :The Nir Yitzchak Attack is significant due to the resistance at the Kibbutz against Hamas - similar to stories from World War Two where there were select uprisings that fought the Nazis. :We know that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was the largest and most consistent, but Wikipedia still has articles about the other uprisings much much smaller such as Czortków uprising and even the Lwów uprising. These are not judged by casualties but significance of resistance. :Also, for consistency with the following list: List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war the page serves as a valid link. Chavmen (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC) The page is indeed covered by WP:ARBPIA and so related internal project discussions are EC restricted. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources in article meet GNG, eg: BBC, New York Times, Times of Israel.  // Timothy :: talk  02:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: - As in similar events that have articles, also meet WP:NOTABILITY. Ovedc (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : yet another article about a massacre that some'd like to conceal, I mean, suppress ? are there massacres that deserve their articles and others that don't? I'm in favor of keeping the article and I hope it will be preserved! thank you! Sg7438 (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for that summary of all of our motives; unfortunately, some of us just think that this would be better served by a short section at the main article, for the same reason we haven't created an article for every Israeli bomb strike that kills 5 Palestinians. AryKun (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  hello, I understand, but I'm sad to see that some massacres deserve their own article, while others deserve a simple summary... trivializing the facts, smoothing out the thinking... Sg7438 (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sg7438, stop attributing hidden intentions to people. There is no intention here to trivialize crimes nor of "smooth out the thinking". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just giving my opinion and my perception of this proposal to delete the article on this massacre... I hope you're keeping the other articles on the other massacres.. Sg7438 (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• keep even though the casualty count was indeed low, there were a few hostages taken from the village as well and this might evolve and become a longer and more significant article as time goes by and more information about the aftermath of the massacre will be brought to light, in my opinion, this is too early to decide whether or not this article is worth an article of it's own, or should it be merged to the main article about the war.

Elie goodman (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Sock strike Daniel (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear split here, relisting for more discussion as opposed to a simple NC close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Timothy. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per Timothy. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per notability comments of Homerthegreat, and my previous comments on similar articles: notable, verifiable and neutral articles of this nature from both sides of the combat broaden Wikipedia knowledge of the combat. If any civilians can be shown to verifiably have died then this article would be as notable as the others reporting Israeli or Palestinian casualties. I do think the article can do with some additional referencing and copy editing, so I’ll add it to my to-do. Ayenaee (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. As proven above, in the article, and elsewhere, all these massacres are inherently notable. This particular article is long and unique enough not to merge. gidonb (talk) 03:17, 25 November 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 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Maryah Community Bank[edit]

Al Maryah Community Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references I can find meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm satisfied with having coverage from thenationalnews.com and gulfnews.com, and am sure additional independent coverage will become available. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi OwenX, both of those sources are based entirely on company announcements/PR withut any "Independent Content" which means they fail ORGIND. The articles themselves acknowledge they are based on either an announcement and/or statement. You can find others, also based on this announcement and largely the asme such as this one from the Emirates News Agency or this from Arabian Business or this from Emirati news. Maybe take another look? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP:

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Routine business news, promotional, seems to be sourced from a press release or company provided info	1. "Al Maryah Community Bank appoints steering committee members". The National. Retrieved Apr 18, 2021.
Routine business news, promotional, seems to be sourced from a press release or company provided info	2. ^ "Al Maryah Community Bank appoints board of directors". TrendsMENA.
Fails SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth, promotional	3. ^ "Seventh Global Conference of Young Parliamentarians - Post-COVID-19 recovery: A youth-responsive approach - Provisional Programme". Inter-Parliamentary Union (https://www.ipu.org).
Dead link	4. ^ "Al Maryah Community Bank completes Technology Architectural Design of its Digital Banking Platform". WAM.
Database	5. ^ "CBUAE Licensing Register". CBUAE.
Routine business news, promotional, seems to be sourced from a press release or company provided info	6. ^ "'Al Maryah Community Bank' becomes UAE's first licensed digital-only bank". Gulf News. April 13, 2021.
Routine business news, promotional, seems to be sourced from a press release or company provided info	7. ^ "Central Bank of the UAE grants licence to new digital bank". The National. Apr 12, 2021.
Routine business news, promotional, seems to be sourced from a press release or company provided info	8. ^ "Al Maryah Community Bank opens its Smart Banking Hub in ADNOC Abu Dhabi". Zawya.
Primary	9. ^ "Branches & ATMs". www.mbank.ae. Al Maryah Community Bank.
Google Play	10. ^ "MBank UAE". Google Play.
App store	11. ^ "MBank UAE". Apple App Store.
Primary	12. ^ "IPO". Al Marayah Community Bank.
Primary	13. ^ "About". www.mbank.ae. Al Maryah Community Bank.

