Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< November 23 November 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Closing as there is a clear consensus to keep, given the submissions are unianimous. No counter arguments to the keep rationale provided, other than by the nominator. There is no active discussion ongoing, with no reasonable prospect of the consensus changing. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-level practitioner[edit]

Mid-level practitioner (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The page only uses two sources to define mid-level practitioner, both of which are outdated. The term is no longer notable nor is it a term that requires its own page. All professions listed on this page have their own individual pages.

1. WHO Definition

The definition used for this page relies on a publication from the WHO from 2010. This WHO publication relied on studies published in 2001, listed as reference 2, that used the term mid-level which is a term no longer generally used in academic journals or by government bodies. I utilized pubmed to search for all articles published in the last ten years. For the term "mid-level practitioner" there were 105 results and for the term "mid-level provider" there were 506 results. In contrast for the term "advanced practice provider" there were 34,169 results.

In searching the WHO website the term mid-level practitioner (MLP) was replaced by the term mid-level health worker (MLHW). Please review the most recent publications from the WHO.

2021 "This most recent WHO review defines a MLHW as follows: “A mid-level health worker is not a medical doctor, but provides clinical care (may diagnose, manage and treat illness, disease, and impairments) or engages in preventive care and health promotion.” Mid-level health workers are also those whose training has been shorter than doctors (2 to 4 years) but who perform some of the same tasks as doctors. ii,iii"

"iii In this brief, we consider graduate nurses/Registered nurses as being outside the purview of the category of MLHWs, unless where trained nurses themselves undergo to become clinicians performing functions similar to doctors (for e.g. nurses who take up the bridge course to become CHOs at Health and Wellness Centres). Nurse practitioners who undergo more prolonged training are also excluded from this definition."

2. Categorizing by Country

This article does not list any reference that uses the term mid-level practitioner in the countries of the United Kingdom or Canada. With India and South Africa using the term mid-level to define allied health professional which do not include NPs or PAs. Please refer to the most updates CMS guide for terminology within the United States.

3. Drug Enforcement Administration

The article also lists the US DEA and controlled substance act as being the basis for categorizing NPs and PAs as mid-level practitioners within the United States. This however is the only organization that uses the term and this is presumably only because this section of the controlled substance act was last published in 2011. No US federal law since has used the term mid-level practitioner. 29 CFR § 825.125, and 45 CFR § 160.103 both include nurse practitioner in the definition of a health care provider and have no definition for mid-level practitioner. Official communication from the DEA to prescribers refers to all professions simply as registered practitioners. Also please take note that the DEAs Q&A uses the same updated language. Lastly there is already a Wikipedia page for DEA Number and DEA numbers are simply a registration between a provider and the DEA to issue controlled substances. A provider who writes prescriptions but not for controlled substances does not need a DEA number.

Conclusion

The term mid-level is no longer generally used to describe advanced practice providers in any country, nor is it a term of notability requiring its own wikipedia page. This term was used in the past simply to group all healthcare providers other then physicians into a single category. The terms advanced practice provider or non-physician practitioners are simply defined by a dictionary and do not require a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hue16459 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 Nov 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment. Participants in the discussion may want to review Talk:Nurse practitioner#Mid-level once again. It would appear that the nominating editor has been on a heavy-handed spree toward this term. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nom is not unique in this regard in any respect whatsoever. The idea that healthcare providers with less training than a physician (e.g., Physician assistant, Clinical officer, Nurse practitioner) are "mid" rather than "high" is very much disliked by many people with those licenses. Most NPs, for example, would prefer to see their profession marketed as "the highest level of nursing" rather than the "highest level of medical care, except for the physicians". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps even Speedy Keep. The article has plenty of references and easily meets WP:GNG, and it is trivial to find more, such as this from the Journal of Health Care Finance or this from the journal Health Sciences Research. And contrary to the above, it is quite easy to find instances of major organizations like the WHO using this term, for example this document from 2019. Claims that this term is no longer used are obviously mistaken. It appears that this AFD is motivated by a desire to gain advantage in a content dispute over at Talk:Nurse practitioner, where a series of single purpose accounts have been trying to get mention of this term removed - it seems to be a political issue for nurse practitioner groups. I've already filed a WP:SPI on the OP. - MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this is the user that has so far failed to participate in the mediation request or the discussion on the talk page. This is also the same user that has been reverting all attempts to modify the term for years. This request is not related to the other although the points I have made bridge across both issues.
    1. The Journal of Health Care Finance article that you provided is referring to the state of California which is one of the 11 states that have restricted practice laws for NPs requiring them work exclusively under the supervision of a physician. The Journal of Health Sciences Research article is from 2016. As mentioned in my initial post "I utilized pubmed to search for all articles published in the last ten years. For the term "mid-level practitioner" there were 105 results and for the term "mid-level provider" there were 506 results. In contrast for the term "advanced practice provider" there were 34,169 results." There will always be limited journals that still use this term although it is an incredibly small number.
    2. The WHO article you listed is referring to United States Medicare reimbursement from 2016. The CMS article I listed in my initial post is from Medicare in 2023 and does not use the term mid-level but instead advanced practice non-physician practioner to now identify NPs and PAs.
    3. I am not a nurse practitioner nor am I associated with any nurse practitioner group. I am also only a single use account at this point because I am new to wikipedia and this topic has consumed all my time. I am also not an SP.
    Hue16459 (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this is the user that has so far failed to participate in the mediation request or the discussion on the talk page. This is false, and can be easily checked at the talk page in question. - MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not debate any information you simply rejected all edits and stated "On Wikipedia we follow the best available sources, and for this article that means the World Health Organization. We cannot use lesser sources to undercut their description of this profession" implying that there is only one source that can make this determination and the same source I have now shown uses different terminology. You also stated "At any rate, I'm done arguing here until the SPI comes back." You did not comment on the approximately 25 posts I made starting after I posted the mediation request or provide any additional evidence to support your point of view. Hue16459 (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not comment on the approximately 25 posts I made - No one is obligated to respond to every comment you make, particularly when you are WP:BLUDGEONING the talk page 25 times in four days, often by posting walls of text. At any rate, I am done engaging in such back and forth on this AFD. It is off topic here. MrOllie (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The PubMed counts are wrong. They pick up any article that uses those words in any possible combination – "advanced practice provider", but also sentences like "The provider should practice these advanced skills". The correct numbers are 1,305 for APP and 180 for MLP(a ratio of about 7:1). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is correct, I did make a mistake and I agree with these numbers. Thank you. Hue16459 (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last 5 years there were 1060 for APP and 88 for MLP a ratio of 12:1 and in the last year there were 285 for APP and 18 for MPP a ration of 15:1 which helps illustrate the terms declining prevalence. Hue16459 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes please view the talk page where I have contributed heavily to a conversation attempting to remove the term mid-level practitioner from the page for the same reasons I have stated here. Although the argument may appear heavily handed it is not my intention. I simply have a strong belief that this term should be changed based on current evidence. I placed a request on the dispute resolution noticeboard where the other editor has so far declined to participate. Additionally on the talk page only one other user has engaged in the conversation. Hue16459 (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. I think the new editor has (understandably) misunderstood the way Wikipedia works. Even if you accept the claim that the terminology is outdated, Wikipedia has all sorts of articles on outdated topics (e.g., Turnspit dog). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am new to Wikipedia so I am trying to learn as fast as I can. Is mid-level practitioner not a neologism? And because it is a neologism if it does meet the notability requirements then shouldn’t the most widely accepted and common term be used. In this case that is “advanced practice provider” not “mid-level practitioner”. Hue16459 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hue16459, the article is about the professional ranking itself (rather than about the word per se), so it doesn't technically matter whether the 50-year-old name for it is a neologism. However, if you think the article title is outdated and should be changed, then the relevant process is at Wikipedia:Moving a page. (Hint: Your best argument for that is likely to be WP:COMMONNAME; the evidence we found above of declining use of the older name and increasing use of the newer one in the medical literature will be relevant, as will this Google Ngram.) It might be best to start that a few days from now, because moving a page (=changing its title) during an AFD can break some of the tools. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you need help setting it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much appreciate your willingness to collaborate on this. Thank you. Hue16459 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WAID rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)
  • Keep Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The article may well need re-writing and improving, and maybe even moving or splitting, but nothing presented is a reason for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 29 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 09:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Morris (English writer)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for biographies. Most of the sources found in a BEFORE search deal with the British Army officer Roger Morris, and the remaining sources found about this subject are non-independent sources lacking significant coverage of the subject. Tails Wx 15:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wider evaluation of the sources and whether this passes NAUTHOR would be hepful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. More participation in this discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I'm a bit iffy on use of Kirkus[9] and PW[10], but there's clearly sufficient critical coverage of his work elsewhere in RS above to meet NAUTHOR#3 (and coverage at a single author article is clean where individual pages for books are not needed ref WP:NOPAGE). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:55, 1 December 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 09:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Garebian[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. This is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but still isn't making a better case for notability.
The attempted notability claim here is that he's been a winner of minor local or regional literary awards that are not prominent enough to constitute instant notability freebies in the absence of passing WP:GNG, but the sourcing still isn't adequate to get him over GNG: of the five footnotes here, one is a dead link, one is a directory entry, two are Q&A interviews in which he's answering questions about himself in the first person, and the only one that represents third-party journalism comes from a weekly community hyperlocal in his own hometown.
I've also already had to remove several primary sources from the article, namely his own self-published website about himself and two pieces of his own bylined writing about other subjects, which are not notability-builders either: you don't make a writer notable by citing his writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by citing his writing to third-party coverage and analysis about it as proof that it's been externally validated as significant by people other than himself.
The interviews and the hyperlocal would be acceptable for use as supplementary sourcing if there were other, better sources being cited alongside them, but are not GNG makers in and of themselves if they're all he's got -- but none of the other sources that have been used here are notability-building ones at all, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Prolific author, has several reviews published in Canada [11], [12], [13]. This one as well [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: coverage in a newspaper [15] and much coverage from the Wikipedia Library using the link above. He was also a theater critic for Canadian journals back in the 1970s [16], and was the author of a critical review of My Fair Lady [17]. I know Canada has a small population and we don't get much attention, but I'm amazed no one's ever heard of him! Oaktree b (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote/updated this after attending a reading of his in Canada and taking a photo for Commons; he was well received by fellow authors at the multi-author reading and by attendees, and clearly well known in the literary community. He seems to have with a number of equally read long form critical reviews of major works over the years. has snag separate followings for his criticism and his poetry. Would definitely benefit from better sourcing, but deletion is not the answer. – SJ + 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better sourcing has to be shown to exist, not merely presumed to maybe exist, before deletion ceases to be the answer. So if you're the one who wants to create the article, then you're the one who has to find the correct quality and depth and volume of sourcing off the top, and use it in the article you create right from the start. You can't just create an article with bad sources, and then say "well, find better sources for me then" if somebody challenges the bad sourcing — there's no guarantee that every person who exists necessarily always has any better sourcing at all, so it's on you to use better sourcing from the jump. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the existing sources and works/publisher list satisfy GNG. And AfD has always worked better as a third rather than first resort. You might try just asking for more sourcing. – SJ + 01:04, 20 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! 23:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Going by the sources in the article, Garebian's works have won sufficiently significant critical attention to pass the SNG threshold. There's clearly something of encyclopedic worth to be written on this subject. —Alalch E. 17:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject's achievement was recognized by the library system of his city (7th largest city in the country). It has met WP:AUTHOR. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:09, 30 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. This discussion is badly fractured and establishing a consensus here is very difficult. Additionally to this, the article has been changed somewhat significantly during the discussion (not necessarily a bad thing, especially where it incorporates some of the new information found). No prejudice towards a renomination should someone wish to do so. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Xu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kevin Xu (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 reference to the subject does not satisfy the notability guidelines. Clearly failing WP:GNG, as well as failing WP:NBIO. Bimanmandal (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seems to be a promotional article for the person. --Kammerer55 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article does not appear to have improved since it was previously deleted in 2017, relying mainly on non-independent sources, including many articles authored by the subject. Search of Newspapers.com turns up exactly one article in The Los Angeles Times which details a lawsuit against him along with other owner(s) of LA Weekly. Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kevin Xu mentioned in this newspaper article is not the same individual as the Kevin Xu referred to in the main article; they merely share the same name. Please stick to the facts.
Voxl (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is the same Kevin Xu. The LA Times article mentions him as the CEO of Mebo International. The Lux Magazine article (among others) discusses his co-ownership of LA Weekly. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "Kevin Xu" Article

The "Kevin Xu" article should be retained as it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines with significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. These sources detail his notable impact and achievements. Additionally, if the article is kept, I recommend incorporating information about any controversies or disputes involving this individual, ensuring a more comprehensive and balanced representation of the subject.

