Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< October 29 October 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Foundation[edit]

Gaia Foundation (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)

Couldn't find anything to prove notability. Many databases prove the organizations existence, but there's no SIGCOV here. NotAGenious (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaia Foundation remains an important international environmental group operating out of London. It's Brazilian counterpart under Jose Luzenberger (Ex Minister for the environment) has played an important role in preservation of the Amazon, and the Australian counterpart was important in the preservation of the native forests of Western Australia, through the work of Vivienne Elanta.

Regards John Croft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.12.202.49 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an admirable goal for sure. But, we're looking at whether the company meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. NotAGenious (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: it's admirable, but not notable. Lambtron talk 04:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there's no indication of notability. Lambtron talk 04:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find anything which counts towards GNG. They definitely exist, and there are various mentions of their existence on e.g. the webpages of related charities, but I haven't found any in-depth independent coverage which counts for notability. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:54, 2 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 03:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Taylor (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jane Taylor (musician) (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 was deleted before and likely needs deleted again. The subjects claims to ANYBIO come from International Songwriting Competition and Independent Music Awards both of which are also probably not notable. If we eliminate those there is no claim of notability as the subject fails MUSICBIO and GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I'm sure there are better sources out there for this fairly prominent folk musician, but they need to be found, and the article needs to be made a lot shorter than it is; it is very long and promotional. Llajwa (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's really no saving this article, as it's had many of these unaddressed issues for nearly a decade. No viable third-party coverage, and it reads like a resume with next to no content. "Summary" has zero wikilinks and the rest is a series of unsourced lists (the "live" section is laughable). sixtynine • whaddya want? • 04:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on draftifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Nothing found for this person; one tied to Taylor Swift, one that sued Katy Perry, one that played the trumpet. The sources used here are not helpful, and the article is more of a track listing than an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 31 October 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. No editors except the nominator provided substantial support for deleting, while the two editors supporting keeping did not respond to the nom's doubt about the sources provided. With one delete comment from a very new editor and one neutral vote, the most accurate description of the result of this discussion is NC. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Basecamp[edit]

Arctic Basecamp (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:ORGCRITE. Independent coverage of the organization is extremely fleeting, with virtually no coverage outside of unbylined pieces that serve as vehicles for the organization's founders and supporters to talk about themselves (e.g. [1], [2]). Searching online lead me to more of the same kind of uncritical, fleeting coverage. Searching on Scholar, I found brief critical coverage in a source of dubious reliability ([3]) and articles by individuals affiliated with the organization, but nothing that simultaneously meets the criteria of independence and significance. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for deletion. Coverage is not significant and it is difficult to understand tangible activities of this organization apart from self-promotion. Eagle.Jeff (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde [trout needed] 22:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes WP:GNG per the existing sources in this discussion and the articles from Bloomberg and Vice SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still on the fence at the moment. Vice is probably one of the better ones so far, so thanks to SailingInABathTub for providing it, but Bloomberg is substantially composed of quotes. Whiteman can likely qualify under PROF though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:12, 7 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 Republic TV. Star Mississippi 13:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Media Network[edit]

Republic Media Network (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)