BEFORE showed more regular routine business news, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Analysis by Timothy clearly demonstrates that WP:CORP is not met. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 24 November 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worldle[edit]

Worldle (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)

Only source is a single Washington Post article, fails WP:SIGCOV DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Geography. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Forbes staff piece, literally the FIRST hit in Gnews [24]. then this in the WP [25], this in USA Today via Yahoo News [26] Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think I've ever met any topic where a WaPo article is the only RS for that topic. This clearly doesn't break that streak, either. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Got Rock Paper Shotgun coverage and PC Gamer coverage, which shows notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG through the sources provided by multiple users here. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Although this article is short and low on information, it can easily be expanded with the sources above. I'd be happy to do so. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 15:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Oaktree and zxcvbnm.

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 13:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Possibly merge with Wordle, but this is not an AFD case.

IgelRM (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Burn Notice characters. Viable ATD. History remains should sourcing eventuate for a re-spin out. Star Mississippi 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Porter[edit]

Jesse Porter (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 vast majority of this article is overly specific WP:FANCRUFT that is not cited. The provided sources do not focus on the character much, and the article fails WP:GNG DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the discussion below @Piotrus and TheBeachBro::[reply]

Sam Axe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fiona Glenanne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Madeline Westen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Michael Westen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue looking for reliable sources. TheBeachBro (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if anything else needs to be added/taken away. TheBeachBro (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Burn Notice characters unless sources are found to show reception/analysis/etc. Right now this fails WP:GNG. PS. Right now even articles on main characters from this series are in similar plot summary only format, and merit redirecting (after discussion here, or perhaps just a PROD, I guess). Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand, do what you have to. I am just happy to help. TheBeachBro (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Help is welcome. If you can improve any of the related articles, great. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thank you. TheBeachBro (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject lacks independent notability. A Redirect would be a not unwelcome act of mercy. -The Gnome (talk) 13:58, 26 November 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 Tucheng (disambiguation). A majority of editors favor merging; arguments for keep were an argument from inertia, and an argument that there is an entry that could not be merged to the suggsted title. This was rebutted with reference to WP:ONEOTHER _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

土城[edit]

土城 (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 entries in 土城 have a major transliteration "Tucheng" and additionally most of the entries in Tucheng (disambiguation) correspond to the Chinese characters "土城". Therefore, these dab pages could be merged, like that in Nanchan Temple (disambiguation) (from a RfD outcome) and Ni Hao. Because it's unnecessary to keep separate dab pages in the similar case, I also propose to disambiguate entries in CJKV dab pages together with their major translation if the Chinese characters also hold the major place in dab page of this translation. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: I choose to remove all of the bundled nominated articles per WP:BUNDLE that An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled—nominate it separately. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative option, Tucheng (disambiguation) has to be expanded to entries which was actually transliterated from "土城" and Tucheng District, the primary topic of "Tucheng" will also be that of "土城". Thus, 土城 will be moved to 土城 (disambiguation) and the base name will be turned into a primary redirect. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations, China, and South Korea. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Maybe we also need to review if the various Chinese-language titled dab pages are duplicating existing English-language titled dab pages like this AfD for instance, frequently saw multiple of such recently in Page Curation, all created by the same user. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paper9oll: User:NmWTfs85lXusaybq has added several other pages to this AfD. You may want to update your comment. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As far as I can tell nothing has changed since the previous discussion. Redirects from foreign languages are well-established (WP:RLOTE). Ideally this page would redirect to a transliteration, but in this case it appears there's no single transliteration that's valid for all targets. If Toseong Station is not a valid entry for some reason, then we can merge to Tucheng (disambiguation). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's clarify that the previous discussion did not end with any kind of decision. The nomination was withdrawn by the initiator in order "to create a broader discussion for deleting all pages in this category." -The Gnome (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not really. The rationale, scope, and suggested outcome of the proposal have all been changed. As long as the title of these dab pages hold a major place in each other, they could be merged together, such as Nanchan Temple (disambiguation), in which Nanzen-ji is a different transliteration of "南禪寺" from "Nanchan Temple". NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've now added a whole list of pages to this AfD, but you seem to be proposing merging instead of deletion. If that's the proposal, AfD is not the right place for it. In any case, I think the case for keeping is even stronger for some of the others. Take 台東, for instance – "Taitung" is only a valid transliteration for the topics related to the Chinese language, not the ones related to Japanese. If the merge took place, would we need to add the relevant entries from Taito (disambiguation) to the Taitung page? That seems unhelpful for readers. Keep all per WP:TRAINWRECK. Feel free to make individual merge proposals in cases where you think it's appropriate. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 台東 has no major transliteration and both Taito (disambiguation) and Taitung exists, it could be kept as it is. While the other nominated CJKV dab pages do have benefit to get merged with the only dab page of its transliteration. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the entries of disambiguation page in 台東, not all entries in these pages are transliterated from "台東". Thus, you have to add every matched entries directly into 台東 unless you can reorganized a section in Taito (disambiguation) and Taitung that only consisted with entries of "台東". NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Toseong station says the Hanja is "土城驛". The other entries in 土城 are for Chinese-related topics and have the Tucheng prefix:
  1. Tucheng District
  2. Tucheng Line, Taipei Metro
  3. Tucheng metro station
  4. Tucheng Park
  5. Tucheng station (Tianjin Metro)
  Since "土城" has two transliterations ("Tucheng" and "Toseong"), 土城 is a necessary disambiguation page.