--Loving This Mayweather (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Li, Han (2023-09-15). "A Chinese Businessman Gave $1M to San Francisco for APEC. Who Is He?". The San Francisco Standard. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "Xu, 35, inherited the company in 2015 after the unexpected death of his father, Dr. Rongxiang Xu, who founded MEBO. At the age of 27, the younger Xu was not ready to take over an international corporation, but he received much help and encouragement from mentors to help him get through the transition. ... The $1 million donation also gives Xu some benefits and responsibility, as he now co-chairs the APEC Host Committee ... Even though Kevin Xu lives in Los Angeles, he has strong ties with the Bay Area, too. Xu serves as the chair the board of directors at the Bay Area Council, a pro-business group in San Francisco. He’s also the board chair of Street Media LLC, which owns the Marina Times."

    2. Li, Li 李莉 (2021-11-08). "徐鹏：敬畏生命是通行世界的语言" [Kevin Xu: Respect for life is a universal language]. 科学中国人 [Scientific Chinese] (in Chinese). China Association for Science and Technology. ISSN 1005-3573. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "徐鹏出生的1988年是美宝集团成立的第二年，与美宝一起成长，... 2011年，从南加州大学神经科学专业毕业后，中西方科学和文化的融会贯通让他的视野和格局上升到新的境界和高度，他更加深刻地感知到人生价值和生命意义的神圣内涵。毕业后，徐鹏进入美宝，开始与他的父亲徐荣祥一起研究和发展人体再生复原科学技术，为人类的健康和生命质量提升探索新的可能。"

      From Google Translate: "Kevin Xu was born in 1988, the second year after MEBO Group was established. He grew up with MEBO... In 2011, after graduating from the University of Southern California with a major in neuroscience, he studied Chinese and Western sciences and The integration of cultures brought his vision and structure to a new realm and height, and he more deeply felt the sacred connotation of the value and meaning of life. After graduation, Xu Peng entered MEBO and began to study and study with his father Xu Rongxiang. Develop human body regeneration and restoration science and technology to explore new possibilities for improving human health and quality of life."

    3. Saunders, Andrew (Autumn 2019). "Meet the Renaissance entrepreneur: Kevin Xu". Lux Mag. Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      Although the article is overly promotional, Lux Mag's about page says, "Lux is a feminist magazine of politics and culture founded in 2021. We publish a glossy print edition three times a year featuring our award-winning writers, and a regular newsletter." It lists an advisory board, an editor-in-chief, editors, and contributing editors.

      The article notes: "He was born and raised in California, but we meet in London – he came for Royal Ascot, but also for meetings with charities and NGOs he’s interested in – before he headed to Japan for that country’s first-ever G20 summit. He’s on the advisory board of the California-China Trade Office, serves on the Asian Advisory Board at the University of Southern California’s Davis School of Gerontology, mentors young entrepreneurs at MIT, is the founder of the Kevin Xu Initiative at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago and has endowed a new Neurotechnology Center in California Institute of Technology. The list goes on. Perhaps the relationships he is most proud of, however, are his ties to two former US presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He’s a member of the Clinton Global Initiative and a contributor to the Obama Foundation, and recently spent a fortnight with Clinton in the US Virgin Islands, working with the 42nd president of the United States in connection with its efforts to help rebuild the region after the devastating 2017 hurricanes. ... And what of his co-ownership of Californian media outlet LA Weekly, which he acquired in 2017 alongside several other local investors?"

    4. Liu, Xianxian 劉先進 (2023-06-30). "華裔徐鵬捐百萬 助金山辦APEC 成目前捐贈最高贊助商" [Kevin Xu, a Chinese-American, donated millions to help Jinshan organize APEC, becoming the current top donor sponsor.]. World Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-24. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

      The article notes: "生物醫藥公司MEBO的執行長、華裔徐鵬捐贈100萬作為APEC的舉辦經費，他也是參與APEC捐贈的最高贊助商之一、目前捐贈最多的華裔。"

      From Google Translate: "Kevin Xu, CEO of the biomedical company MEBO and a Chinese-American, donated 1 million to fund APEC. He is also one of the top sponsors of APEC donations and the Chinese-American who has donated the most."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kevin Xu (simplified Chinese: 徐鹏; traditional Chinese: 徐鵬) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard I reject that Lux Magazine passes the WP:RS test. There is no statement of editorial integrity. They accept contributions from whomever, you just have to email them. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lux Mag's "The Team" page notes, "Darius Sanai is Editor in Chief of LUX and owner of parent company LUX Global Media. He is a consultant Editor in Chief at Condé Nast International. He launched Vogue Hong Kong in 2019 and has launched and edited more than 25 media brands for Condé Nast over the past 15 years." I see no indication on their website that "They accept contributions from whomever, you just have to email them". Would you provide a source for that?

Even without the Lux Mag article, there is sufficient coverage in the other sources for Kevin Xu to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

Cunard (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Sorry but looking through the Lux magazine website really does not inspire confidence with regard to editorial independence. To answer your question, the quote from the "About" page says: "Lux welcomes pitches. Send a short email outlining your idea and why you’re the one to write it to pitches@lux-magazine.com." The publication also explicitly states that it "creates content for branding": "We create content, concepts and events for our partners and advise on strategic direction and brand...Our studio and our sister company Quartet Consulting offer a full suite of media and personal branding services, with a focus on UHNWI individuals and significant figures in the business, art and luxury space...We also offer services adding value to brands and individuals around the world and creating enduring and effective strategic partnerships through our contacts in art, luxury, wealth management and philanthropy." It's quite clear that a lot of the feature articles on "philanthropists" are vanity pieces. Pretty photographs and presentation, though. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I am striking this source but maintaining my position supporting retention as the remaining sources are enough for Kevin Xu to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and a reliable source also mentioned that Xu Kaiwen was elected as the co-chair of this year's San Francisco APEC hosting committee.APEC 2023: Gwen Stefani, Canadian prime minister, Indonesian president among VIPs at Pres. Biden gala at Exploratorium - ABC7 San Francisco Exitdent (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Assessment of recently discovered sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete This seems ok [18] but trivial. The Lux discussed above seems a non-RS. I'm unsure about the rest. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The translated Chinese article in the second source seems ok, but I don't think these are enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Oaktree b (talk · contribs). Here is another Chinese source that provides biographical information about the subject:
    1. Zhang, Bing 张兵 (2021-11-08). "徐鹏：助中医药打开世界朋友圈" [Kevin Xu: Helping Traditional Chinese Medicine Open Up the World's Circle of Friends]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25.

      The article notes: "眼前这个1988年出生的小伙，8岁就旅居国外，多元化的生活环境混合出他更独到的见解，他更善于找到中、西交融的切合点。2015年4月，美宝集团创始人、美宝集团董事会前主席徐荣祥在美国意外逝世。... 在父亲葬礼上，徐鹏收到两封手写的信，一封来自美国前总统克林顿，一封来自美国前总统奥巴马，... 一年后，徐鹏在山东济南出生。8岁时，徐鹏被送往美国学习。 ... 在2015年接手经营美宝集团之前，美国加利福尼亚州州长布朗就授予徐鹏顾问一职，助推加利福尼亚和中国之间的经贸往来。"

      From DeepL and Google Translate: "The young man, born in 1988, has been living abroad since he was eight years old, and his diverse living environment has mixed with his unique insights, making him more adept at finding points of convergence between China and the West. ... Kevin Xu graduated from the University of Southern California, majoring in neuroscience. He is currently the Vice President of China Foreign Trade Council, Director of China Trade and Investment Commission, Chairman of Global Greater Bay Area Strategic Health Committee, and Chairman of the Board of Mebo Group. ... At his father's funeral, Xu Peng received two handwritten letters, one from the former U.S. President Clinton, one from the former U.S. President Barack Obama ... A year later, Kevin Xu was born in Jinan, Shandong. At the age of 8, Kevin Xu was sent to the United States to study. ... Before Kevin Xu took over the management of MEBO Group in 2015, Governor Brown of California, USA, appointed Xu as a consultant to promote economic and trade exchanges between California and China."

    The combination of Li 2023, Li 2021, and Zhang 2021 is enough for Kevin Xu to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

    Cunard (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I do not think the "translated article in the second source" referenced by Oaktree b (Li 2021) counts as independent coverage in a reliable source. Every interview-driven article needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and in this case there is nothing in the article that isn't something that Kevin Xu obviously said about himself, his father, his personal opinions, or recapping his CV, and it comes across as oddly self-promotional.
On that basis, though, the article that actually seems better than it did at first glance is the San Francisco Standard article (which is tempting to dismiss because of the Wikipedia article about the publication but taking a closer look, at least the publication itself currently has a strong statement of editorial standards). What I would highlight in the San Francisco Standard article are all the statements made which are things Kevin Xu obviously would not have offered about himself or which have a slightly different interpretation compared to what he told other interviewers:
"At the age of 27, the younger Xu was not ready to take over an international corporation, but he received much help and encouragement from mentors to help him get through the transition...In the Chinese-speaking world, MEBO faces many controversies involving Dr. Rongxiang Xu, with critics calling him a liar for claiming he developed the technology for so-called “human organ regeneration.” In response, MEBO’s official website posted an interview in which Rongxiang Xu denied the accusations and stood by his patent."
So for me, the strongest two articles contributing to the WP:BASIC standard of notability are the LA Times article about the lawsuit against Kevin Xu and other co-owner(s) of LA Weekly and the San Francisco Standard article pointing out the controversy about the MEBO "human organ regeneration" patent. Another article which puts some of the MEBO controversy into perspective, is "Snubbed for a Nobel?" in The Scientist, in which Kevin Xu explains why his father Dr. Rongxiang Xu decided to sue the Nobel Prize Committee for "excluding" him from the 2012 Nobel Prize for Medicine which was awarded for research in regenerative science:
"Xu’s son, Kevin, told The Scientist that those discoveries have since allowed 20 million burn victims to restore their normal skin, and according to the MEBO website, the treatments may have much broader applications, including regenerating organs and curing cancer...Xu’s son says his father did not submit his results to mainstream peer-reviewed journals because “he did not want to spend a lot of time writing articles for publication.” Xu did, however, publish in a journal he edits, called The Chinese Journal of Burns Wounds & Surface Ulcers, and with two other doctors, he wrote a book on MEBO techniques in 2004. For the past two decades, his findings were touted in online press releases and news stories in Chinese newspapers; a short 1992 documentary features his research; and at least one US company sees promise in Xu’s treatments. Botanical drug development company Skingenix, also based in Los Angeles, is sponsoring Phase II clinical trials to test whether MEBO products help heal foot ulcers and burns. These studies are not designed to shed light on whether MEBO and stem cells share anything in common, however, and Skingenix declined to comment on this story."
I am striking my previous !vote as I still really don't like the article (it has the appearance of "reputation laundering"), and a lot of the other independent coverage is more about the controversy about his father rather than about him, but if it is kept, I will try to help fix it.
On that note, I would ask Kevin Xu fans to please consider whether it is really worth keeping this article. He is obviously an individual who wants to keep tight control over his own narrative and always talks about himself (his father and CV and donations and emotions) rather than about his actual business decisions, results he has led his company to achieve, or directly addressing the controversies around MEBO and LA Weekly (except for The Scientist interview). If you read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, you will see that it says about articles that have been requested by the person: Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral. Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be deleted – typically unsuccessfully, because if an article qualifies for deletion the community will typically do that without prompting, and an article won't be deleted just because its subject is unhappy with it. There are many other websites besides Wikipedia which would allow for more control for Kevin Xu to publish a more positive biography about himself and to continue to promote MEBO and Dr. Rongxiang Xu in a positive light. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking my previous !vote as I still really don't like the article (it has the appearance of "reputation laundering"), and a lot of the other independent coverage is more about the controversy about his father rather than about him, but if it is kept, I will try to help fix it. – thank you for reevaluating the sources and striking your previous vote. I've rewritten the article to remove promotional content and to make the focus more on him rather than on his father. I've tried to make the article as balanced as possible in touching upon the company's controversy with his father but not spending an overwhelming amount of ink on it. I hope the rewrite makes it easier for you to support the article's retention.