Earlier Republic Media Network was redirected to the Republic TV page due to the majority of its information and citations being identical. Moreover, there is a separate category page for Republic Media Network, found under Category:Republic_Media_Network. Currently, this category is entirely adequate, having a separate page is unnecessary. Charlie (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Creating a separate page is unnecessary. Mr. Rasel Hasan (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why? TruxtVerified (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to distinguish between categories and articles. A category serves as a grouping mechanism, while an article provides in-depth information. Republic TV, under the operation of Republic Media Network, warrants its own article. Just as with Star channels having their dedicated article like Disney Star and Zee channels like Zee Entertainment Enterprises, these articles comprehensively detail company information, such as funding, ownership, owned channels, and historical context. TruxtVerified (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my concern about the nomination to delete the article on Republic Media Network. It's important to maintain a fair and open discussion, but I believe that the article should be kept on Wikipedia. The network is a significant part of contemporary media, and it's important to provide accurate and balanced information about it for the readers. Let's ensure that the discussion focuses on the quality of evidence and adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely, TruxtVerified (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, User:TruxtVerified
This article should be kept. It is an important article. 103.170.55.189 (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INHERITED, WP:USEFUL. Spinixster (chat!) 11:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Republic TV: Much of the content is about, and duplicated, with the Republic TV page. What's little left can be merged into there as "sister" properties. Not enough sources to support this as a stand-alone article as they focus mainly on Republic TV or one of the related properties. Ravensfire (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your perspective, and it's important to consider that some readers might find value in having a separate page for the Whole Republic TV Network. Additionally, the presence of separate pages for other channels like News18 (Network 18) within their respective networks could be used as a reference point for supporting the existence of this page. TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde [trout needed] 22:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving this article is justified as the reasons provided do not appear to be valid grounds for deletion or merging. It's important to respect the diverse viewpoints that contributors bring to the table. However, it's worth noting that this page focuses on the Republic TV company and its network. @Ravensfire , it might be helpful to understand the distinction between the two articles. This page offers comprehensive information about all the channels within the network, which is consistent with the practice of having separate articles for channels within other networks, such as Network 18. TruxtVerified | [Message] 14:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this article is a duplicate of the Republic TV article. Merging them with a section in that article with the small amount of non-duplicated information retains the information. Duplicating large amounts of text in multiple articles is not helpful from a maintenance perspective and gives a far broader scope to at least one of the articles than it should have. Ravensfire (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To put a bit more behind my thought here. Most of sources focus on Republic TV by name, very few mention Republic Media Network. There were a couple, but closer examination showed they were press-releases disguised as news articles (sponsored / paid articles). Another is Republic World which is deprecated as a source. This needs to be based on sources that have significant coverage of the article subject - Republic Media Network, and are independent from the subject. That's not here. Lost of stuff about Republic TV, hence the merge !vote. Ravensfire (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to maintain a friendly and collaborative atmosphere on Wikipedia. Our primary goal is to expand and improve articles, especially those related to India. We are all contributors with a shared interest in enriching the platform's content. Let's remember that constructive discussions and different viewpoints can lead to better articles. @Ravensfire, I understand that we might have differing opinions at times, but our common purpose is to enhance Wikipedia's quality. Let's work together and find common ground on how best to handle the Republic Media Network article. Your insights are valuable, and I appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then start by showing the respect to everyone else. Your lecture is someone disingenuous and suggests that you disagree that I'm editing in good faith. You are incorrect. I realize that you don't see the issues with the article, which is why I expanded my reasoning in the comment above. Notability is established by significant, independent coverage of the article subject. When the sources say "Republic TV", that's what they are covering. This is getting into WP:BLUDGEON territory, my point is made here on the AFD and on the CANVASS. I'll not engage further here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article should be kept as this is utilizable. The article provides a plethora of information, Wikipedia is a encyclopedia it is good to engender more and more articles, this article is having sources so there is no desideratum to merge it or delete it, Republic TV is different the channel is owned by the company so it is necessary to keep this, readers will find useful to know about the following page.✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 14:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Zendrago X (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravensfire He just told me to share my opinion, he did not ask me to support his views or protect that article. I want this article to be kept as it is my view. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 01:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondly he requested this me on my talk page not on any Off-Wiki source. He asked me to express my views so how is this canvassing? ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 01:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the WP:CANVASS page. Then feel free to discuss on my talk page. But yes, this is textbook canvassing. Ravensfire (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not find any canvassing. He did not ask me to oppose the effacement, he invited me and also there was no Textbook Canvassing there in link.
    If you cerebrate I have done erroneous I am yare to abstract my comments as I was not vigilant of WP:CANVASS.
    He just invited me in discussion as I additionally edit these types of topics, I opposed expunction. If he asked me to oppose the effacement then it can be Canvassing, but here in this case it is not (I cerebrate).
    I am yare to abstract my comment if this is not good and is canvassing. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 10:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for wanting to keep side discussions on the side. Problem one - TruxtVerified notified one person, you, that they knew would share their viewpoint. Problem two - TruxtVerified used a very non-neutral request and asked for you to support keeping the article. That IS THE DEFINITION of canvassing, even with just one person. A short, neutral request to everyone that had more than a few edits to the Republic TV article (cause there aren't many who edited the RMN article) would have been fine. What TruxtVerified did is not what someone acting in good faith should do. Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I invited the user to share their opinion, and I believe that the article on Republic Media Network should be kept. It provides valuable information about the network and its significance in contemporary media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it's important to maintain a diverse range of articles to educate readers. Your contribution to the discussion is appreciated, and your input is valued. Let's continue to focus on the quality of evidence and adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines during this discussion. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, I firmly believe that this article should be kept. It serves as an essential resource for readers who seek information about Republic Media Network, a prominent entity in the contemporary media landscape. The article provides a comprehensive overview, detailing aspects such as the network's history, ownership, and its various channels. This information is valuable for users looking to understand the network's role and significance.Wikipedia's purpose is to provide accurate and comprehensive information on a wide range of topics, and the Republic Media Network article aligns with this goal. Rather than merging or deleting it, we should focus on enhancing the article's quality and ensuring it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. Let's work together to make this article a valuable resource for all. TruxtVerified | [Message] 13:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good- where are the sources that are specifically about Republic Media Network that aren't press releases / self-published? They aren't there. Where is that significant, independent coverage that Wikipedia uses to show notability of a subject? It's not there. The article is nearly completely about Republic TV. Not this media network. Ravensfire (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravensfire, your impressive track record of over 78,000 edits on Wikipedia reflects your dedication to the platform, and your contributions are greatly valued. It's essential to acknowledge that there are instances of articles with incomplete references on Wikipedia, and addressing them is an ongoing process.In the case of the Republic Media Network article, it's crucial to differentiate between Republic TV and Republic Media Network. While you raise a valid point, it's worth noting that this article pertains to a media company, similar to how Disney Star has its dedicated article. The distinction between the two is an important aspect of the discussion.I genuinely appreciate your insights and your active participation in this discussion. Although we may have differing opinions, let's continue our conversation in a constructive and collaborative manner. My belief is that preserving the Republic Media Network article is the right decision, and I hope we can reach a consensus that aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines. TruxtVerified | [Message] 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Republic TV per Ravensfire's reasoning. WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth not in article or above, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  03:02, 7 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 13:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxicephalus cordofanus[edit]

Pyxicephalus cordofanus (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:NSPECIES. Pyxicephalus cordofanus was scientifically described as a new species in 1867, but lacks confirmed syntypes. Until recently, it was classified as valid but with uncertain taxonomic placement (incertae sedis). Now, it has been reclassified as a "nomen dubium" by the primary authority (AMNH Amphibian Species of the World 6.2), and is not recognised by any other source. Loopy30 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Loopy30 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep by the logic that (1) species are automatically notable; (2) it was, for a considerable time, considered a valid species; (3) in Wikipedia, if something was once notable, it remains notable. We are here to inform the public, not to maintain an up-to-date list of valid species names, and since our readers may come across this historical name, they have a right to know its current status and background. But I do understand the nominator's point, and I'm not going to lose huge amounts of sleep if this gets deleted. Elemimele (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is indicating though that is never had a valid name and never was actually notable though. Mistaken identity is one of those cases where we don't automatically confer notability, and even if it were, it sounds like a very prime case for WP:IAR. KoA (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NSPECIES as sources say this is not a valid name and may have never been (i.e., never having true notability). We already have a pretty flexible threshold for species notability, but "possible species" don't meet that. KoA (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article clearly state the doubts mentioned in the nom. The article as it stands is informative to the reader about the status of this species. I think the article in total is net positive and does not relay any misinformation. As per the policy at WP:SPECIES, it states Species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are generally kept. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid which the article does.
FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article states the name is not valid, quite the opposite of WP:NSPECIES. From the article The International Union for Conservation of Nature lists it as "data deficient", citing "continuing doubts as to its taxonomic validity, extent of occurrence, status and ecological requirements". Unknown validity is not the threshold for species notability. KoA (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are much more than just "doubts" about the validity of a species though. As a "nomen dubium", there is no extant type specimen, and we are unable to accurately compare the taxon to any other species of frog. As a consequence, the published name (and its accompanying 1876 description) is no longer recognised as a distinct species by any modern authority. There are many other nomen dubia in the scientific literature - but on Wikipedia we do not even list them under their purported parent taxa, let alone grant it the status of a stand-alone article. Loopy30 (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this emphasis can be added to the article. If someone looking for this will it is no longer recognised. I understand these are normally deleted but I am on the side of having what you just said available to the public rather than removing it FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde [trout needed] 22:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree with Fuzzy's rationale that "this information would be of use to the public" should get checked in an article's "keep" column. The question is whether this article's subject, the idea of a species, is notable even if it's not a real species. It does seem to have the usual suspects: IUCN Red List treats this as a real species. The English language's primo froggy source, Amphibian Species of the World writes about this entity by acknowledging that different scientists have drawn different conclusions about it over the years. The only radio silence I'm getting is from AmphibiaWeb and Animal Diversity Web. I'd say that we should keep this one. If we vote to delete, then I say a paragraph explaining this situation would belong on the article about the genus Pyxicephalus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the IUCN no longer "treats this as a real species", but has changed its entry to reflect that it is now considered as a nomen dubium and that "this taxon cannot be related to any known species in the wild", resulting in the IUCN being unable to complete any assessment on this invalidly defined taxon.
    Nor should this entry be included as a "proposed" species of the genus Pyxicephalus, since no modern authority has argued that it should be included in that genus. While it appeared as a syntype in Häupl & Tiedemann's 1978 and 1995 NHMW catalogues, it was later reclassified on the museum's list by Gemel (2018) following Baha El Din (2017) which considered it to be a nomen dubium and "based on current knowledge, cannot be related to any other species".
    This assessment by El Din is the latest and most accurate information on the subject, and is confirmed by the AMNH's ASW in their latest entry. Continuing to rely on a nineteenth century description that cannot be either confirmed, compared, or subjected to modern investigative methods, cannot be considered as publishing accurate summaries of reliable scientific knowledge. This why we do not include the names of the tens of thousands of nomen dubia in Wikipedia articles - to do otherwise would be a disservice to our readers. Loopy30 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. General rule of thumb is that nomen dubium do not get articles and are regularly redirected or deleted. NSPECIES only applies to valid species. A paragraph at the genus and a redirect is more than adequate. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to genus article. Nomina dubia are legion, and we have kept to a habit of not dignifying them with separate articles; our species coverage is predicated on the species being recognized and valid. This should be a short notice in the context of the genus page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:19, 7 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. Snowing here. There is a near unanimous agreement that the subject, the act and subsequent activities, has been extensively been covered by reliable sources for it to be notable. (non-admin closure) – robertsky (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Shani Louk[edit]