  Cunard (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A CJKV dab page with more than two transliterations doesn't have to be one with no primary topic, such as 九龍 (disambiguation) ("Jiulong", "Kowloon", "Cửu Long", "Guryong", "Kūron" and "Kuro"), 昭和 (disambiguation) ("Shōwa" and "Zhaohe") and 安康 (disambiguation) ("Angang", "Ankang" and "Ankō"). Tucheng District or Tucheng (disambiguation) is clearly the primary topic with respect to usage in this case.

  There were originally only two topics Tucheng (disambiguation) and Toseong station here while I expanded the former because not all of its entries are transliterated from 土城. However, as the precedence Nanchan Temple (disambiguation) I provided, it's easy for 土城 to be merged and redirected into Tucheng (disambiguation) per WP:ONEOTHER, otherwise it could be moved to 土城 (disambiguation) and leave the base name as a primary redirect to Tucheng District. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. I acknowledge the twin transliterations involved, but that can easily be handled on the target DAB page, with something like, "土城 may also refer to: Toseong station", or similar language. As it is, the page is a redundant fork. Owen× ☎ 17:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I just added Toseong station to the "See also" section in Tucheng (disambiguation). Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, this link belongs on that page, if only for the shared "土城" name. Hopefully, this would also make the merge decision easier. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: THere doesn't appear to be a pressing need to close this, so relisting for more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: I do not understand the rationale for CJK entries on the EN Wikipedia.

Serious question: How is this encyclopedic content for an English-language audience? Is this not more appropriate to host at EN Wiktionary?

If someone runs across a CJK string and doesn't understand it, I would expect them to look that up in a dictionary first, and from there (from that dictionary entry) decide 1) which language they are interested in, and 2) whether they want to know about the word (lexical information appropriate for a dictionary), or the concept or thing referred to by that word, as described in English (subject-matter information possibly appropriate for an encyclopedia).

Are we really intent on including pages for potentially any and every title in the ZH, JA, and KO Wikipedias?

If so, we are basically reproducing a lot of information that is often already hosted at Wiktionary. This strikes me as a lot of work -- both the initial build-out, and then the ongoing maintenance work -- for no appreciable benefit.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some information is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. CJKV titles are sometimes appropriate as redirects, per longstanding practice described at WP:RLOTE, but in cases where they are ambiguous between pages related to two or more languages, the usual solution is to make them disambiguation pages. If you disagree with the broader practice of catering to foreign-language search terms for topics related to that language, that might be something to discuss at WT:RLOTE, or maybe at some related policy page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is no sense in keeping an article bearing a title in Chinese, since, right away, the article would be impossible for the overwhelming majority of English Wikipedia users to search & find. Therefore, we either locate an "acceptable transliteration" or the article gets defenestrated. Keep in mind that a decent transliteration would suffice, since we can create Redirects to it from the other versions. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 26 November 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. Editors are divided on whether the level of coverage rises above the WP:BLP1E level. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Parish[edit]