Cunard (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw that Keivn Xu also established the Kevin Xu Initiative on Science, Abhilash Mishra is a member of the Initiative, and has published an article in Science magazine with the theme of "changing the status quo of American science".Abhilash Mishra,Director, Kevin Xu Initiative on Science, Technology and Global Development,Science's new frontier | Science Ransacked like 1776 (talk) 16:31, 27 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 03:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashi Mitra Ghat crematorium[edit]

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

Not much on the page to suggest notability and I don’t see much else. It is possible they exist in Bengali however I note that our friends at bn.wiki do not have much else on their page either JMWt (talk) 20:22, 17 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! 22:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Significance unestablished; only one source that merely confirms location. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Article provides no real info and I am unable to find anything in RS reference material to establish notability (or, in fact, verify anything other than that it exists). Fails GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:34, 30 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 Jackson, Tennessee. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oman Arena[edit]

Oman Arena (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 refs on the page since at least 2013 and does not appear to be much to suggest that a 5000 seat arena is notable. JMWt (talk) 20:26, 17 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! 22:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jackson, Tennessee, the location of and former owner of this building. Another possible target is Jackson-Madison County School System, the current owner of the arena, however it is only mentioned in the city’s article making it my first choice. Building is not independently notable based on a complete lack of references, but a 5,000+ seat arena which hosted some NAIA basketball games could be a reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 01:54, 28 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yinka Sunmonu[edit]

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

I don't believe one story in an anthology and a novel with one very short article discussing it meets WP:AUTHOR. I couldn't find anything to meet WP:JOURNALIST either. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I created the page.) That she was given her own entry in the Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture suggests to me she has a place in recent Black British culture which makes her notable. Dsp13 (talk) 00:54, 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! 22:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The entry in the Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture (2002) includes biographical information and indications of further coverage, such as "Her work on fostering and adoption was featured in the Channel 4 Adoption on Trial series and a paper on her adoption survey for the Voice newspaper (the first of its kind on black attitudes towards adoption) appeared on the Channel 4 website." Her paper "Why black carers are deterred from adoption" was first published in Adoption & Fostering in April 2000. In addition, there is the review in Wasafiri by Steffen Krueger of her novel (pp. 73-74) Cherish (2003) I reviewed at the Wikipedia Library, and I found a review at the Community Care website. She was interviewed by the The Guardian in a Q&A format in 2003 after her novel was published, and as noted above, in 2004, The Guardian reported on her website development, and also includes her statements. She also wrote for The Guardian in 2004, and there is a note appended about her upcoming participation in a debate and her association with the Thomas Coram Research Unit. I think with the available sources, there is support for WP:BASIC notability, and the article could be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Substantive entry in Companion to Contemporary Black British Culture and other sources found by Beccaynr enough for GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:01, 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 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 03:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Ansari[edit]

Iman Ansari (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 notability, looks like another almost-fake article to make a resume for a non-notable Iranian athlete. this is his UWW profile he never won any of those so called titles mentioned in the article. just an ordinary wrestler who never even make the national team, let alone winning international medals. Sports2021 (talk) 22:45, 17 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! 22:43, 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney)[edit]

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

Non-notable newspaper, failing WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:GNG, despite being a common newspaper in Australia. Tagged for no references since February 2017. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator doesn't seem to have bothered to look for references before nominating the article for deletion. The Mumbrella website (which covers the Australian media) returns 25 pages of results for a search on this publication: [19], for instance, many of which seem usable. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick-D, I did not seem to find any notable references for that version of the Telegraph. Pining @Cunard, to see if he can find additional refs. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As the nominatior of this deletion discussion, I will move the Sunday Telegraph specific controversies already on The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) article, to the article mentioned in this discussion, so I at least have controversies with refs. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nick-D. Jenks24 (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand this AfD. As much as many refer to the paper as a chip wrapper, it is clearly notable. Lister needs a WP:TROUT. TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator of this discussion, I have added these references to the article:
  1. Mediaweek (2019-02-08). "Weekend Newspaper Readership down, Sunday Telegraph is most read". Mediaweek. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
  2. "Open revolt flares up in Czechoslovakia". The Sunday Telegraph. 19 November 1939. Retrieved 2023-11-25 – via National Library of Australia.
  3. Christensen, Nic (2013-07-10). "News Corp Australia increases the cover prices of Sunday tabloids". Mumbrella. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
  4. Hicks, Robin (26 October 2012). "Mick Carroll replaces Neil Breen as editor of The Sunday Telegraph". Mumbrella. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
  5. Aston, Joe (2020-07-28). "Campion, Joyce forgive The Daily Telegraph". The Australian Financial Review. Nine Entertainment. Retrieved 2023-11-25.
  6. "The Daily Telegraph most read newspaper in NSW". news.com.au. 1 October 2019. Retrieved 25 November 2023.
  7. "The Sunday Telegraph wins Newspaper of the Year award". The Daily Telegraph. News Limited. 6 November 2011. Retrieved 25 November 2023.

As the nominator, I support a withdrawal of this discussion, per the above references I added. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:23, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yarisleidy Mena[edit]

Yarisleidy Mena (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, a Cuban women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 22:09, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Ivaštanin[edit]

Ivana Ivaštanin (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, a Montenegrin women's footballer, seemingly made a single appearance for her respective national team as a teenager. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 22:02, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolina Vujadin[edit]

Nikolina Vujadin (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, a Bosnian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 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! 23:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Fish[edit]

Ron Fish (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)

He is successful, but doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:47, 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 redirect‎ to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viorica Tonu[edit]

Viorica Tonu (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 Moldova women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, and this was the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 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! 23:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz DiFiore[edit]

Liz DiFiore (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)

She doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, I couldn't find reliable, good quality sources. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is not notable and does not meet the WP:BIO Micheal Kaluba (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Comment. She has an NZ On Screen biography which generally means some level of notability (although I don't know enough about how they select candidates for profiles to assess fully). She also produced a series called INSiDE which won an International Emmy for Best Short-Form Series in 2021. I'd like to do some more research before making a call, but commenting in the meantime while I have some capacity so I won't forget. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updating to delete. I haven't been able to find any additional coverage of her looking at the usual WP:BEFORE searches, Wikipedia Library and New Zealand newspaper databases, and the online sources are largely passing mentions. I agree she doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO criteria. Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 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 Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diyora Erkinova[edit]

Diyora Erkinova (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 Uzbekistan women's international footballers. The subject made a single appearance for her national team as a teenager five years ago. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn per WP:SK1 point 3, and all current !votes have been to keep. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Building (Seattle)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think one of the two you are referring to is the one by Walt Crowley and Paul Dorpat; I added it after the nomination was made. It's on Google Books; I didn't include a link because the page-specific link didn't seem to work. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historic/landmark building, helpful info here. I am currently traveling internationally, so I'm limited in my ability to further expand the entry at this moment beyond what has already been added since nomination. Surely a search in the Seattle Times archives would allow inclusion of more details, including management, sales, tenants, etc., and the linked source has a lot more info re: description/design. Entry should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 09:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks to have been designated, so would fall under "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Espresso Addict. Notable per heritage. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per city landmark designation. There's plenty of sources available for a century-old building that has survived in a major American downtown. SounderBruce 03:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per excellent ponits above. Thanks for proving me wrong. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Boleyn, not many editors withdraw their nom when it becomes obvious that improvements and points for keep have been made. Most "fight on" until people are bickering and tiring of the discussion. Appreciate your principled editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1. While I don't think the nom was necessary, I appreciate your comment and willingness to withdraw here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:51, 28 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! 23:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UCCU Crosstown Clash[edit]

UCCU Crosstown Clash (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 does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary outlets. Let'srun (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree that there are not secondary sources that have covered this rivalry, for example:
    - women's soccer
    noted as crosstown clash in headline, https://www.deseret.com/2017/9/23/20620085/uvu-soccer-wolverines-drop-uccu-crosstown-clash-to-byu-3-0
    noted as crosstown clash in headline, https://www.ksl.com/article/46394883/byu-pressure-too-much-for-wolverines-in-uccu-crosstown-clash
    noted as crosstown rival in story, https://www.ksl.com/article/50722528/baileys-brace-powers-no-7-byu-womens-soccer-to-6-1-win-over-utah-valley
    - women's basketball
    noted as rival in story, https://kslsports.com/507606/byu-womens-basketball-lauren-gustin-utah-valley-game-recap/
    - men's basketball
    noted as rivalry in story, https://www.ksl.com/article/50534753/utah-valley-holds-byu-to-36-shooting-for-2nd-straight-win-over-cougars
    noted as crosstown clash in headline, https://kslsports.com/473875/utah-valley-upsets-no-12-byu-in-overtime-crosstown-clash/
    noted as rivalry in subheadline, https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/against-utah-valley-no-12-byu-faces-second-straight-rivalry-game/
    noted as crosstown rival in story, https://www.abc4.com/sports/utah-valley-upsets-byu-again-75-60/
    noted as rival school in story, https://news.yahoo.com/former-byu-guard-tanner-toolson-163057123.html
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeppsna (talk • contribs) 03:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, Basketball, and Utah. Let'srun (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources provided by Jeppsna above, in the order given: Local news (Deseret News, Salt Lake City), uses term "Crosstown Clash", but has nothing about rivalry, and has no in-depth coverage of a rivalry/clash, just highlights from a particular game. Local news (KSL-5 TV, in SLC), uses term "Crosstown Clash", but has nothing about rivalry, and has no in-depth coverage of a rivalry/clash, just stats on a particular game and lots of quotoids from coach and players. Local KSL again, does not use "Crosstown Clash", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just stats on a particular game. Local KSL again, , does not use "Crosstown Clash", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just stats on a particular game, and some discussion of a team's seasonal highlights. Local KSL again, does not use "Crosstown Clash", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just highlights from one game, and some player and coach interview material; this one is of more interest than the others because it quotes a player saying "rivaly". Local KSL yet again, uses term "Crosstown Clash", does not mention rivaly, and has no in-depth coverage of clash/rivalry, just highlights from one game. At last, a non-local source (CBS Sports): does not use "Crosstown Clash", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just stats on a particular game, does quote a coach using the term "rivalry". More local news (ABC4 TV, Provo, Utah), does not use "Crosstown Clash", does claim rivalry, but there is no in-depth coverage of rivalry, just highlights from one game. Finally, Yahoo! News source that looked like it could have been national, but nope, it's Deseret News again being republished; does not use "Crosstown Clash" and does not mention a sports rivalry, but uses the term "rival" in a different sense (of schools in the same area competing for enrollees).
    The other sources already cited in the article are similarly weak. I can do a run-down of them like the above if anyone really wants it. The short versions is they are either all local news, or are organizational sites being cited for material unrelated to a rivalry, and none of them provide in-depth coverage of the rivalry as such. The closest to this is this one, which covers a three-game series. Another is almost in the ballpark; it's regional coverage and compares the writer's personal experience of two "Clash" games five years apart, but is really about him and the particulars of the two games, not about "the rivalry".
    What we can gather from all the source material is this: There is a manufactured "sports rivalry" between these schools, consisting of a series of non-league (exhibition) games sponsored by a local credit union. Locally it is sometimes (but not consistently) called "Crosstown Clash" (this may actually be an official name provided by the sponsor; that's not really clear). One national-level source (not using the "Crosstown Clash" name for it), has said there is such a rivalry. But there is no in-depth coverage of the rivalry, even in the local news. The near-total lack of any significant national coverage indicates this is a local-interest matter. Ergo, this is not an encyclopedically WP:Notable topic and cannot have its own article. Some of the material should probably be merged in WP:SUMMARY style into the school articles under their athletics sections.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some info should be included in the school program articles, but given SMcCandlish's analysis the sources don't indicate the notability required for a standalone article. funplussmart (talk) 06:15, 29 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 23:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Esquires[edit]

Bedford Esquires (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)

Some local coverage, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I found an article about it on the BBC but that is far from the three required since the article itself has MySpace as its only secondary "website" (I dont use MySpace so I cant tell if it is truly a secondary source, but I doubt it matters) ✶Mitch199811✶ 21:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly tour dates popping up, minimal coverage of the pub itself Mach61 (talk) 03:35, 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 keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burrows Court[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Khan Tower[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete This why we have WP:NOTCRYSTAL, as I see no evidence, eight yeas later, that this building was even started, much less that it will ever be completed to specs. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1010 Mass[edit]

1010 Mass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 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 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 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

375 Hudson Street[edit]

375 Hudson Street (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 is an existing building, and some sources mention it, but not showing significance. Has been in CAT:NN for over 2 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 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 redirect‎ to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters with the option of merging encyclopedic content. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Chambler[edit]

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

Non notable Walking Dead character. The biography is just WP:fancruft, the devolopement section is just episode reviews which I feel is boarderline WP:REFBOMBING, I went looking for sources to add and all I found was casting news, interviews, and things reiterating said interveiws Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should the page redirect to the actress's page and not the cahracter list? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect to the character article, per WP:ATD. It doesn't make sense to combine fiction with the real actress. Those topics overlap, but are clearly different. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:53, 1 December 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 The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. There isn't clear consensus on whether there is merge-worthy content, but this discussion does not preclude moving some content to the target. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noah (The Walking Dead)[edit]

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

Non notable Walking Dead character. The biography is just WP:fancruft, the devolopement section is just episode reviews which I feel is boarderline WP:REFBOMBING, I went looking for sources to add and all I found was casting news, interviews, and things reiterating said interveiws. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:33, 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 merge‎ to KKJB. Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KIWB-LD[edit]

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

Non-notable LPTV; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:52, 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. ✗plicit 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Mandarich[edit]