Kidnapping of Shani Louk (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:BLP1E (this is a biography by another name). The individual is not notable, and their kidnapping is better covered at Re'im music festival massacre. VQuakr (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Shani might not be notable as you put it. But she deserves to be remembered separately, for many Shani is who they think of when they think of all that’s happened. She nor any of the victims should ever just be erased just because they aren’t notable to you. I don’t see any reality person as notable but many have their own page, so why can’t Shani keep her page? Does it really hurt you or anyone else to keep it? 2A02:C7C:8ACE:1000:EDE3:F440:ED9C:E027 (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Her kidnapping and murder is sufficiently notable. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:6DEB:61FD:FC4A:40E7 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely disagree that "this is a biography by another name". The article covers the kidnapping much more than her life (which just gets a small section). The only thing that could suggest this idea was the lead, which was easily adjusted. Also disagree that the topic is better covered at Re'im music festival massacre. Shani Louk's kidnapping in specific received a large amount of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, making it independently notable with enough content to be split from the Re'im article. Skyshifter talk 22:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not exactly a biography, but a specific event that received wide media coverage Synotia (moan) 14:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications
  • Keep. This is not a biography. The subject of the article is a notable event. According to The Guardian: A young Israeli-German woman whose fate became indelibly associated around the globe with the Hamas massacre and mass kidnapping rampage of 7 October ... Meets WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.—Alalch E. 22:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per skyshifter. Greenshed (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skyshifter. --Uhooep (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the music festival article, her situation was not much different than any of the other victims, one of a few "sub-events" as part of the main "event", being the music festival attack as the main event. The individual alone was not notable, and there isn't really a reason her kidnapping is more important than the other victims. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the sourcing used is about the music festival, not about the individual, other than articles that seem to concentrate on her looks. Most sourcing I've seen talks about her looks, which doesn't help build notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of the references concentrate on her looks? —Alalch E. 01:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The news articles I've seen published in my corner of the world. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but you said "most of the sourcing used", and it appeared as if you talked about the references in the article. —Alalch E. 01:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the sourcing used in the article... then most of the sourcing I see when looking. I hope that clarifies it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a valid rationale at all if you are simply ignoring all the sources in the article. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think it's a merge candidate, as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please keep your thoughts on this side or that side of the war to yourselves and only discuss the sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This again? Per Skyshifter, that’s not a biography. Much more than Shani Louk herself, the article mainly covers the events that, we now know, lead to her death. It should also be added the article has already been translated to five different Wikipedias (including the Germany, whose Wikidata item is a different one). The article has also been accessed by almost 200,000 people. Furthermore, per Alalch E., it meets WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It already has separate notability from the Re'im music festival massacre article. WP:LASTING, etc. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per WP:Notability. Extensively covered in the media, and multiple sources can be found to cite areas of concern. Can be adjusted accordingly as further details and developments are released. Also agree with Oaktree b's observation regarding the unveiled personal feelings of a few contributors to this discussion. Nothing flouts NPOV.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She is notable enough and multiple media sources exclusively deal with her and the incident. -UtoD 06:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: obviously. Since 7 October her story was well covered and notable. Shadow4dark (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kieronoldham. Salvabl (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep super notable event. Mason (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a violation of WP:BLP1E, as this is an event, not a biography. After all, for people covered in the context of one event, our guidelines are explicit that [t]he general rule is to cover the event. This article does just that.
    As for WP:NEVENT, this has been covered in-depth by diverse international reliable sources over an extended period of time—from the date of the kidnapping through and in the immediate aftermath of Louk's reported death. There have even been follow-ups, with major newspapers like The Times reaching out to the family, interviewing them, and making a feature story about it. This shows a good bit of persistence in the coverage of the story through this point. I obviously I can't predict the future regarding how future coverage will go, but rote speculation on how future coverage will go seems dubious as an affirmative reason for deletion. Looking through this light, this event probably meets WP:EVENTCRIT#2, and it therefore should be kept at this time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good sourcing. Top news. Article looks good. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong independent and in-depth reliable and verifiable sourcing from around the globe demonstrates that hrr kidnapping / murder is independently notable. Alansohn (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep her death has been individually covered by many sources in enough detail to meet our WP:SIGCOV criterion.VR talk 17:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID ,clearly well cited passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is well sourced and this case is a very notable disappearance. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that this is an event and is independently notable, passing WP:GNG Donner60 (talk) 23:03, 3 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. Hoax. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Séra Mummi[edit]

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

As noted in the recent PROD, looks like this is a hoax. All the references appear to be fake. Another one for the WP:HOAXLIST. I only removed the PROD because an IP user did so, even though they appear to be some kind of LTA/vandal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Iceland. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I looked up the references before PRODing and they appear to be made up. The only info out there in the 'net are mirrors of this article. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable if not a hoax. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 20:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete a blatant hoax with zero sources in Iceland. Alvaldi (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like a pretty evident hoax and the sources appear equally made-up; for example I could find no evidence that anything called Holyman Times exists or has existed. While the other two references have names that match actual living people, none of the people with those names are journalists or appear to have ever written any articles, let alone ones about this supposed individual or with those titles. The article not only completely fails any relevant notability guideline, it fails basic verifiability. - Aoidh (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I too have scoured the internet trying to find Icelandic originals of the references or Icelandic echoes of any of the info. Mummi = Guðmundur. There is a Bergið, founded in 2018 and not an exclusive club but rather a drop-in counselling centre. The creator, the eponymous Seramummi, started the article on 20 March 2014 and does not appear to have edited anywhere else (including to upload File:SéraMummi on Commons; he added it to the article). The account was created on Icelandic Wikipedia on 25 March, probably automatically when he opened a page there; no edits. So agree with Knowledgegatherer23; probable hoax, in any event non-notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, or a hoax - either way doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - hoax.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity hoax Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a likely hoax. DFlhb (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent hoax. Holyman Times does not appear to exist as a publication; other sources do not contain sufficient bibliographic detail to verify for sure but I can find no evidence of them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Kilday[edit]