Matthew Parish (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:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The primary basis for notability seems to be the section of the article titled "Legal issues." If that section was removed, the article would be more or less simply a promotional piece, written like a resume. See also the recent discussion at the BLP Noticeboard. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the crime appears more notable than the individual is, I'd perhaps redirect to an article about the oil trading scandal and merge relevant info there. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, would the potential redirect target article be the one about the Sheik, where Parish is mentioned in passing in a section about one of the trials: Ahmad_Al-Fahad_Al-Ahmed_Al-Sabah#Swiss_fraud_conviction. Or were you thinking of another article? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Crime, Law, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete as a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Notability looks marginal at best, and the article is not essential. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Inserting "weak", and expanding my rationale: The book about the controversy suggests that the subject is seeking attention, and just doesn't like the kind of attention that Wikipedia is giving him, and I think this does make a reasonable case for keeping. Combined with reviews and other coverage, I'd probably !vote weak keep in absence of the request. On the other hand, I also think that we should give some weight to a request from the subject, and I'm seeing someone with very marginal notability, and an article that the encyclopedia could have, but does not need. I do not think that we should consider the subject's poor behavior with respect to the article (on- or off-wiki) in deciding whether to keep the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I note that the article subject (I presume) has written some very strange things about me here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. At this point, Matthew Parish and/or people who may be associated with him have threatened to sue three wikipedians for writing well-sourced content on his page (see this and the reply above). I think we get these "remove the bad things about me or else" requests almost every week at the BLP noticeboard and elsewhere, I don't think it's right to essentially reward people for making WP:LEGALTHREATS against contributors of this website and the Wikimedia Foundation (yes, they just threatened the WMF recently, see the noticeboard discussion). That being said, it is pretty clear that this article is not very important to this website and its absence here would be felt by almost no one. SparklyNights 18:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested above under by prior comment seems appropriate. As an aside, don't let the anonymous IP make threats against you; otherwise, give them the address of the nearest sports stadium and call it a day. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There are at least some academic reviews for his books: [27] and [28] one of which in a reputable journal, there is multiple news stories about his arrest(s) which seems not to be a single instance but multiple trials each generating their own news stories: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] these are from outlets like Tages-Anzeiger, Le Temps, Bloomberg, Reuters and are not just WP:BLP1E as they cover multiple independent events. I think taking together his (i) notability as an author and his (ii) notability as a lawyer and as a (iii) criminal it seems that he would just pass the bar. It is also hard to argue how a person who specifically writes several books including one about his experiences in prison and writes a public Wikipedia article about themselves has a reasonable expectation of privacy and falls under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this seems rather a case of writing a Wikipedia article about themselves and then not liking that others edit it as well. I dont think a merge would really work since there are multiple independent stories here. --hroest 21:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As an editor above noted, the crime appears more notable than the subject of the article. The subject appears to be an unremarkable British attorney who committed a crime and served a short sentence and it made news at the time. It fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per my comments at WP:BLPN#Matthew Parish. To briefly reiterate here, despite the fact that the article was no doubt created by the subject, only to find out WP:ABOUTME applies to him and he threated to sue the WMF multiple times, I don't think keeping it on that basis of basically thumbing our noses at him is a valid reason. The article was obviously created as a vanity article, and should have been deleted as one long before all the legal stuff was inserted. His legal woes are really his only claim to fame, and, as is, the article is this weird combination of puff piece and hit piece. But all that is really small potatoes compared to the much, much larger question, which is: does it really contribute anything of value to the encyclopedia? A quick check of the page views shows it only gets an average of 15 views a day, which you can bet good money are mostly coming from the subject or people who interact with the subject. I see no real value of it as an article, as a BLP request-delete, I see no harm in deleting it. It's unfortunate this article was ever created at all, but I think the worse precedent to set is not that legal threats may get you what you want if you keep it up long enough, but that the mere act of committing a crime makes one worthy of an article should it be written about in a newspaper. That sets a very dangerous precedence. Now if any one of his crimes had gotten even a quarter the level of attention as, say... Charles Manson, then I would be singing a different tune, but I don't see several different crimes that were reported briefly and quickly forgotten as showing he's somehow noteworthy or has any historical significance. Newspapers print what people are interested in, and if no one's interested, they drop it and move onto the next shiny object. Nothing I've seen shows any real level of public interest in this guy. I don't care so much about him in particular, but articles like this are a waste of my time, and the entire community's. Zaereth (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It would make my life easier if this was deleted, given the (laughable) claims made about me here when I previously intervened in debates about the article's content. However, I'm convinced by Hannes Röst's evidence that there's enough coverage to meet the notability criteria here, so against my own interests I'm a keep. A Free City in the Balkans has been reviewed in a number of reputable journals (e.g. here and here) and one of his other books has been reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal too. The coverage of his legal troubles comes on top of that prior coverage of his work. Incidentally, I find it odd that someone who doesn't want their legal problems to feature on Wikipedia previously self-published a book about them. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Some further coverage here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The case for a WP:AUTHOR pass by itself would be rather weak: only two of the three listed books have been reviewed that I can find, and while the reviews for A Free City in the Balkans seem to have been published in reliable sources, I'm not fully convinced about those for Mirages of International Justice. The one cited in the article already looks to be in a solid journal, but the other that I found is on a website with unclear editorial standards. The secondary sources we have about his writing might not be enough to warrant an article by themselves, but they do mean that we can say enough that merging into another article would be extremely awkward. As noted above, the news stories cover multiple incidents over a span of years. Taken all together, the sources indicate that there's an encyclopedia topic here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, largely per Zaerath. I'm not going to lose any sleep if the article is kept (and as I said at the BLPN discussion, I wouldn't be surprised if it is!) but he's at best a minorly notable person who has been in the news because of a crime he committed, and I don't see that the article is all that important to the encyclopedia, so whatever, apply WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. (As an aside, that article about CordlessLarry is hilarious: if they think he is too prolific an editor to be a single person, what of the 1,861 accounts who per WP:EDITS have more edits than him?!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• How I manage to sustain my average of 8.557 edits per day, I'll never know, Caeciliusinhorto-public! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Can't blame the guy for not wanting a WP article. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 05:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a rap sheet, and that is exactly how this BLP is written. Atsme 💬 📧 14:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I worked with Matthew personally in Ukraine, and I can attest that his interest in removing this article is to conceal his past with NGO's there. This wiki brought attention towards him, but the decision to fire him was based off of separate reliable sources. Merging this wiki may not be in the best interest because this individual is continuing to make a larger spectacle out of themselves. Although I agree that the crime is more notable than the individual is. This article has played a valuable role in providing exposure to his past. Parish likes attention, but seeks to remove any criticism in his quest for notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:E081:6070:7A:53E4:4DC0:3BBF (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well sourced article from reliable sources. Passes WP:N. -- Mike 🗩 19:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per hroest. Thriley (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see strong and persuasive views on both sides, but I don’t feel comfortable closing as No Consensus just yet, so I’d like more input. Do the BLP concerns trump the demonstrated notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Cordless Larry hit the nail on the head. We keep or delete articles on their merits, not because we want to spite the article's subject or creator, or because we want to assert our independence or thumb our noses at legal threats. The books he wrote seem to be of fairly limited notability, and would not have justified an article on their own. Only one of his legal difficulties, the one that led to his sentence in absentia, is of itself notable, but he's only a minor figure in this story, described at Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah. This story hit the press because it involved the Kuwaiti royal family and an Olympic official. The sources for this are good, but they barely include two sentences about Parish, who wasn't even present at the trial, and whose role in the case is not described. On that basis we can't even justify a redirect. As a lawyer, he doesn't otherwise seem to have done anything out of the ordinary before getting himself struck off. From a UK perspective I'd bet most people coming across his article were actually looking for Matthew Parris. Elemimele (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if you tagged the wrong editor, Elemimele, but I was advocating for keeping the article, based on coverage that goes beyond the subject's recent legal difficulties. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Oh, ever so sorry, yes, I meant Zaereth, I apologise profusely! Elemimele (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC) SineBot-->[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:N based on reliable sources, which is all that really counts. - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - Among other things, Wikipedia is not a rogues' gallery. BLP comes into play on this. He was tried, convicted and serving time. Yet, the Wikipedia article has his personal website, criminal record and conviction. We should not have this info out there for the rest of his life. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying, Maile66, is not supported by Wikipedia policy. If a person, whether assessed by us as a "rogue" or not, is worthy of having an article about them in Wikipedia, the issue is decided on very specific criteria, primary one being the subject's verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. This is a person of evidently lasting importance and notability. I could potentially add to the above litany of invective but I will not.