David D. Mandarich (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)

Creator contested BLPPROD by Fram. I am seeing nothing to show that this individual is notable on their own, all I can see is PR from the company or profiles, no significant coverage of the individual in reliable sources. Schminnte [talk to me] 18:15, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23rd Street viaduct[edit]

23rd Street viaduct (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 has mentions, but doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for over 3 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to West Bottoms, as a feature of that neighborhood. BD2412 T 18:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing !vote due to improvements. No longer a clear case for merging. BD2412 T 15:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even knowing that it was constructed by Kansas City Structural Steel Inc. I could not turn up even a basic source for, say, the construction date or structural type. I cannot find any in-depth documentation of this bridge. The Topeka one by the same name, some. Uncle G (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G The bridge seems like it was built before one of the approaches was ready. It's a little hard to trace. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just dumped 17 references into this from Kansas City newspapers, and someone a bit more familiar with this area will probably do a better job than I did. Note: "West Kansas Avenue Bridge" is another structure (also in need of article help). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep excellent work by Sammie Brie in expanding the article. Garuda3 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Good work, Sammi. @Boleyn and BD2412: opinions on Sammi's sources? Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 06:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, it seems a bit WP:ROUTINE for reporting on the lifespan of a bridge, but the fact that there was at least one reported dispute about its intended use shifts me out of thinking that this is a clear case for merging. BD2412 T 15:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a case of WP:HEY. Seems to meet WP:GNG now. Great work by Sammi in improving the article. S5A-0043Talk 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources added show this easily meets the GNG. Great work by all improving this one. Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 28 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 Taian Dao[edit]

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

I am aware I may be missing sources through not reading in other languages, but I couldn't find sources to show this building is notable. Has been in CAT:NN for two and a half years. Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 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. While I note Cunard's submission of five sources for consideration, all other contributions - including those subsequent to this submission - are aligned for deletion. Consensus exists to delete here. Daniel (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Paranormal Journey:Into the Unknown[edit]

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

An article created by an WP:SPA on a show that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. The article has a heavy promotional tone, but even beyond that, it does not appear to be notable at all. Despite the lofty claims that is "took the media by storm", the only coverage included in the article is from local news coverage from the area the production was from, and several non-reliable sources. Searches turned up no kind of coverage in actual reliable sources, or any kind of reviews. The four episodes listed also seem to be the only four that were produced and released, so it seems doubtful that any new coverage will come in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Paranormal, and Kentucky. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage that enables it to pass GNG, it's WP:TOOSOON for mainspace article, it appears to have been cancelled in 2017 after 4 episodes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only one of the sources cited (the first one) appears to be independent RS. Too much junk comes up when I try to find more secondary coverage. One name-check in local media does not suffice for passing WP:GNG. And while I know it's not a guideline for deletion, the article is incompetently-written and barely grammatical, clearly not the work of someone here to build an encyclopedia; likely a SPA as the nom suggested. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Thornburg, Kate (2018-05-08). "Amazon Prime Paranormal Show Films at Winchester Café". The News-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25.

      The article notes: "... Season 3 of the Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown. The Amazon Prime original program is hosted by Gavin Kelly and Paula Purcell and filmed overnight on April 28, 2018 at the Para Café. The show premiered as a new original series on October 31, 2017 and is a non-staged, non-scripted program with no camera tricks, just real paranormal investigations following Kelly and Purcell as they investigate haunted asylums, jails, battlefields, and museums along with many other locations around the country. Kelly and Purcell look for the most haunted locations in the United States to investigate and collect evidence using video, photography, and EVP’s (electronic voice phenomenon). They specifically work to debunk so-called hauntings and to collect the data needed to prove whether or not the locations they visit are truly haunted or not. Their investigative process combined with Purcell’s research into the history of the locations, the team’s scientific methods, and completely unscripted format make the program stand out amid the plethora of seemingly similar shows that have gained in popularity in recent years."

    2. Carver, Hannah (2018-06-07). "Is Benton Farm haunted? Paranormal investigators say maybe; show to air on Amazon TV next year". NKyTribune. Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25.

      The article notes: "Delving into the some of the world’s most mysterious phenomena, the crew from “The Paranormal Journey:  Into the Unknown” will feature the Benton Farmhouse in its season three. The show, which first aired on Amazon TV on Halloween of 2017, features Gavin Kelly, Paula Purcell, and their team. Together they work to explore reportedly haunted locations, seeking proof of the existence of life after death. ... The second season of “The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown” will air this fall.  The episode at Benton Farms is scheduled for the third season, which comes out October 31, 2019."

    3. Longworth, Michele (2017-10-26). "Quest for the paranormal at the Massac County Courthouse". Metropolis Planet. Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25.

      The article notes: "Paducah paranormal investigators’ show premieres Oct. 31 on Amazon Prime. ... After their brief visit, the two decided they wanted to go back to film an episode of their show Paranormal Journey Into the Unknown. ... Both Kelly and Purcell have taped six episodes of their show, which will air on Amazon Prime beginning Tuesday, Oct. 31. According to Kelly, the original series on Amazon Prime is “testing the waters.” Netflix has already indicated if their show receives good ratings on Amazon, Netflix might also pick up their shows."

    4. Hughes, Pat (2017-09-06). "Hartford City's haunted will be in new Amazon series". Hartford City News Times. Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25.

      The article notes: "Paranormal host Gavin Kelly and historian Paula Purcell are teaming up for Amazon’s Prime’s new paranormal television series “Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown.” The series’ second season is set to air in February and will feature Hartford City’s Monroe House, the old Hartford City Jail and the Speak Easy in different segments of the show."

    5. Camp, Jodi (2019-04-11). "Amazon TV series paranormal team investigates Octagon Hall". Franklin Favorite. Archived from the original on 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2023-11-25 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Last month, the paranormal show “The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown” through Amazon, visited Octagon Hall, the historical and paranormal antebellum house in Simpson County. ... The shows season one is already available on Amazon with season two coming out at the end of 2019 and season three available in March 2020."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm really not convinced by these sources, because they are, like the one I mentioned in my nomination, from extremely local papers just reporting on the areas the show filmed in. Not only that, a lot of these contain information that seems wildly inaccurate, referring to seasons and episodes that as far as I can find, never actually existed. (Honestly, I can't even find any evidence that the show was ever actually shown on "Amazon Prime", as stated in several of the articles here, and not just available to purchase via Amazon's digital store as they are now). The niche coverage of these publications, and the fact that several of them are reporting on episodes that were never actually made, make me extremely dubious that these would satisfy the notability requirements for this show. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Doing a quick comparison, only one of the locations mentioned in the local papers above was actually made into an episode of the show. It seems like these two went to a bunch of places to film footage, told the local papers about their lofty (and seemingly exaggerated) plans of creating a multi-season series that would feature their town/county, and got a little write up about these supposed future episodes in the local papers that never actually happened. It seems a lot of the information the papers were reporting on were just what the duo that made the series told them, which has proven to be largely be untrue. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears they were still filming episodes when the series was cancelled, or the distribution deal fell through, or something happened that made it impossible to continue. The fact we can't find any industry coverage containing details about the show means it wasn't considered notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sources consistently say that The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown was shown on Amazon Prime. This Amazon Prime searcharchive.today for the show clearly lists The Paranormal Journey: Into the Unknown as an Amazon Prime show. It aired for one season and had four episodes.

    The Paranormal Journey has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in Indiana and Kentucky newspapers. The News-Gazette provided detailed analysis about the show, "Their investigative process combined with Purcell's research into the history of the locations, the team’s scientific methods, and completely unscripted format make the program stand out amid the plethora of seemingly similar shows that have gained in popularity in recent years."

    The show meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline through the significant coverage in reliable sources. The notability guideline does not exclude sources that are based out of cities where the show did filming. The notability guideline does not say that the show's cancellation (and whether sources covered the cancellation) takes away from the show's notability.

    The sources are not inaccurate. They discuss how the show filmed future episodes and was planning to air future seasons. That those episodes did not air makes the information in the articles overtaken by later events rather than factually inaccurate.

    Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - That Prime Search is what I meant though - its not a "Amazon Prime Show" in the sense that it was produced by Amazon Prime the way The Boys (TV series) is. It is just available for digital purchase on the Amazon Prime service the way that every other show and movie available on VOD for purchase or rental through Amazon is. That's a bit of a different beast. Rorshacma (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Amazon Prime search lists the show, while The News-Gazette calls it an "Amazon Prime original program". No source or anything I've found contradicts this statement. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The phrase "Amazon Prime original program" merely refers to any program offered first on Amazon's streaming service, whether produced by Amazon Studios or from an outside source. Amazon owns IMDb. Amazon Studios is not listed as one of the producers of The Paranormal Journey:Into the Unknown on IMDb because it is not an Amazon production and if it was, the media coverage would be national and much more than local. 5Q5|✉ 12:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The points of WP:NFOE, the specific notability guideline for movies, are all indiviually not met:
  • The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. - Such did not turn up.
  • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. - Dates range only from 2017-2019.
  • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release - Dates range only from 2017-2019.
  • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - Such did not turn up.
  • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. - Such did not turn up.
  • The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. - Such did not turn up.
  • The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - Such did not turn up.
  • The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. - Such did not turn up.

Finally, as for the other notability guidelines, the sources are clearly WP:ROUTINE. They only talk about the release of the movie. There are no high-profile reviews or retrospectives. They are of local interest, written in relation to the movie filming coming to their town/county and so perhaps not even qualify as WP:INDEPENDENT. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:10, 2 December 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 23:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel DeWeldon[edit]

Daniel DeWeldon (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:NACTOR SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Absolutely no indication that this person is notable. To be honest, I'm surprised this wasn't speedied. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NACTOR. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 00:38, 29 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 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Das[edit]

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

Not Notable enough for its own article. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - will set a terrible precedent for one-film character articles. Not notable. Neutral Fan (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    His backstory is not revealed yet that's why he seems like a one film character. 2600:1700:78E2:9010:7131:909A:C27:2A39 (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a great prospect when only one of the cited sources seemed to have any coverage of the character, as "Leo" was mostly used to refer to the film as a whole instead of the specific character. While the character is mentioned in sources that discussed the plot of the film, that does not seem to make the subject notable considering how many articles about characters that have received the same type of coverage were not kept in the end. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not need as a character . Monhiroe (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All this is available at Leo. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no separate notability from the fiction, where it is already covered in a more proportional way. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough to create a separate character article. Pinakpani (talk) 07:53, 1 December 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 Shillelagh. I'm closing this as Merge despite a recent argument against it but editors can choose to merge a lot to absolutely no content from one article to the target article before turning the page into a Redirect. Plus the consensus supports a Merge closure. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bataireacht[edit]

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

I get only 24,000 ghits for "Bataireacht", which seems inordinately small for a supposed martial art with different familial styles passed down "from father to son through the generations". A remarkable number of those hits seem to include the words "making a comeback", and all date to October 2022.