Anne-Marie Kilday (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)

Per WP:NACADEMIC, Kilday does not meet notability criteria. NACADEMIC states that notability is conferred if the person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. However, the post of Vice Chancellor that Kilday occupies is not the highest post at the University of Northampton; that would be the post of Chancellor, which belongs to Richard Coles. Thus, Kilday is required to be notable under WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, and is not eligible under NACADEMIC. I believe that she does not meet the criteria for ANYBIO/GNG, and this article should therefore be deleted. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and England. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, faulty nomination. This is a common misunderstanding of British academia. In that system (and in some systems derived from it such as in India), vice chancellor is indeed the highest-level administrative post. Chancellor is, instead, a ceremonial post typically held by a non-academic. Incidentally, she also passes WP:AUTHOR through reviews of her books Women and Violent Crime in Enlightenment Scotland, A History of Infanticide in Britain, and (coauthored) Cultures of Shame: Exploring Crime and Morality in Britain. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Fallacious nomination as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep."Vice-chancellor" in the United Kingdom is equivalent to a university's president in the United States or Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or provost, or chancellor, depending on the North American university. We're confusing in our own way. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since vice-chancellor is equivelant to president. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 01:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable under WP:PROF and AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Did the nominator not consider it strange that what they believed to be the top post at a respectable UK university was held by a "writer, radio presenter and clergyman"? Clearly, notable as VC. PamD 08:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fundamental misunderstanding of the post of vice-chancellor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vice Chancellor meets PROF. --Mvqr (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and a WP:TROUT for the nominator who failed to read WP:NPROF#6 under which they performed the nomination nor did they bother click on the very first link in the article, Vice-Chancellor that explains this in great detail. --hroest 17:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karolina Durán[edit]

Karolina Durán (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 Costa Rican footballer, made a single appearance for her respective national team as a teenager in 2011. I am unable to find substantial coverage from independent sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:34, 30 October 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 23:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Family Mausoleum in Vassouras[edit]

Imperial Family Mausoleum in Vassouras (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)

Even though several of the sources don't qualify for establishing notoriety (FamilySearch.org, blogs, Facebook...), none of the sources actually cover the Mausoleum. The only source that mentions it in passing is a blog hosted on blogspot, and even then, there's no WP:SIGCOV. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find any sources that actually mention the Mausoleum, but haven't found anything yet after a few quick searches. That being said though, I have removed the unrealiable sources. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I couldn't find any sources about this mausoleum which means that this article does not pass WP:GNG. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:26, 3 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 23:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kory Rabenold[edit]

Kory Rabenold (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 hate to do this, but despite all of the sources in the articles and my WP:BEFORE I have had severe difficulty in finding news pieces that are not republished PR pieces about Rabenold. This article is well written; however, it seems that almost all of the sources are in some way WP:SPS and I cannot find enough non-self published sources (counting PR releases as self published sources) to confer notability. The driver did run the second half of the 2009 ARCA series, so there is some possibility for notability, but from my research I have been unable to find anything to push this person over WP:GNG and they do not have any notability confered per the requirements in WP:NMOTORSPORT either. TartarTorte 19:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. A side note: I honestly don't know how many articles like these there are on here; but I've noticed an uptick in these sorts of articles on WP:NASCAR. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justyna Zander[edit]

Justyna Zander (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)

Autobiography created by Justynazander early this year. I'm not convinced that this passes WP:BASIC. Appearing in a Business Insider article along with 38 other people is not a signal of notability or SIGCOV to me, this source also does not seem to talk about this person beyond a trivial mention. This polish article looks like a puff piece.

Relevant discussions:

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libby Liu[edit]