Note, please: A article may have been created (a) by the subject of the article, (b) contain an excessive, overwhelming amount of promotional text, or (c) lack the necessary sources that support its notability and still merit inclusion in Wikipedia, provided the text is cleaned up, improved, and provided with the necessary sourcing. That, in a nut shell, is all! In so many words, none of the above allegations about the text's nature and provenance will be disputed by me because they do not matter. The subject is evidently notable; and certainly not in any "minor" way. -The Gnome (talk) 14:45, 26 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Blackburn (businessperson)[edit]

Mike Blackburn (businessperson) (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 and NBIO. I think this is a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If sources meeting WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, no objection to Drafting until it is ready for mainspace.  // Timothy :: talk  10:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakish Keep, this is an article clearly re-written from an obituary, but the man himself is probably notable as the CEO of two of the UK's largest financial institutions. The obituary is from the Times, so it's quite a heavy indicator of notability on its own. But more sources about his career could be added, for example [41], rather less favourable [42], or a pay-wall source that seems to include discussion of him [43] as well as copious passing mentions of which this Guardian piece is typical[44]. Elemimele (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Elemimele. Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, CEO of two major building societies of the UK, coverage in all major newspapers of the UK. I've added additional references. This is not an attempt to memorize anyone – hasty nomination IMHO. Burthert (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The CVO passes WP:ANYBIO #1. And an obituary in The Times is also always seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:Speedy keep#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no new delete rationale has been put forward in the deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cantref Arfon[edit]

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

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

This is pure unreferenced WP:OR (the only source - single footnote - is to an 11th century poem). The topic may or may not be notable (my BEFORE gives some passing mentions, but maybe something more could be found), but I fear what we have needs WP:TNT, given the lack of sources. WP:V is a major concern, as is the possibility of WP:HOAXex or at least pure WP:OR in this. Possible ATD redirect targets, if this cannot be salvaged now, include District of Arfon and Kingdom of Gwynedd. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Wales. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to District of Arfon per WP:TNT and a lack of a better destination. Though I do wonder, if there should just be an Arfon article which may be easier to justify and source hopefully. DankJae 18:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this is notable as a historical district. Its existence and approximate borders are confirmed by the RCAHMW.[45] Even though the sourcing is minimal at present, it is very probable that reliable sources do exist, possibly some of the sources cited in Cantref. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion includes Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed - have such attempts been made? For the most part, the article does not appear to present original research, and presents material that is supported the the geography and history of the area, and are often (possibly always) supported by other articles. While citations should be given in the article where the statements are made, this requirement is widely unmet and this is not an adequate reason for an article to be deleted. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, the Find sources links at the top of this discussion for 'books', 'news' and 'scholar' all give potential sources. These should have been investigated before the article was nominated for deletion, see WP:BEFORE. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES is not a very strong argument for keeping unreferenced piece of OR... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added some sources; I think the topic is notable and the article could be expanded further. There are a couple of bits of information that I wasn't able to verify but we're far from needing TNT. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per above.---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following newer responses above and an article in a better state, although still open to the original re-direct if this AfD leads elsewhere. DankJae 17:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Article has been improved, addressing my concerns. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:30, 19 November 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 as a live draft already exists at Draft:Swarna Pandey which can still be worked on‎. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swarna Pandey[edit]

Swarna Pandey (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)

Should be moved to draft space yvanyblog^(talk) 08:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. yvanyblog^(talk) 08:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yvanyblog I believe this article should not be deleted but contributed to... So instead of deleting it let's add information about it Bukashamba (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify at once, this is a totally unsourced biographical article about a child, so it can't stay in main-space. Bukashamba, there is nothing wrong with developing an article in draft space, but sourcing is absolutely mandatory. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This also exists as Draft:Swarna Pandey, so there is no reason to keep the article. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]