The article is extremely poorly referenced, and I'm almost in agreement with others on the Talk page that it's little more than a hoax. Much seems to have been written by JohnWHurley - who seems to also be the author of The Shillelagh Makers Handbook and Shillelagh: The Irish Fighting Stick, two books - both self-published - which had been the main references, along with a blog, irishstick.wordpress.com. A breach of WP:NOADS and WP:COI. Hurley also appears to have edited with another account, Shillelaghman123 - see history of Irish martial arts. There is only a single reference dating from the 21st century, and three of the seven references, total, are about the word "shillelagh", not the article subject. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing this BBC article, this book from 2001, and this paper without much effort. Whilst I hear the problem with COI editing, it seems to me highly likely that sources exist that meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for some reason the BBC weblink is not working, I haven't seen that before - no idea why. JMWt (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt. It's because you've got pipes in those links. EL format is [https://www.bbc.com/ BBC article] rather than [https://www.bbc.com/| BBC article]. Guliolopez (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've fixed. And sorry for messing it up.. JMWt (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's that October 2022 BBC Travel article that seems to have been widely copied and used as the basis for dozens of other article over the next few weeks. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's an RS. The other two sources I linked to above are nothing to do with the BBC article and were published beforehand JMWt (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks to just pass GNG. --MartyTheArty (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you expand a little please? Otherwise your contribution looks, for all the world, like a verbatim example from WP:ATA (WP:ITSNOTABLE)? Guliolopez (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the solid refs JMWt found about this Irish martial art. Of course the Irish know how to fight -- I could have told you that! JMWt, can you add those refs to the article? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done but article needs further tidying and the refs might not be in the best place JMWt (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt, you've certainly done more than I do during an Afd. I just stick new refs I find at the bottom then put a {{Inline}} template at the top. So thank you very much! ::--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the Irish know how to fight? I guess we do? In the 1700s and 1800s, it was with pikes. In the 1900s, it was rifles, car bombs, and Semtex. In the 2000s, it's been handguns, pipe bombs and, well, just knives. It's never been shillelaghs. As a martial art. Secretly handed down from father to son, lost, and now resurrected via... /checks notes... newspaper and magazine articles, and court documents... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun, I apologize for thoughtlessly insulting you and slandering the Irish people. On this side of the Atlantic, "Fighting Irish" is just a cheerful meme - the Notre Dame Fighting Irish or even the names of my predominantly Irish-American Catholic parochial school's teams. It was clueless and insensitive to overlook the real pain the people of Ireland have experienced.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shillelagh as suggested by others. I still believe this topic is notable but it's more appropriate to include this material in the other article. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: When you're looking for references, you can't just search for a term and throw it into the article, hoping it sticks. Please also AGF and give me some credit for having already done WP:BEFORE. The BBC Travel article is dubious, but I'll leave it. However, I've removed the Historical Archaeology reference. It makes literally one mention of "bataireacht", says what it is supposed to be, and that's cited to Hurley's 2007 self-published book - which isn't a reliable source. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me. The BBC article is a Reliable Source. A published academic paper on the topic is a Reliable Source. A book published on the topic is a Reliable Source.
    If you've got issues with these, the correct way to deal with them is to discuss it on the page or on WP:RSN. The wrong thing to do is to start a fight because people are adding sources that you don't happen to like. The whole purpose of the WP:GNG and WP:RS is that we reflect how other sources have treated the subject not that we make the page say whatever we want it to say. The fact is that independent third party reliable sources have covered the topic. JMWt (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not starting a fight, I'm pointing out that a 24-page academic paper mentions the term "bataireacht" once, and uses a citation for that inclusion that goes back to Hurley's self-published book. Maybe self-published books by people trying to create a mystique or pseudo-history around a (re?)invented martial art are deemed reliable by that journal's editorial board, but they're not RS by Wikipedia standards. (See WP:SPS) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contining to argue with you in two venues. A published paper is a Reliable Source. I understand that you think the topic is a fake, but ultimately it isn't up to you. We reflect the published sources. The end. JMWt (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I'm (currently) slow to make a recommendation on the veracity or notability of the topic, I would note that it is absolutely the case that this article was created by the same person who wrote the main book/works on which it is based. (I refer, for consideration, this exchange from 15 years ago.) That the secondary sources (Hurley's book) and tertiary sources (the BBC piece) and this Wikipedia article are somewhat "self-referencing"/"self-supporting" (cyclical) is pretty clear. I mean, Hurley started this article at the same time he was writing his book(s). This, IMO, raises at least a few WP:NEO concerns. If this article is retained as a standalone topic, the WP:CFORK overlaps with (not least) the shillelagh article would ideally be addressed... Guliolopez (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to Shillelagh might be an option. Interesting that the BBC article used on that page doesn't use the word bataireacht once, and a practitioner acknowledges "most people think it is a joke." :-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like you are merging two different complaints here. First there are the COI issues which are not a reason to delete - and frankly would only affect the 'history' section given there are plenty of people and a good number of sources now to say it is a thing (even if someone recently made it all up). Even there, I think it is a weak argument as I've independently found sources going back to the 19 century regarding rules for Shillelagh fighting. Then there's the issue about the name - which again seems like a non-starter as a) it is Irish for 'stick fighting' and b) we have recent sources that use the word. Third there is the question of WP:CFORK which would appear to be fairly easily solved by participants in the pages, given that Shillelagh appears to refer to the stick and this page appears to refer to movements in the fight. In essence, I don't accept your premise. Someone wrote a book and other people quoted and included the book as a source for other media - ok. That's how it works - it has been noted in other media. Even if the original was made up or exaggerated, it can't now be a fake given that we have sources showing people doing it. An investigation as to whether all the people interviewed in all the sources (including some others I've found but not included) are actors for the journalists concerned is clearly outwith of the role of Wikipedia editors. And to be honest, even if it is all fake, even that's not a reason to delete the page. Write a book with your extensive research showing how it is all a load of bunk and then we can include it as a source. JMWt (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shillelagh#History. I've stayed on the fence a bit. Mainly to give myself time to read and consider the comments from those advocating a "keep" (and to review the sources noted in those !votes - such as the this BBC article, the passing mention in this book, and single mention in this paper). And, having reviewed, I'm not seeing that the subject has significant independent coverage to warrant a standalone article. Certainly those 3x sources are not what I'd call WP:SIGNFICIANTCOVERAGE. In all honesty it seems that the term itself is something of a WP:NEOLOGISM - not having much use beyond the works of the same person who wrote the article. And the topic (fighting with sticks in Ireland) inexorably overlaps with the topic of fighting with sticks generally (already its own article) and the topic of fighting sticks in Ireland (already its own article). The modern resurgent/reinvention practice, as discussed in the BBC article for example, could readily be covered in the Shillelagh#History or Shillelagh#Modern usage sections. And wouldn't seem to be subject of sufficient coverage to warrant a stand-along article (not based on the limited coverage at any rate....) Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shillelagh, various sections, mostly History - as above, and my own searches. The term does seem to be a neologism, and that's after I trawled through some 19th century materials, and it is not at all clear that there was any structured sport of that name, or even in that area. Rather it looks like a freshly-defined structuring of something people did, with a label attached. Some passed down within some families, including a branch of the Doyles (one of the 10 largest name groups in Ireland, but only one small branch, in Canada, claims this carrying of this martial art) and the mentioned scholar, Hurley. In such an event, and with apparent sources in fact apparently mostly echoing one BBC item, and a couple of self-published books, we may be WP:TOOSOON - perhaps some day, this will be a full-scale sport. After all, whatever about ancient hurling, Gaelic football, now massive, was largely developed as a formal sport in the relatively recent past. But for now, Merge... Unless someone can get hold of the books by Hurley, and follow up their underlying references, if available. SeoR (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I got hold of one of Hurley's books as an e-book, and I have to say, it's well-referenced, from a range of sources (mostly not academic, but still...). Its focus is on "Irish stick fighting" and it makes a convincing case that by, at latest, the 16th century, there were several structured styles of stick-fighting used by Irish practitioners, many at least part-based on fencing forms. I remain of the opinion that this article should be merged into Shillelagh, but I do see grounds for a solid section in that article on "Irish stick fighting". One positive in reading the book was that the author himself is quite clear that much of modern martial arts "history" is dubious, and that there is little real evidence for widespread survival of any legacy Irish stick fighting forms - but his historical survey is persuasive, and while attempts at reconstructing 16th-18th century fighting styles are of course somewhat speculative, there is a clear basis present. SeoR (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As an Irish former university history student, this looks doubtful. Admittedly, my view may be based on cavities in my studies, however it's also true that this apparent neologism does not robustly pass the smell test. If bataireacht was a genuine thing, it has an extremely low profile in modern folk memory, to the point of obscurity.
The claims of recent practice in the Modern practice section are entirely unverified by any references. Franky, I don't believe them.
It has been suggested that the article be merged with shillelagh. If consensus emerges to keep it, it could with equal validity be merged into the singlestick article.
Proceed with caution: the bataireacht proposal has a case to prove to justify the article's survival. Spideog (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shillelagh, per Guliolopez and SeoR, rather than my original proposal to delete. Merging seems the better option, and if 'bataireacht' does become more prominent at some future point, it can be split. (I've struck my earlier Merge comment, so as not to be double-counted). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see what earlier participants who supported Keeping this article think of the Merge suggestion to Shillelagh.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: also a one paragraph discussion here [21], seems to at least be a "thing". Should be just barely at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect that that Sun piece was researched by reading Wikipedia, and this is more circularity. Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a totally inside-out way to approach a topic! We don't have the Irish faction fights, which is exhaustively covered in sources that (a) mention that it was done with far more than sticks and (b) don't describe it as a martial art, but we do have this? Based upon a thesis propounded via Lulu.com books? The subject of the Irish faction fights makes up the meat of this article, even before it was recently pared down. One of the books even cited here is about the faction fights, and it has been carefully cherry picked to be about sticks (and not give a page number), since the book goes on to talk about swords, spears, sawn-off shotguns, and robbing soldiers for their weaponry in the Caravat and Shanavest fights (on page 88). This has been copied and pasted into Irish martial arts as well. So much effort put into a single author's 21st century re-invention and self-publication using Lulu.com and Wikipedia, and no effort into the things that are in the history books. Yes, this should redirect, as above, and a lot of this seems to be misrepresenting the faction fight sources, so I don't support a merger of the content. Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 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. I find the arguments of Vaticidalprophet and Beccaynr the most persuasive within the framework, but more importantly the spirit, of our BLP policy here. Daniel (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Xiaoqin[edit]

Fan Xiaoqin (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 subject is a child with low cognitive ability who appears to have been exploited. WP:AVOIDVICTIM says "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." BLP also says "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

Please see further discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Fan_Xiaoqin Fences&Windows 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Disability, Entertainment, and China. Fences&Windows 20:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've not verified the sources presented, but agree with the rationale above. I'm not !voting until I can have a better look at the article think through this. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to write this up after an exam -- I see I got sniped. There is an excruciatingly complex situation here. "Article about a minor" is hard. "Article about a cognitively disabled subject" is hard. "Article where most of the sources are in a language extremely unlike English" is hard. We have all three here.
    Explaining the going-ons here in full requires some jargon, and it's jargon originally written in Chinese, if that wasn't hard enough. Per The Paper, Fan has been diagnosed with 智力残疾二级. 智力残疾 is intellectual disability -- see this factsheet, written for Chinese speakers living in Australia, for a Rosetta Stone here. 智力残疾二级 is, specifically, severe intellectual disability. See this health-services page from Guangming, Shenzhen -- even if your Chinese is weak, Chinese numerals are fairly simple, and the IQs are given in Arabic numerals, so you can see that 智力残疾二级 corresponds to an IQ from 20 to 34, which is the same thing called severe ID in English. The term "intellectual disability" is not recognized by all readers (I often hear people assume it's roughly synonymous with "developmental disability" and includes e.g. autism), so this needs a little more context again. Here is an open-access clinical primer on ID. To quote the definition of severe ID:

The measured IQ of persons with severe ID falls between 20–25 and 35–40. In addition to severe deficit in intellectual functioning, persons with severe ID may also have motor impairments and other associated conditions that further limit intellectual and adaptive functioning. Persons with severe ID function at mental age between 3 and 5 years as adults. Persons with severe ID need extensive, regular, consistent, and lifetime support in daily living activities, and are care dependent.

Persons with severe ID have significantly limited language and communication ability. They have significant limitations in spoken language; communication may be limited to use of single words or phrases. Their communication ability may be improved with use of augmentative communication methods. They often use gestures to communicate basic needs. Persons with severe ID have significant limitations in understanding concepts of numbers, quantity, time, management of money and problem solving. The social interactions and relationships for persons with severe ID are largely limited to immediate family members and care takers.

A person with severe ID requires intensive support in all activities of daily living including self-care and personal hygiene. They are not able to make sound judgments or decisions that may affect the wellbeing of self or others and require constant supervision.

Assuming The Paper is correctly reporting on his diagnosis, we're talking about an extreme level of impairment. I can't think of any other article where I've had to tease out a situation this complex. This is a significantly disabled 15-year-old who was transiently famous as a child in a non-English-speaking country because his father thought it was the only way to get the family out of poverty. There is a borderline case for notability, but it's trumped by the extreme complexity and sensitivity of the situation. From an ethical point of view, I can only land at delete here -- I think BLP trumps GNG on this one. Vaticidalprophet 21:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand this is a delicate situation. But I do not see how this Wikipedia article does him harm. I sourced my information from publicly available, high traffic sources. His family cooperated with interviews, indicating they are fine with the public attention.

If anything, I believe deleting this article is harmful (though I believe this nom is good-faith). We did not remove the article on George Floyd because he didn't want to be shot. If we *did* remove it, it arguably would have allowed the incident to be swept under the rug and the cop to avoid public responsibility after his conviction. We would be harming the victim.

Similarly, here, we just need to make it abundantly clear that he did not *choose* to become famous. He was exploited by a greedy businessman.

I am aware that he is subject to the BLP policy, and is not become famous out of his own volition. But that did not stop us from publishing articles on people like Jacob Blake, Abby Zwerner, Terri Schiavo or Rodney King while they are/were still alive.

Controversy should be a sign to tread lightly, but not to sweep things under the rug. When we see something difficult (such as Donald Trump or even Star Trek Into Darkness), we should not shy away, but instead work together to improve the article.