Libby Liu (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 14 references, 12 are not about her, and two are bios on the websites of her own organizations. (Radio Free Asia and OTF) Tagged for notability since July 2023. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying, per that link it is the Washingtonian's site/magazine's pick of the 500 most influential in the DC area. Regarding GNG, we're looking for something that has in-depth coverage of her. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her inclusion on the Washingtonian list, along with the brief bio, seems to be secondary recognition that contributes to her WP:BASIC notability. I don't have time to fully research or to try to rewrite the article now, but it seems likely she has received more than trivial coverage by secondary sources over time to support her notability and to develop a neutral and balanced biography. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key thing here is just finding (or not finding) 1-2 GNG type sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW my nomination (and subsequent discussion) is just trying to do my NPP job properly, to explain that I did and to help sort this out.North8000 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! and I am sorry I don't have time right now to do my test-notability-through-a-rewrite thing right now, which may be a way to help demonstrate WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, through a combination of multiple independent sources. Beccaynr (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out any references that look like GNG coverage? Thanx. North8000 (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still reviewing research and working on the article, but I think the WP:BASIC SNG would be the most likely guideline to support her notability, with a combination of sources over time demonstrating that she/her work have received GNG-equivalent coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, for her work with Radio Free Asia related to what could be described as the Great Firewall, there is SFGate in 2006, which provides context for her description of RFA's work; NYT in 2011, similarly providing context for her description of RFA's work; her writing and RFA work focused on circumventing Chinese government censorship is also discussed in a 2009 Journal of Business Ethics article at pp. 497-498. The sustained coverage of this aspect of her career, when combined, seems to provide some support for her notability. The Open Technology Fund coverage related to her has more focus on her as part of a group of people fired by Michael Pack and the lawsuits that followed, but there is some coverage from the WSJ in 2016 ProQuest 1766924876, which includes a description of her role in the development of the OTF. I have not yet done a specific search at the Wikipedia Library for her work at Whistleblower Aid, but the sources in the article now include a 2021 WaPo interview with context, and The Guardian quoting her in 2022. Beccaynr (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the Washingtonian in 2023, placing her in a group of 20 people it describes as "Whether fighting for democracy or federal-employee benefits, these people care deeply about having our public system work effectively", and the 2020/2021 Luxembourg Peace Prize award (this appears to be a reprinted press release); from my view, the Washingtonian recognition in particular seems to be independent, reliable, and secondary coverage of her and her work, and even though it is not in-depth, it contributes support for her WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being considered as one of 500 most influential people by the Washingtonian is a very tenuous claim to notability indeed. Being a laureate of the Luxembourg Peace Prize sounds slightly more impressive, though this doesn't appear to be a major award. Coverage of the work of Radio Free Asia would count towards the notability of RFA, but not Liu. Sionk (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been thinking about her notability as a creative professional, based on the sources, e.g. WP:DIRECTOR - in this 2011 NYT piece, she discusses how the organization she directs collects information for journalism; the 2006 SFGate is her discussing how they teach people to access the journalism; in this 2011 NYT piece, "Liu said she spends most of her time trying to figure out how to get around Chinese government firewalls that make it difficult for young people to get Radio Free Asia’s broadcasts on the Internet or their cellphones." The 2009 Journal of Business Ethics source discusses her work and her writing. Her role creating the Open Technology Fund within RFA is discussed by The Wall Street Journal in more than trivial coverage, and the OTF and Liu receive more coverage in the wake of the Pack firings and subsequent lawsuits. The most limited coverage I have found so far is related to her current role at Whistleblower Aid, and the revisions to the article since your !vote reflect this; from my view, the RFA/OTF coverage seems to help show that she has held leadership positions at two journalism-related organizations, and her work within these organizations has received coverage in independent, reliable, and secondary sources. From my view, it seems established by souces that she had an active leadership role within RFA and OTF, so the coverage related to her and her work supports her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated based on the "rules" and just trying to do my job properly. At the time the info in the article was just resume type stuff. You seem to building more both in content and sources including the type of stuff described in your last post. IMHO some more of that type of development (even without GNG sources) might make me personally want to "keep" even if that needs a little wp:iar. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely respect the nomination, not only based on the article at the time it was nominated several months after its creation, but also in light of the deep-diving into research needed for development. I appreciate your bringing this article forward for review and discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on all of that including substantial additions my opinion has changed to Weak keep . "Weak" because I think that there are still not GNG sources and so I'm relying on a bit of WP:IAR or else consideration of all of the other material and considerations under Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on WP:BASIC and a combination of sources over time; I recently added a source from NPR (April 2021) with a more substantial focus on Liu than some other sources related to the Pack firings, including her filing of a whistleblower complaint, although some sources have more than trivial coverage; with the 2009 Journal of Business Ethics coverage of her writing and work at RFA, as well as the 2016 Wall Street Journal coverage of her role developing the OTF, we seem to have independent, reliable, and secondary coverage of major aspects of her career over time. To the extent WP:IAR is needed to support a standalone article, I have been thinking on how fragmenting this content across several articles, at minimum to Radio Free Asia and the Open Technology Fund, does not seem to be the most efficient outcome, because Liu held a leadership role at RFA for 14 years, led both the creation of the OTF and the OTF after it became an independent grantee, and had an active role in what happened after Pack was appointed, and has had more than trivial coverage of these aspects of her career. As a side note, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion here, and consideration while I worked on the article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BASIC with sources presented by Beccaynr. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by Beccaynr. Passes WP:GNG. 76.64.163.41 (talk) 16:12, 4 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 Arcade Archives. Should a different target emerge, that can be handled editorially. The consensus on this not remaining a separate article is clear Star Mississippi 13:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Heart (video game)[edit]

Black Heart (video game) (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:NVG, previously deleted for same reason. article is entirely gameplay. no secondary sources. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 16:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Its a plausible search term, but does not appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources to support its own article. Both of the targets proposed by Zxcvbnm would work, though perhaps redirecting to Arcade Archives might make a bit more sense, as that article is currently a lot more developed than the NMK (company) article, and actually already has more information on this game included. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 31 October 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. Star Mississippi 13:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Blue[edit]

Houston Blue (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)

Seemingly non-notable book with only a singular review, no metric of impact or popularity, and written by an author pair who themselves do not appear to lend much (if any) notability. I was unable to find any further mentions of this book by independent, non-automatically generated sources online.

In summary, a small book that did not seem to either sell or garner any amount of critical reception. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability (books) has the following notability criterion: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." If it passes this criteria (there are two, independent, non-trivial published works about this book!), then it's notable. Any work only needs to meet one criterion on NBOOKS to be notable. Indeed a Houston Chronicle article by Jennifer Pearson is independent of the book, and so is the article in the The Journal of Southern History. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the two reviews already present in the article, Proquest finds two short reviews (Houston blue; the story of the Houston Police Department. Reference and Research Book News. Portland Vol. 28, Iss. 1, (Feb 2013). & Romance, psycho keep mystery alive Standard Times San Angelo. 11 Jan 2013: O.2.) and a long prepublication piece (NEW BOOK SHARES TALES OF HOUSTON ' BLUES' US Fed News Service, Including US State News; Washington, D.C.. 24 Aug 2012.). From Ebscosearch, it is also described as among "several seminal works deal with the issue of police misconduct" ( Esparza, Jesús Jesse. Brown, Black, and Brutalized: A Brief History of Police Brutality Against Chicanos and African Americans in Houston. Southern Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the South. Spring/Summer2023, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p45-78). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 31 October 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take the Train[edit]

Take the Train (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 initially PRODed this with the following rationale - "A seemingly non-notable game that fails the WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. The current article has no secondary sources, and searches did not turn up any kind of coverage on the game in reliable sources." However, I neglected to notice that it had already been PRODed and contested in the past, making it ineligible for a PROD now. To elaborate further, while the game certainly existed, I have found no actual sources that would count as actual significant coverage of the game. The only source in the article, which was the rationale for contesting the original PROD in 2016, is just the instruction manual for the game, and obviously not valid for establishing notability. I had considered proposing a Merge to either United States Playing Card Company or Bicycle Playing Cards, but the lack of sources on the game and apparent complete non-notability of it made me decide that was not an appropriate course of action, as it would give undue coverage of an extremely non-notable product in those articles. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As it is, this article is just a set of instructions, and WP:NOTHOWTO needs to be kept in mind. If someone could find an independent source about the game then maybe we could completely rewrite the article, but that looks unlikely to me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm struggling to find much of anything. [5] might be a reliable review. But that's all I can find. Please ping me if you find better. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I'm good with Userfying per Piotrus as probably the better choice. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or preferred Userfy. Pretty obscure (BGG link: RANK: OVERALL 24,102FAMILY 2,903). Even if the review Hobit found is reliable (doesn't look great, but I did not check the site for editorial contriols), we would still be short of another good source (GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage, my rule of thumb is that two reliable reviews are bare minimum). Note that usefication/drafticiation might be better than deletion, creator is still occasionally active (made few edits last year). Maybe they'll try to fix it in a year or two if we leave it in their userspace?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S Sacchidananda[edit]