We are rightfully concerned about the consequences of him having a page. But what about the consequences of information about him being censored? I urge everyone to weigh both cost and benefit. Bremps... 23:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bremps, first, administrators delete dozens (hundreds?) of articles and pages daily because they are not consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is not censorship unless you consider a "Delete" closure for every AFD, a PROD deletion or CSD speedy deletion to be censorship. Secondly, if we do consider the suggestion you end your comment with, what is the benefit for Wikipedia to have this article? The costs are clear but what is to be gained? Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I don't mean "censorship" as in some sort of grand conspiracy by some cabal, but because I believe this subject is notable and is being removed because having an article on him doesn't "feel" right. I'm not implying any malice here.
The benefit is the same as any other Wikipedia article: informing the reader. Years from now, someone could be doing research on Fan and not be able to access sources that have become lost over time. If we make it clear that Fan himself had no agency in making himself become famous, then we'll have neutralized any potential harm this page has. Bremps... 00:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I can see both sides of the argument, but we should perhaps incorporate more of the discussion points above into the article (child appears to have been "used" by his parents to help them get out of poverty). There's a story here, so long as we're careful about how it's told, I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see some notability but overall the article makes me too uncomfortable. It talks about learning difficulties for the subject of the article plus details of the health, finances and education of various family members who are WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURES. And given the difficulties described by Vaticidalprophet above, I don't see that we can get this article into a state where it is consistent with WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Mgp28 (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think there are several reasons to delete this article, including because the subject is a sensationalized child, so there are initial WP:BLP policy issues and a need for high-quality sourcing. There also seems to be a focus on scandal mongering, which is contrary to WP:NOT policy, particularly for articles about living people, which are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. As to WP:AVOIDVICTIM, this section also seems to support deletion, and editing does not seem likely to alter the facts based on available sources; for example, while the article currently suggests "Fan remains a celebrity in Yanhui; tourists pay hundreds of yuan to film videos with him", the 2021 source (interviewed by Vice) does not describe him as a "celebrity" and instead describes what sounds like villagers mistreating a child. Beccaynr (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the arguments made by Vaticidalprophet and Beccaynr. There is an argument to be made for notability, but the BLP issues caused by the sensitive nature of the subject are too big IMO. ULPS (talk • contribs) 16:58, 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. based on recent sources brought to this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Sheng-yen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lu Sheng-yen (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. There is simply not enough coverage of this person in reliable sources, most sources being used in the article are primary. The article makes some grandiose statements about him, but none of them are reliably sourced (some were inserted by SPAs) so it's difficult to know how influential this person actually is in China/Taiwan. SparklyNights (t) 16:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Buddhism, China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. SparklyNights (t) 16:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idk yet. Dude gets news coverage. I got lots of hits on google news (four of which on the first page are from this year and setn.com, the RSness of which I'm uncertain about). Also got hits on google scholar from Buddhism sources. I'm on lunch so I don't really have time to read Chinese and assess whether the sources contribute to notability, but they're there. Hope to circle back this weekend. Folly Mox (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI Sources 33 and 36 are the only green ones per the source tool, looks like a whole bunch of iffy sourcing, but this is just my quick scan; I'll perhaps look later. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - this person has "references" largely because of the grandiose claims of primary sources. When the ones from the organization are removed, this article gets a lot thinner. I think this should either be deleted or merged into the True Buddha School article as a subsection. Kazamzam (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Tam, Wai Lun (2016). "The Tantric Teachings and Rituals of the True Buddha School: The Chinese Transformation of Vajrayāna Buddhism". In Gray, David B.; Overbey, Ryan Richard (eds.). Tantric Traditions in Transmission and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 309–313. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199763689.003.0009. ISBN 978-0-19-976368-9. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The True Buddha School has arisen out of the life and experience of Master Lu Sheng-Yen (盧勝彥, b. 1945). Born in Jiayi 嘉義 County, Taiwan, Master Lu is the author of more than 240 books, writing extensively on his own religious experience and cultivation. Lu received his tertiary education in a military college in Taiwan and was trained as a surveyor. He had a deep religious experience in 1969 that led him from his Presbyterian Christian upbringing to a period of seeking, studying, and learning Buddhism (Yao 1994; Tam 2001; Melton 2007). This period lasted for some twelve years during which time Master Lu began to openly accept disciples to teach them Buddhism. Near the end of this period, he also founded the True Buddha School (first known as the Lingxian 靈仙 School) and moved from his native Taiwan to the United States, a symbol of his intention to spread Buddhism internationally. ... Much in the same fashion, Master Lu was an onlooker in 1969 when he accompanied his mother to a temple where there was a medium serving the community. Master Lu was suddenly "possessed" and was given, without his prior consent, the ability to see and communicate with the spiritual world. After this miraculous encounter, Master Lu continued to receive the nocturnal visits of an invisible master who transmitted to him Daoist and Tantric teachings."

    2. Irons, Edward A. (2008). Melton, J. Gordon Melton (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York: Checkmark Books. Infobase. pp. 316–317. ISBN 978-0-8160-7744-1. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Master Lu Sheng-Yen, the founder of the True Buddha School, one of a small number of relatively new Taiwanese Buddhist groups that have emerged as international movements, was born in 1945 in Jiayi (or Chiai) in south central Taiwan. He attended Chun-Jen Polytechnic College in the 1960s and after completing his work joined the army. Lu was raised as a Presbyterian (the oldest Christian movement in Taiwan); however, in 1969, while visiting a Taiwanese temple, the Palace of the Jade Emperor, he encountered a medium named Qiandai, who was a member of a new Taiwanese group called the Compassion Society, based on worship of Xi Wangmu, the Royal Mother of the West, under the name Jinmu. During her presentation, Qiandai told Lu that the gods of the temple wished him to acknowledge them. Thrown into a state of confusion, he found himself able to communicate with the spirit world. Communications continued daily for the next three years. He also met a Daoist master who ..."

    3. Gray, David (2011). "Tibetan Lamas In Ethnic Chinese Communities And The Rise Of New Tibetan-Inspired Chinese Religions". In Orzech, Charles D.; Sørensen, Henrik H.; Payne, Richard K. (eds.). Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia. Leiden: Brill Publishers. p. 570–571. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004184916.i-1200.238. ISBN 978-90-04-18491-6. ISSN 0169-9520. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "One of the most successful self-proclaimed Chinese masters is Lu Sheng-yen 盧勝彥 (1945–present), who refers to himself as the “Living Buddha Lotus-Born” (Liansheng huo Fo 蓮生活佛), most likely in reference to the great founder of the Nying-ma (rnying ma) school of Tibetan Buddhism, Padmasambhava. He founded in Taiwan a new religious movement called the True Buddha School (Zhen Fo zong 真佛宗), which identifies itself as a Vajrayāna Buddhist tradition, although it also draws heavily from traditional Chinese popular religion, both Buddhist and Daoist. The school now has numerous temples throughout the world, with the majority founded in areas where there is a sizable Chinese community, such as Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, and North America. Lu Sheng-yen currently lives in Redmond, Washington, where the main temple of this school is based. He is a prolific author, and has written, according to one source, one hundred and ten works in Chinese, several of which have been translated into English."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lu Sheng-yen (traditional Chinese: 盧勝彥; simplified Chinese: 卢胜彦) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. S5A-0043Talk 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, sources given by Cunard appear reliable. JimRenge (talk) 20:09, 29 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. Star Mississippi 02:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMPDH RNA motif[edit]

IMPDH RNA motif (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:NBIOL and WP:GNG. No source besides one paper. Hongsy (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete. Published in 2017, it is possible this has been mentioned in other manuscripts under a different name, which might be identifiable via sequence searches or deep review of articles citing the paper supporting this stub. However, I believe that until a motif such as this has been confirmed in some way through experimental evidence, we shouldn't have an article about it. I looked and we do not have an appropriate list to add a mention to. Therefore, my !vote to either Delete or Draftify. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominating user cites WP:NBIOL. In fact, the text for WP:NBIOL states "RNA motifs: de facto notable? Subject of the recent AfD. Closest equivalent are protein motifs, though no database currently collates an equivalent to Rfam's RNA motifs." The IMPDH RNA motif is an RNA motif and is present in the Rfam Database, as shown in the Rfam infobox within its article. Therefore, previous discussion on Wikipedia that is relevant to this RNA motif tends towards regarding it as de facto notable. Is there a reason to revisit this question? Zashaw (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zashaw - yes, there is reason to revisit because the AfD discussion is 2 years old already. Hongsy (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I get the logic there. I expand on my question as follows.
Two years ago there was a big discussion about deletion of a similar page, which you link to ([22]). In that discussion, many editors argued in favor of deletion, as you do, while others argued against. Ultimately the result was to keep the article, and the line in the WP:NBIOL article that I quoted above was added based on the decision. As far as I can see, your deletion nomination would start a discussion that would essentially rehash the discussion from 2 years previously. This does not seem like an efficient use of Wikipedia editors' time.
My question is: when you nominated this article for deletion, did you have any new facts or arguments in mind that (1) were not available in the discussion 2 years ago and (2) are likely to lead to a different decision about the fate of the article? If not, I don't see a reason to revisit the text in WP:NBIOL. Zashaw (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: might it make sense to put a bunch of RNA motifs in a list? Notability is not required for list members; they just have to be reliably sourced. Here's a list I made of 177 RNA motif articles:
My sample list above is too basic to be useful, but it could potentially be expanded with more columns into something that conveys more information similar to:
I don't know if you'd want one big list or several smaller lists grouped by type of RNA motif. The list(s) would contain a mix of:
  • Notable RNA motifs with their blue links to their own articles containing additional information
  • Notable RNA motifs that don't have their own articles because there's nothing of interest beyond what's already listed
  • Non-notable RNA motifs that are reliably referenced
Such a list (or lists) could allow us to shrink our article count, provide the same information in more compact form and provide an alternative to deletion (WP:ATD) for non-notable RNA motif articles. 25, 50 or 100 articles are easier to maintain and watch than 177.
For example, if you found this article non-notable, you would just redirect it to the list article. Wikipedia would still have the same information.
Is this list idea feasible or is there just too much variety among RNA motifs? If it is feasible, is it desirable?
Caveat: I'm not a molecular biologist, just an editor who prefers lists over lots of stubs.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to distinguish between experimentally verified motifs and those that are predicted based on computational analysis alone, in my opinion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to alert areas of the project where there might be editors who have knowledge on this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since we're an encyclopaedia, not a global database, I would favour our having articles about RNA-motifs that have been written about by multiple authors, not just whoever proposed or discovered them. Databases can very properly include absolutely any publication of a motif because that's their job. Without any reflection on the current article up for debate, do we really want a guideline that tells us to keep articles on a motif that one person proposed on computational evidence, published in a minor journal, and which no one else ever looked at? Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've added some more of the motif's biology from a PhD thesis, so we now have an additional WP:RS. The motif certainly exists; it seems to have a definite regulatory function; and it seems to behave by a novel (and interesting) mechanism. I'd say this was definitely notable. More research can certainly be expected. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mashirima Kapombe[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show markers of significance such as noteworthy journalism awards, coverage and analysis about the significance of their work in sources other than their own employers, and on and so forth -- but this, as written, is of the "journalist who exists" variety, and is referenced entirely to primary source staff profiles and unreliable "career, marriage, education & net worth" sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 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 redirect‎ to John Albert Gardner#Murders aka original redirect and I'm going to protect it. Star Mississippi 02:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea King[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is regional music awards, which would be fine if the article were well-sourced but are in no way "inherently" notable enough to hand her an instant notability freebie without proper sourcing -- but the article is referenced almost entirely to bad sources that aren't support for notability, such as her songs being referenced to their own presence on Spotify, the regional awards being referenced to their own self-published websites about themselves rather than media coverage to demonstrate the notability of the awards, Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person, and promotional bumf on PR blogs -- there's only one source here (American Songwriter) that counts as a legitimately WP:GNG-contributing source, but that isn't enough to pass GNG all by itself.
It also warrants note that this is a newly created article that hijacked a redirect that already existed to represent a different person of the same name, which is not acceptable Wikipedia practice -- and for added bonus, the creator left the categories that represented the other Chelsea King on the finished article, so that this living musician was being categorized as a 2010 murder victim, and all of the inbound links to this title are still expecting the original murder victim. So, in all likelihood, the original redirect should really be restored: if and when the musician can actually be demonstrated and properly sourced as notable, an article can be created at a disambiguated title, and then we can reconsider who should be the primary topic and use page moves if necessary, but the creator is not entitled to arbitrarily commandeer a title that already represented somebody else without following Wikipedia's process for dealing with title conflicts.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore original redirect. even without the glaring sourcing issues, this article is a mess and would need a substantial rewrite to fix. Darling (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Massachusetts, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to the last version about the murder victim, as of 12 September 2023. For this singer, I don't think the situation is as dire as implied in the nomination, but she does not qualify for an article here per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTPROMOTION. One problem is that she has worked under several different names. She has a songwriting award/scholarship under her birth name Chelsea Gilliland ([23]), her early band The Harder We Fall got some minor social media notice, and her current band CHLSY has some reliable publications ([24], [25]) but they don't get too far beyond basic introductions. I can find no other reliable sources and the rest of this article is fairly desperate self-promotion and refbombs. In the future, it may be possible for the current band CHLSY to achieve notability, but if so the article should be titled after them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 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! 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Hussain Rizvi[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NPOL or WP:BIO. In a WP:BEFORE search I can find only passing mentions of him in English, and even less in Urdu. He's from a notable political family, so maybe someday he'll get elected to office, but until then notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikishovel (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is very famous in Pakistan. only being ignored from news because of political victimization by Government of Pakistan. Saad Arshad Butt (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there’s no reliable SIGCOV sources then he’s not notable. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very short article with no significant coverage, at least for now. HarukaAmaranth 春香 18:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inclined to agree here that WP:NINHERITED is applicable and as the premise of the article asserts the subject as a politician, he fails WP:NPOL. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 December 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 List of supermarket chains in Europe. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of supermarket chains in Belarus[edit]

List of supermarket chains in Belarus (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)

Medium-sized list, only one entry has an article, & 3 entries have a parent company article, if the individual entries are not notable then neither is the list. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Yriarte[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. While his list of works is not unimpressive, he still fails to pass the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable, furthermore, author appears to have written a large number of works and meriting of a page. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a sufficient argument to keep an article. More discussion required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: These can help [26], [27], [28], [29]. This [30]. He was a member of the Academie francaise [31] and his record in the Getty ULAN, bibliography at the bottom/sources [32].Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Critical study/biography here [33]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the sources found above, there's a brief entry in Benezit Dictionary of Artists, as well as mentions as a biographer in entries in Grove/Benezit for 3 artists. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 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 11:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Hays[edit]

Priya Hays (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)

Scientist with a particular low h-index. Potentially notable. scope_creepTalk 11:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, and Women. XOR'easter (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our article explains that she moved from research science to teaching and communication early in her career, explaining the low h-index but also putting WP:PROF out of reach. She has several published books but I didn't find any reviews that might give her notability through WP:AUTHOR. And when the best source is a student-newspaper article about how litigious they think the subject is, available only through archived copies, WP:GNG also seems a stretch — it is an independent source with in-depth coverage of the subject, but of questionable reliability for its material, and not really the sort of thing you want to base an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low H index and only 137 academic citations. I also agree with all that David Eppstein said.Royal88888 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Eppstein.There is nothing to suggest that the subject of the articles passes WP:NPROF.Shoerack (talk) 13:13, 30 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 11:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coppley Apparel Group[edit]

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

I don't believe there's enough significant coverage online to justify passing WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE turned up a couple of profiles on various company list sites, an obituary for the owner and one article about an exhibition: [34] Sgubaldo (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the username of the creator of this article is 'The Coppley Apparel Group' Sgubaldo (talk) 11:23, 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. ✗plicit 11:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Satwant Kaur[edit]

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 10:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There are too many identical names that come up in Gsearch or Scholar, I can't see that this particular individual is notable. Sourcing used in the article is primary or short biographical stubs. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
repeated comments from 2601:647:6680:9910:C8E1:E85D:4449:62BC
Comment - another example of a press release in the article is "Dr. Satwant Kaur Makes Technology Predictions for 2014", sourced to PR.com and attributed to Satwant Kaur Media. Beccaynr (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
repeated comments from 2601:647:6680:9910:C8E1:E85D:4449:62BC
  • Delete. I see little sign of WP:NPROF: The citation record is well short of WP:NPROF C1. The awards are all WP:MILL; the Intel awards I take the most seriously of those on the list in the article, but these awards appear to be internal ones for employees, and I don't think they meet WP:NPROF C2 (even if they could be reliably sourced). Little sign of the other NPROF criteria. I looked also for NAUTHOR, but my (cursory) search for reviews for the one book only found the same one as Beccaynr. I'm not seeing GNG. The article is in poor shape (promo, other problems), and the WP:TNT essay is relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse disruptive bludgeoning by Bmerrow. For reference, this is what the debate looked like prior to this being done. Daniel (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmerrow (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE:[reply]

  • Pat Gelsinger (intel's CEO) compared Dr. Satwant Kaur to Gordon Moore (Intel founder)
    in his foreword on her book "Transitioning Embedded Systems to Intelligent Environments "

"Satwant lays out both a vision and data on the key technologies for the future of the embedded world. She has moved from Gordon Moore's kitchen to a canvas where every aspect of the environment is part of, in some manner or another, the embedded Internet of the future."

-Pat Gelsinger, CEO, INTEL BOOK LINK: https://www.amazon.com/Transitioning-Embedded-Systems-Intelligent-Environments/dp/1490408444

  • DO NOT DELETE: Seismic Based Fracking Fluid Disposal -
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10883364
abstract of Dr. Satwant Kaur patent: Bmerrow (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE: Satwant Kaur Patents
  1. 1: Reduced interoperability validation sets for multi-feature products - US Patent 8539446
  2. 2: Automated top down process to minimize test configurations for multi-feature products - US Patent 8621426
  3. 3: Automated top down process to minimize test configurations for multi-feature products - Part II - US Patent 9189373
  4. 4: Method and system for correlating and determining root causes of system and enterprise events - US Patent App PCT/US2002/021376
  5. 5: Rh Incompatibility Detection - US Patent App 15308300
  6. 6: Generating Specifications for an Orthosis - US Patent 10799179
  7. 7: Radio Frequency Identification Capsule - US Patent 10115049
  8. 8: Detecting Vascular Conditions in Animal Bodies - US Patent App 15306048
  9. 9: Radio Frequency Identification Card Monitor - US Patent 10402608
  10. 10: Seismic Based Fracking Fluid Disposal - US Patent 10883364
  11. 11: Projections Determination for Column-based Databases - US Patent App 15510610
  12. 12: Vibration Notifications Received from Vibration Sensors - US Patent 10457303
  13. 13: Distress Signal Device - US Patent 10049561
  14. 14: Implantable Device for Detecting Light Correlating to Vessel Patency - US Patent App 15510840
  15. 15: Determining Power Difference in Sensor Signals - US Patent App 15539664
  16. 16: Detection of Allergen Exposure - US Patent App 15539620
  17. 17: Authentication of A User - US Patent App PCT/US2015/012895
  18. 18: Activating an Alarm if a Living Being Is Present in an Enclosed Space with Ambient Temperature Outside a Safe Temperature Range - US Patent App 16876748
  19. 19: Sensor Data - US Patent App 15574179
  20. 20: Traffic Management System - US Patent App 17091709
  21. 21: Data Validation - US Patent 10540225
  22. 22: Monitoring A Sensor Array - US Patent 10921154 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmerrow (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DO NOT DELETE [Satwant owns copyright for "First Lady Of Emerging Technologies"] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmerrow (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DO NOT DELETE: She is noted in the field of technology for mentorships of women scientists and executives.
    She was awarded Intel Women's Award for her work at Intel as a Platform Strategist. "Outstanding Women Award by Intel, 2009"
    I managed a large team and Satwant was far better than a majority of the men - her focus on delivering complex value to clients and ability to provide solutions clients could maintain was unique. Bmerrow (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DO NOT DELETE : I have the know-how. I was a Technology executive at CA technologies for decades.
    And my evaluation is her technology impact is NOTABLE. Bmerrow (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DO NOT DELETE: She is noted in the field of technology for mentorships of women scientists and executives.
    She was awarded Intel Women's Award for her work at Intel as a Platform Strategist. "Outstanding Women Award by Intel, 2009" Bmerrow (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DO NOT DELETE:

"If you delete First Lady Of Emerging Technologies" on Wikipedia. then: > You will provide everyone with the best evidence of: > Why technology is a racist field, where only men are allowed and noted? > She had 100+media appearances. > We all have daughters. Do we want them to be engineers or not? > Why should it not be obvious to anyone looking at her that she belongs in wikipedia? > Why should there be a second thought that she belongs there? > Unless we men are creating a racist field where only men are allowed. > This wikipedia deletion will close doors to all girls." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmerrow (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As written, this "article" is just an exercise in brand promotion. That would be reason enough to delete it. The other problem is that we don't have grounds upon which to rebuild the article after that. PR puff pieces can't be the foundation of a biography. The citation profile isn't substantial enough for WP:PROF#C1, none of the awards are comparable to an IEEE Fellowship (WP:PROF#C3), and like the editors above I can't find nearly enough in the way of book reviews to qualify for an WP:AUTHOR pass. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too much promotional puffery here, and not enough in-depth notice from the media. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Consider some light salting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article is self-promotional, and the subject fails notability guidelines. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per analyses by Beccaynr and Russ. The creator was also paid to create this article, FWIW.
JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 30 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. An aside, but it's a surprise to see this character called "supporting". Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Arbuckle[edit]

Jon Arbuckle (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)

Fictional supporting character from well-known comics. Reception in the article is limited to a blog listicle, development is a bit more serious with one sentence of relevance, that the character is "an author surrogate". My BEFORE shows passing mentions but no SIGCOV. I suggest per WP:ATD-R redirecting this to the List of Garfield characters, with perhaps some merger since his entry there is just a single line. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG here are some sources with SIGCOV [35][36][37][38] —siroχo 09:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, but which of those source has anything but passing mentions of the character? I see WP:SIGCOV failing all around. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not have access to the solrad.co (4th) one listed? If you did read it, I'd appreciate a more through rebuttal of its RSishness. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a large amount of SIGCOV in all 4 sources. Here are some examples, not exhaustive. Note that I make efforts not to risk copyvio, so I can't reproduce the entirety of the work here.
    1. Abate 2017 Inks:

      Of course, Garfield is not the only character in Davis’s strip who can be viewed as pessimistic and even depressive. This feature is arguably even more evident in Jon. To borrow some terminology from Yiddish, Jon is both a Schlemiel and a Schlimazel: he is unlucky, inept, and bumbling. In everything from his fashion sense, his interactions with women, and his own cat’s perception of him, Jon is hapless. As Jim Davis said of his character: “Jon Arbuckle is wishy-washy and a nerd.”26 Moreover, when it comes to romance, the cartoonist is even more blunt in his assessment, commenting: “Let’s face it, Jon’s not a stud, he’s a dating dud.”27

    2. Vosen, ed. Vanatta, 2012 Chuck Klosterman and Philosophy:

      Without Garfield, it is obvious how lonely and self-loathing the main human charac-ter, Jon Arbuckle, is. There is a reason the strip is named after the fat tabby he is the glue that holds Arbuckle together....
      After reading only a few of these strips, a reader can easily see the existential crisis Jon is in. If the cats aren't able to see how Garfield is the only thing stopping Jon from having a complete breakdown, they should at least be able to appreciate that Garfield's life is far less depressing than Jon's.

    3. Uidhir, 2013:

      In the Garfield comic, Garfield's owner Jon converses and regularly interacts in humorous ways with the titular cat. In Garfield Minus Garfield, there is no Garfield, only the character Jon. Garfield portrays Jon as a hapless but well-meaning character who attempts to control the antics of his mischievous cat, Garfield. In Garfield Minus Garfield, however, Jon is clearly both emotionally and mentally disturbed, terribly lonely, and depressed, and perhaps even psychotic (e.g., he always appears to talk to himself, is prone to outbursts for no apparent reason, or simply stares at the wall)

    4. Palevsky, 2021, Solrad, a majority of the piece is dedicated to the character, including an in-depth analysis of the character's faith. Here's a bit from the conclusion:

      Jon Arbuckle’s world is as narrow as the space between two of the panels that make up his life—and, to him, that space is as wide as all of God’s creation. His self-centeredness is so powerful, so precise in its focus, that it manages to disarm and overcome anything and anyone that might attempt to foil it. In Jon’s inevitable 264-page autobiographical graphic novel, he would surely present himself as a good man, and he would believe in this idea, as much as he would believe in his peace....