S Sacchidananda (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 politician who fails to meet the WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Just a candidate representing a National-level political party. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editors and Contributors,
I wanted to inform you that we have made significant updates to the article about S Sacchidananda in an effort to address concerns regarding notability. We have carefully reviewed the notability guidelines (WP:NPOL and WP:GNG) and have made revisions to ensure the article better aligns with these standards.
We encourage you to revisit the article and provide your feedback. Your input is highly valuable in helping us improve the quality and verifiability of the content. We are committed to making this article a valuable resource for Wikipedia readers. Blackanu20 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you are referring to yourself as "we"? Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability for politicians is for office holders, not candidates. No other notability requirements are met. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 17:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the content. Instead of removing the article, please try to improve it. Blackanu20 (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still doesn't meet notability standards. If a subject doesn't meet the standard, there is no "improvement" or "update in content" that will change the result to a keep. GPL93 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's Your Rupture?[edit]

What's Your Rupture? (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)

Google only brings up various social medias for the lable. The notable recordings do not establish notability (WP:Wikipedia:INHERIT). Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OPPO F23 5G[edit]

OPPO F23 5G (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:NOT a collection of technical details. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 15:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Draftify. Appears to meet WP:GNG. [6][7][8]. The article's state is not ideal, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. S5A-0043Talk 11:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In its current form it reads like an advertising piece. The last sentence of every paragraph is an unsupported statement about how great some feature is. There is no substance to support any of these claims. (Repeated from article talk page). TundraGreen (talk) 00:21, 6 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 Star Wars characters#Ruescott Melshi. Viable AtD Star Mississippi 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melshi[edit]

Melshi (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)

Unfortunately, this character does not have real-world notability beyond brief appearances in two Star Wars projects. His apparent impact is inflated by the listing of book and comic adaptations of Rogue One. This character does not warrant its own article, and I think it would be wise to delete this article; any relevant in-universe information can be added back to List of Star Wars characters, where it broke off from as a WP:BADFORK. TNstingray (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Minor character of a spinoff film with what seems to be no actual cultural impact. Should be added back to the List of Star Wars Characters (which itself is a bit of a mess), with most of the information present being left to something like the Star Wars "Wookiepedia" to handle. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Star Wars characters#Ruescott Melshi and restore the entry there. Notable character, but not ready for a standalone article.— TAnthonyTalk 22:03, 30 October 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. It's snowing. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 05:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21[edit]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21 (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 UN resolution that is unlikely to be WP:ENDURING. There are a number of UN resolutions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict that are lasting and impactful, such as 67, 194, 242, etc.

A more appropriate place for this is a bullet or two on List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it was important enough for a Czech minister to consider leaving the UN, it is important enough to keep. Zagothal (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How can you say it is non-notable? There are various reliable sources showing it is notable. A bullet or two for this resolution would NOT do this subject justice. This nomination is wrongheaded in more ways than one. Historyday01 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @User:PatrickJWelsh, @User:Toadboy123, @User:Rwendland, @User:Omnipaedista, @User:Barzamin, and @User:Tony24644 this discussion may be of interest.Historyday01 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. As stated above, there are various reliable sources showing it is notable; and that is my main argument. 2. We have a List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel and it features many articles about relevant resolutions that are far less notable than this one. Note: we also have articles about United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/19 and United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/20 that are fairly related to this one. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point as well. There more than "routine news coverage" and considering the resolution is relatively new, how can "enduring notability" even be assessed? Historyday01 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cited sources appear to constitute WP:SIGCOV, and UNGA Resolutions become part of the permanent record, affect UN policy, are an indicator of international consensus, and influence international law, so this has lasting significance. The sum of the article already seems to transcend news reporting in my opinion, and can’t be compared to anything else listed in ENDURING. The argument that this is fundamentally different than articles about some other UNGA and UNSC resolutions should explain how, in relation to our guidelines.  —Michael Z. 18:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I actually have a long-term plan to go through ALL the UN resolutions and add context to them. And having a page for such resolutions will undoubtedly help anyone who is doing research on this in the future as well, especially since the UN site is a bit confusing to navigate (and use). Historyday01 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This will literally be mentioned in history books. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The resolution has received widespread media coverage and academic interest. It should be seen as equivalent in its power, effect, and gravity as the UN Special Emergency Session resolutions on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which have their own dedicated pages. Cscescu (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has more noteworthy content than 2 bullet points. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Related to a major ongoing international conflict and we have articles about UN GA Resolutions related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and other standalone articles on GA and SC Resolutions related Israel and Palestine (such as Resolution ES-10/19) and this is more detailed than most articles on GA Resolutions and features citations from a variety of news sources.--AXEdits (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'''Keep'''. Don't be absurd bro, This is the first time I see someone claimed UN Assembly Resolution is not notable. I highly doubt your motive @ Someone97816 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too. I don't get how a UN resolution is NOT notable. I have some sinking suspicions about the OP as well, to be perfectly honest. Historyday01 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is blindingly obvious. Zerotalk 10:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting this resolution on the list of resolutions concerning (the state of) Israel would make Wikipedia as partisan as it would be, if we deleted the same/similar from the list of resolutions concerning (the (proposed) state of) Palestine. Jaap-073 (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since widely reported on by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now, reliable sources have covered it and the nom’s rationale lists 67, 194 and 242 as examples but looking at them they have developed enduring notability. Somewhat sympathetic to the idea of a merge but it’d just be the case that it’d get spun out again as the parent article would get too lengthy. Agree nomination is in good faith but speedy closure may be inadvisable as others may wish to disagree. SITH (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not speedily. The discussion of the AfD nominator's good faith is immaterial; this AfD does not really fulfill the requirements of WP:KEEP. However, I heavily disagree with the nominator; I do think that this article has enduring notability. As a rough proxy measure of current notability, the stub article originally only cited a single UN press release. Within a few days, the article has 30 citations, the majority of them secondary WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and is linked to by quite a few other pages. The current Israel–Hamas conflict is inarguably of enduring notability; transitively, given that pages related to it are frequently linking to this resolution, I don't think a bullet or two on a general page about UN Israel–Palestine-related resolutions is sufficient. Barzamin (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely notable and relevant. 67.252.8.78 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is the first UNGA resolution regarding the ongoing conflict. Bit strange even to delete it by claiming UNGA resolutions are not notable. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:35, 1 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. Star Mississippi 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Wars[edit]

Cancer Wars (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)

Cant find any information on this but likely due to its age and that its mostly missing Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ---->changed to Keep, in the light of sources presented by Cunard below (thanks!).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Goodman, Walter (1998-05-25). "Television Review; Advances, If Not a Cure, In a Long, Hard Battle". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-10-31. Retrieved 2023-10-31.

      The review notes: "Cancer Wars begins with the little-publicized news that Nazi Germany's scientists were pioneers in research that linked cancer to smoking and diet. ... Tonight's first hour of a four-hour PBS chronicle concentrates on more familiar matters. ... Except for that opening passage about Nazi research, there are no revelations here, but key events in a many-sided and continuing story are well reported. The sometimes malignant connection between health, politics and big money is noted."

    2. Monmaney, Terence (1998-05-25). "A Double Dose of Caution About Cigarettes and Cancer". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-10-31. Retrieved 2023-10-31.

      The review notes: "And airing tonight is the first episode of “Cancer Wars,” a four-part PBS historical review of how considerations of money and politics have shaped cancer research and prevention since World War II. It emphasizes tobacco’s prime role in the world’s cancer burden, thus serving as a sort of stately intellectual companion to the afternoon’s revved-up offering for teens and their families. ... Although “Cancer Wars” casts a wide net, covering everything from cancer quackery to recent discoveries in genetics, the main thread concerns the tobacco industry, purveyor of the leading cause of preventable death in the developed world."

    3. Elber, Lynn (1998-05-23). "'Cancer Wars' charts tumultous 50-year fight against disease". The Times and Democrat. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2023-10-31. Retrieved 2023-10-31 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "With impeccable timing, the PBS documentary "Cancer Wars" arrives on the heels of the latest scientific discovery raising hopes that the disease might be vanquished."Cancer Wars" traces the political, social and medical response to the illness over five decades. It offers perspective and a reminder that caution should temper both optimism and fear. ... "Cancer Wars" approaches its subject efficiently but not coldly. The documentary doesn't ignore the soldiers or the generals, as we hear from researchers, activists, politicians and patients.One heartbreaking shot: A tiny boy, decked out in cowboy outfit and boots, walks down a hospital hall tethered to an IV unit."

    4. Combs, Walter H. (1998-05-24). "PBS' 'Cancer Wars' explores the politics of cancer". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2023-10-31. Retrieved 2023-10-31 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "If politicians and their own leaked internal documents haven't made the tobacco companies pariahs, the first 10 minutes or so of the PBS documentary "Cancer Wars" should help drive the final nails in the coffin. ... While "Cancer Wars" focuses on cancer generally, the most sensational material clearly has to do with lung cancer. The premiere hour, "Blind to Danger," which airs at 10 p.m. Monday on Channel 17, focuses extensively on lung cancer and the efforts made to increase the public's awareness of its dangers and causes."

    5. McVicar, Nancy (1995-05-24). "PBS to document The Cancer Wars". South Florida Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2023-10-31. Retrieved 2023-10-31 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "The Cancer Wars, produced by WETA, a public station in Washington, D.C., will run on four consecutive Sundays beginning tonight at 6 p.m. on WPBT-Ch. 2, and on Mondays on WXEL-Ch. 42 beginning Monday at 10 p.m. ... Others profiled in the series include former Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall, who came to the aid of Native Americans who were being poisoned by radiation in uranium mines; of Betty Ford and Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, whose personal battles with cancer raised awareness of the need for early detection, and of Dr. Emil Friereich, who helped find a cure for childhood leukemia."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:48, 31 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ray B. Oladapo-Johnson[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 14:44, 30 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optimisation of cutting cycles in conventional underground coal sections to improve productivity[edit]

Optimisation of cutting cycles in conventional underground coal sections to improve productivity (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)

Minimally referenced. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Far too niche a topic for Wikipedia, and reads like a primary source; likely either plagiarized or OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b (pedantry alert): to answer your question, coal is "softer" than most other materials mined under ground such as iron or diamonds so equipment such as continuous miners, roof bolters and longwall equipment are specific to underground coal mining (there are a few minor exceptions such as salt and potash). Mining methods for hard rock mining of materials such as ores are totally different.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the pedantic. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 3 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 Williams Communications#Telecommunications. This looks like the most suitable compromise between those who have been in this discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation[edit]

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

This is pretty clearly an advertisement piece. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 14:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Promotional tone is not valid grounds on its own for deletion: that's an issue can be cleaned up, unless an article is blatant advertising and needs a complete rewrite, in which case speedy deletion G11 is used. Although the article doesn't currently make it clear, the company was closed in 2002 [11], so advertising seems unlikely. As the article clearly asserts notability per WP:CORP, can nominator please clarify their rationale for deletion? Wikishovel (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to point out a few things regarding the significance of iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation:
    • The page has been in existence for nearly two decades, and while some references might be disappearing due to the age of the company, it doesn't diminish the historical importance of the content.
    • iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was foundational to the streaming industry. It's widely recognized within the industry that this company was a precursor to the streaming giants we see today, such as Netflix, Apple, Hulu, and others. Its influence was global.
    • The mention of 60 million streams, which is cited, underscores its significance. To put it in perspective, during its prime, this was more traffic than major platforms like Yahoo.
    • Rather than just suggesting it be deleted, please suggest how to make it better or be more specific.
Given these points, it's evident that the company played a pivotal role in the evolution of online streaming, and its page serves as a historical reference, not an advertisement. nilslahr (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's this magazine article about the iBeam multimedia portal: [12] --Mika1h (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current tone of the article is entirely inappropriate (see also: WP:NPOV, section: Impartial tone, subsection WP:SUBJECTIVE), which is not too surprising given its lifted straight from the press releases used as references. Contra Wikishovel, I believe this is a clear WP:DEL-REASON #4 even if it doesn't meet #1. It may be theoretically possible to write an article that does not have such inappropriate tone even sourced mostly from press releases . I don't think this is a G11, which would be subject to deletion in draftspace also, so if someone wants to make the attempt, no objections. But this is not suitable for mainspace. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that promotional or otherwise non-neutral tone belongs on the encyclopedia, even if the entity being promoted could not possibly stand to be affected. The legal reason why we would not allow advertising is because it's a deceptive way of gaining financial advantage (WP:COVERT), and we extend that to well beyond what is required by law because a) we don't like it, b) an abundance of caution, and c) it being a good general principle. Same as copyright here. But even were it perfectly fine and dandy otherwise, PROMO is fundamentally unencyclopedic and a clear violation of NPOV. For example, if someone created an article with the following text, it should be deleted under G11 because it is an ad even though FooBar Corporation does not exist and could not possibly benefit from advertising:
About FooBar

FooBar Corporation is the next-generation leader in widget innovation. Our cutting-edge widgets are used by millions of people around the globe, and we are committed to providing our customers with the best possible products and services.

FooBar widgets are known for their state-of-the-art technology, sleek design, and intuitive user interface. We use only the highest quality materials and components in our widgets, and we back our products with a satisfaction guarantee.