    —siroχo 04:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources brought up by Siroxo (+ the Grunge article) seem sufficient to me to establish notability. Interesting that a lot of light shed on the character by secondary is derived from Garfield Minus Garfield, and therefore an appearance of the character based on but beyond the original comics. Which is another reason not to redirect to List of Garfield characters. Daranios (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The additional popularity of the character in "Garfield Minus Garfield" has definitely put him over the edge to notability in my view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources above are enough to pass GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is an incredibly well known character. I'm suprised that a WP:BEFORE didnt bring up enough to deture this nom.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The current reception section in the article is terrible, but unlike most of the other characters in the Garfield franchise, Jon does appear to have enough coverage in sources that a decent article could be developed that goes beyond in-universe plot information and ref-bombing style cherry picked quotes. I think the sources provided above are sufficient for actually justifying having this one be its own article rather than just being covered in the List of Garfield characters. Rorshacma (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample coverage about this character. Dream Focus 10:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is convincing coverage to pass the WP:GNG. The article needs work, but deletion isn't appropriate here. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see the writing on the wall, but I'll dissent and not withdraw this, as I am not convinced the source stabilish notability for him separate from Garfield Minus Garfield. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 30 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. There is a clear current consensus for keep among participants of this discussion, and there is no prospect of the consensus changing. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhalgaon[edit]

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

I'm unable to locate any reliable references to this location. Terrickisaiah555 [T]/[C] 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Terrickisaiah555 [T]/[C] 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Listed as a village on the 2011 Indian Census, as the reference in the article says. So passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:GEOLAND is a bad guideline and this needs some WP:TNT so someone who knows something can create a decent article. This is likely a real place, but a line in a census isn't enough for a separate article. The only geographic claim is vague, unsourced, and as best I could check fails verification. GNS is very sketchy and I don't know what other source we would use to reliably source the location. I assume all these issues are going to be ignored and the article we be kept as-is, but really we need to stop keeping junk permastub articles just to satisfy a guideline which people complain about constantly. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether you think it's a "bad guideline" or not is irrelevant. It is one. Some people complain about it. Many people support it. A few of the usual suspects complaining about it every time it's mentioned doesn't mean it should be scrapped. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 15 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! 01:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "a line in a census isn't enough for a separate article". Actually, one line for a village in one of the Indian Census's spreadsheets carries a lot of information. Hundreds of columns. No prose but a lot of stats. You could get a pretty good 1-2 paragraph stub out of that one line. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:21, 17 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! 08:03, 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. I found those editors arguing to Keep this article more persuasive. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pernem railway station[edit]

Pernem railway station (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:NTRAINSTATION and WP:GNG. Train stations are not inherently notable unless they meet general or a subject specific notability guideline. Nothing special about this train station Nagol0929 (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A target would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It sounds like there are two different target articles being proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The line that it is on is Konkan Railway and that is very clearly the better target for merger, given that there are lots of things about the Konkan Railway that discuss its various stations together, in context, starting with Vaidya 2003 which has Pernem in the route description on page 300 for example. Amusingly, the entire "Location" section of the article at hand, which is a fair fraction of the entire article content, is about the line and not about the station. I wouldn't merge any of it, personally, though, because a lot of it appears to be Wikipedia editor speculation.

    Quite a lot of the stations on the Konkan Railway, including the next two stops along Thivim railway station and Karmali railway station, have these woeful articles, sourced only to the railway company's own rail listings. I suspect from a quick look around that there's enough sourcing out there to make articles for all of these, but no-one has been trying to write things properly for years. There might be enough on the multiple Pernem tunnel collapses to make this a fully-fledged article, for instance, and in that respect I lean towards keeping rather than merger. No need for the administrator deletion tool in either eventuality, though.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Vaidya, Balkrishna C. (2003). "Konkan Railway transport — a case study in regional development". In Vaidya, Balkrishna C. (ed.). Geography of Transport Development in India. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 294–314. ISBN 9788170229575.
  • Keep. Sufficient references available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Referencing in India can be a bit of challenge. Not a reson to delete or nominate all Indian railway stations. This one is relatively well referenced. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ong[edit]

Timothy Ong (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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Unable to verify awards. scope_creepTalk 07:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, a simple google search of this individual would show this person's notability and coverage. In addition to that of all the information stated within the article are sourced, as no personal research or information were even written into the article. In context to the awards, they have been sourced by several websites and books of publishers from varying organisations, educational institutions and books. He might not be a significantly importantly person internationally, but his influence in a regional level (Brunei and ASEAN) has been shown repeatedly with his meetings with notable people and organisations. Pangalau (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pangalau: Could you please post the best three references per WP:THREE which by consensus is best practice, so I can examine them to see if he is notable. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 12:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[39][40][41] Pangalau (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other folk will have a look at the article and references you post here to support its notability, as well. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 12:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeap, this is very much appreciated, thanks Pangalau (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first article listed in the three above is tangentially about this individual, talking about a power struggle. The other two are speaker bios, so non-useful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 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 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 03:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nabakhsh[edit]

Nabakhsh (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:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. Hongsy (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:41, 17 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! 07:15, 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 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 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karizan-e Sofla[edit]

Karizan-e Sofla (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:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:34, 17 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! 07:15, 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 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 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoseynabad-e Shageman[edit]

Hoseynabad-e Shageman (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:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:34, 17 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! 07:15, 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 redirect‎ to Hibernation (computing)#Linux. as WP:ATD (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TuxOnIce[edit]

TuxOnIce (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)

Agree with the hatnotes that there have been problems with this page for many years. Primarily there seem to be POV issues with the text and insufficient sourcing. In terms of notability, it doesn't seem that the level of coverage of in RS exists. Even if they do, the page needs WP:TNT to fix the issues JMWt (talk) 14:49, 10 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! 08:35, 17 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! 07:14, 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 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 03:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khasarehzad[edit]

Khasarehzad (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:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No english source, and Tageo is a database, not a source Hongsy (talk) 08:35, 17 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! 07:14, 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. ✗plicit 23:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gtech Mulearn[edit]

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

Lack of clear notability is evident, although the sources provided are not the worst. BoraVoro (talk) 17:26, 10 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! 08:35, 17 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! 07:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the cited sources is substantial coverage of Gtech Mulearn: they are just promotional announcements of product launches. Also this reference & this one are so similar, with substantial amounts of word-for word identical text and the rest closely paraphrased versions of essentially the same text, that there is no room for any doubt that they are two write-ups of the same press release, and likewise so are this one & this one. This one is full of language such as "... engage the talents in programming, product design, and product making, with the potential to build technology products that can tap the global market...": just blatant marketing material, not independent coverage. In summary, not a single one of the cited references is either substantial coverage of the subject or an independent source, let alone both of those, as needed to establish notability. JBW (talk) 22:12, 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 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 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mareh Khaneh Kharabeh[edit]

Mareh Khaneh Kharabeh (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:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No english source, and Tageo is a database.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:37, 17 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! 07:13, 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 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 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gol Gazabad[edit]

Gol Gazabad (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:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:42, 17 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! 07:13, 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 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 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kul Bazan-e Yek[edit]

Kul Bazan-e Yek (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:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:43, 17 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! 07:13, 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 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 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shenin Hoseyn[edit]

Shenin Hoseyn (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:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:44, 17 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! 07:13, 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 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 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeh Badi[edit]

Zeh Badi (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:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:44, 17 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! 07:12, 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 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 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurkaj[edit]

Kurkaj (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:GEOLAND and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs.

From WP:GEOLAND: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Hongsy (talk) 08:44, 17 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! 07:12, 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 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 03:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury Card[edit]

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

Fails GNG. All existing sources are either PR pieces or covering the trademark lawsuit, which should be in the Centurion Card article instead. Also article is created by a single-purpose account. NM 11:26, 17 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! 07:12, 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 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.

Editors have had two weeks now to improve this article or bring in new sources which hasn't happened. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Behrens[edit]

Stefan Behrens (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:NBASIC and GNG. Unable to find significant coverage across independent, reliable, sources via a BEFORE search. Rotten Tomatoes is not in-depth coverage, fails GNG. Tails Wx 14:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Tails Wx 14:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that there aren't many sources and documentation about him, but still he got articles in 5 other languages and contributed to a somewhat big number of films ([42]). I could therefore add a fimography part to his article and/or help translate the german article. Nyraxis (talk) 16:35, 17 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! 07:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The German wiki article only uses imdb and another site I'm not familiar with (but just has a list of films and a small blurb as a bio). Unless we can locate own-language sources, it should be deleted for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Osborne (singer)[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only music blogs, and the local news story cited here. He's worked with a few notable musicians, but on WP, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikishovel (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Wikishovel (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there is a music historian, Dr. Richard Osborne, I don't think it's this fellow... Delete for lack of sourcing. What's used in the article is orange or red per source tool. I can't any sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 05:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model[edit]

List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model (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)

Blatant POV fork/copy of a section of As a service, copied without attribution while discussion is ongoing at Talk:As a service. An inferior copy of Category:As a service, not notable in its own right. MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation and re-title as As a service (disambiguation) The list of links is notable and would be a great DAB page, and I don't find this to be a POV fork at all, as it's a simple list. It certainly doesn't need to be in grid form with abbreviations, though; the average reader can discern what it is just by reading. Nate • (chatter) 16:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This would not be an appropriate disambiguation page as the business models are not called "as a service" without a preceding term and are thus all WP:PTMs. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep as a separate list, or Merge into the main article As a service. We certainly do need to have a list showing the types of business that use the as a service business model. Since this list is longer than the article, it may make sense to keep it separate from the article. But an argument could be made that since the article is not very long to begin with, the list should be merged with the article. Either way works for me. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The 'as a service' topic is more than adequately covered in Cloud computing#Service models, which provides all the necessary context needed. There is no merit whatsoever in providing a list of whatever-as-a-service acronyms, given that the scope is more or less infinite, and the significance more often not existing only in the minds of those looking for marketing-speak to impress the less informed. It is jargon. New words for old ideas. Wikipedia is not a compendium of fashionable acronyms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more or less infinite? really? If that's the case, we have our work cut out for us. If you stop and think about it, that's actually a keep argument for a list article. Where is Matt? (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Convert to set index article or Merge into As a service. There isn't really ambiguity between the various types of "as a service" given their different names, so a DAB page wouldn't make much sense. A SIA would be appropriate if more details about the entries can be added. Otherwise, merging into the main article is also fine, but the list is actually better referenced and takes up more page space than the current main article, which would look a bit weird if merged. Liu1126 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where are the sources that discuss this topic as a group, as required by WP:LISTN, as opposed to merely analyzing one individual model? None have been provided either here or in the article itself. Also note that a discussion at Talk:As a service is developing a consensus to redirect that article elsewhere, which would complicate merging something to it. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the business model is inherit in the As a service article. Nonetheless, I added a reference to the list article to show the notability of the business model. If this reference is not sufficient, we can find others. Where is Matt? (talk) 13:13, 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! 00:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:59, 17 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, NotAGenious (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Pppery, who points out this fails WP:LISTN as no sources have been shown that treat this subject as a group. The source added in response to Pppery's comment merely describes what the model itself is and makes no attempt to provide any kind of notable list or grouping, so misunderstand's the objection. Fails WP:LISTN. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and convert/cleanup into a WP:SETINDEX. This serves a useful navigation function per WP:CLN/WP:AOAL, but it needs to be cleaned up.  // Timothy :: talk  07:00, 27 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 minor planet discoverers. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S. Cofré[edit]

S. Cofré (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)

Apart from the fact that she lived and discovered 11 asteroids in 1968, we know nothing about the subject of this BLP, not even her first name, when she was born and whether she is still alive. The three conditions set out in WP:BLP1E are not met: RSs cover the subject only in the context of that single event, she is likely to remain an WP:LPI, and the event and her role in it did not get persistent coverage in RSs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is not enough here to justify calling it notable. Even the Spanish version of the article is vague about most things. It says "es o fue" (is or was), making it clear that there is no (or insufficient) information about whether S. Cofré is still alive. I also wonder where the "her" came from: the Spanish article says nothing to indicate whether S. Cofré is a man or a woman. Athel cb (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As to whether she is (or was) indeed a woman, I managed to find this: Como particularidad cabe señalar que otra mujer, S.Cofre, es co-descubridora del planetoide ("Notably, another woman, S. Cofre, is a co-discoverer of the planetoid.", DeepL translation) [43]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good for you. I did some searching, both for her name on the web and on the Universidad de Chile website, but I didn't find that. On the other hand, something I failed to notice earlier, is that the Spanish article says "un astrónomo" suggesting a man, but although a woman biochemist would always be una bioquímica, not un bioquímico, I don't know if the same practice applies in astronomy. Athel cb (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the decision is to delete, then I recommend a redirect to List of minor planet discoverers where this person is already listed. Praemonitus (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems fine. Perhaps adding the name to the Women in Red list for the country would help, I've seen some pretty amazing stuff happen when people get digging for sources there... Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 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. Closing as there is a clear consensus to keep, given the submissions are unianimous. The only submission for delete has been changed to keep. There is no active discussion ongoing, with no reasonable prospect of the consensus changing. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Abeysuriya[edit]

Ravi Abeysuriya (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 does not WP:BIO Cossde (talk) 02:07, 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marit Sandvik[edit]

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

Not a notable person Ultra 348 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nomination should be procedurally closed unless you elaborate on why. Among others, the subject has won two awards. We can't have deletion nominations that are this sparse. Geschichte (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK edited.
  • @Ultra 348: Hi, do you want to withdraw your AfD nomination as you removed the AfD notice on the article with the edit summary 'Ok keep' and added a sentence to the article saying that she is notable for winning those awards? Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yes Ultra 348 (talk) 01:50, 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! 08:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Pokotylo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nikolai Pokotylo (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)

Unsourced biogaphy article which fails notability guidelines for musicians and biographies. I couldn't find notability guideline-passing sources from a BEFORE search, in American and Kazakh. Tails Wx 00:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_24

Leave a Reply