If you are looking for the most innovative and user-friendly widgets on the market, look no further than FooBar Corporation. Our widgets are sure to revolutionise your workflow and exceed your expectations.

Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The concerns regarding the promotional tone of the article are valid and should be addressed through editing, not deletion. The historical significance of IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation in the development of streaming media technology is well-documented and notable for several reasons:
    • The company's closure in 2002 indicates that the article is not serving a promotional purpose but is a historical record.
    • IBEAM's technological contributions, such as global load balancing and edge networking, are substantiated by patents and their adoption in the industry, which is a testament to their significance.
    • The partnerships and roles in major streaming events that IBEAM held are a matter of public record and contribute to the notability of the company.
    • While the article may source from press releases, the information presented is factual and relevant to the company's technological advancements and industry impact. Credible sources like Streaming Media Magazine provide an objective perspective on these contributions.
    • Preserving information about defunct companies is crucial for historical accuracy and understanding industry evolution. The loss of sources over time should encourage us to maintain and enhance the article rather than remove it.
Given these points, the IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation article warrants retention and improvement. It provides valuable historical insight into the early days of streaming media, a pivotal aspect of today's internet. Deletion would result in a significant gap in the historical context for readers interested in the evolution of streaming technology. Nilslahr (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhat a moot point, but you should probably properly disclose your COI, by the way. You can find how to do so at WP:DISCLOSE. Are you committing to fixing things up yourself or are you expecting other people to do it for you? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP: no in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Corporations have higher requirements for sources to combat just the kind of promotional content we see in this article. --Mika1h (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge select content to Williams Communications#Telecommunications as per WP:ATD and suggestion above and then Delete. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The tone of the article is entirely inappropriate and is PEACOCK and PROMO. Just the first couple of sentences alone raise the following issues:
iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation was a Media Streaming Company. Established in 1998, iBEAM was instrumental[according to whom?] in the invention[according to whom?] of the Content Delivery Network for Streaming Media. The company played a pivotal role[according to whom?] in aiding giants[peacock prose] like Real Networks and Microsoft in scaling their services.[according to whom?] iBEAM was responsible[according to whom?] for introducing groundbreaking[peacock prose] technologies such as global load balancing, edge networking, distributed streaming, and digital data satellite delivery[according to whom?].
None of the references meet the criteria and perhaps due to the age of the company I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. HighKing++ 14:31, 7 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. Star Mississippi 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rasen (TV series)[edit]

Rasen (TV series) (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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a sequel to Ring: The Final Chapter, so it's obviously notable and I'm sure sources will be found; this isn't going to be deleted, at worst a merge should be considered. Nate • (chatter) 16:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nationally-televised series with double-digit viewership percentages, and the novel the series is based upon is likely notable as well. The Japanese article is at ja:らせん (鈴木光司の小説). Most sources from the 1990s will not be online in Japanese, but the first Google Books hit I see is the national magazine Shūkan Shinchō talking about how the series was a hit across Asia and contributed to a boom in Japanese horror. Dekimasuよ! 11:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Jani[edit]

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

Nothing has changed since the July AfD, which closed as draftify. Just moved back to mainspace by the creator without improvements that address the issues raised. Star Mississippi 12:36, 30 October 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 a redirect/delete combination‎. Delete some, redirect others per this comment and sub thread. I will delete the relevant ones. I'm leaving the redirects for editorial handling as it isn't clear whether all targets exist. (I may need more coffee) Star Mississippi 14:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeżew PGR[edit]

Jeżew PGR (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)

Mass created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

Also nominated:

Zalesie PGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Klejwy PGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jawory PGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ołownik PGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Potworów PGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ostrowy PGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cieleśnica PGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Torzeniec PGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Holeszów PGR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"PGR" stands for Państwowe Gospodarstwo Rolne, or "State Agricultural Farm". Every one of these was therefore a farm, not a village/settlement per se. In every instance but one these are a simple duplicate of the article related to the village they were in.

The exception is Potworów PGR (literally "Monsters PGR"). There is nothing at the location in this article but a wide expanse of forest - though of course Google Maps loyally shows Potworów PGR as a location in the forest, as a result likely of scraping data from Wikipedia. I suspect this may be a hoax, though there is no PL Wiki article that might shed more light on this.

With the exception of those sites for which a pro forma translation into another language is displayed, all of these articles are cited very generally to the TERYT database, though it is not clear how that supports these locations.

Even if these could be found on the TERYT database, the appropriate notability standard for a state farm is WP:NORG, which these manifestly fail.

In every case the original Polish article that Kotbot procedurally-generated these articles out of has already been deleted or redirected. It is not clear why EN Wikipedia should continue to host them.

Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NGEO. WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FOARP, you might have listed these additional articles in your deletion nomination but none of them are appropriately tagged. I haven't checked to see if they were actually all created by a bot but if there is a human editor involved, they should receive a notification. Right now, this discussion only concerns Jeżew PGR. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads-up Liz, yes, I had forgotten to tag the other articles - tags added now. I can confirm that these were all created by Kotbot, a bot that was deactivated more than ten years ago (but still has an active bot-approval according to their page? Yeah, that should probably be removed just for security's sake if it really is still active) , operated by Kotniski, an editor who quit in 2012. FOARP (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, looks like everything is up to code now. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (support some, object to others). Object to deletion of the ones that have separate articles on pl wiki and claims of presence in TERYT, those need stand-alone discussion. That means pl:Klejwy (Klejwy), pl:Ołownik (osada), pl:Cieleśnica-Pałac (that one seems clearly notable, setting aside the PGR association that is not even mentioned on pl wiki, mini-WP:TROUT here, FOARP, seems deserved - that's what happens when you start doing mass noms (trash, trash, trash, error, go back...). pl:Holeszów (osada) is the last one I object to (it has an unreferneced small history section on pl wiki). For others, I am fine with deletion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Piotrus - we already have articles on Klejwy, Ołownik, Cieleśnica, and Holeszów.
If there is any information that needs keeping, it can be merged to them. However, I do not see any sourcing either here or on PL Wiki that actually supports anything to add to these articles. TERYT possibly has listings for osada that are part of these villages, but there is nothing to indicate that these are the same as the state farms that used to operate within the same villages - if there is a need for an article, it won't be under these titles or contain any of the same information. The same is true of the palace. FOARP (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with redirecting those articles there, as I concur there is no stand-alone notability that is currently obvious, and also the PGR in the names is not always official, per TERYT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also OK with redirection in those cases as an ATD. For Cieleśnica Palace I agree that an EN Wiki article is warranted - I'll see if I can do one in coming days based on this and this. Reading the history, I'm not sure the PGR was at the palace - communist-origin sources talk about the palace being converted into a "place for architects and cultural workers", and later the Palace became owned by the PGR and used as a club of some sort, though who knows what the truth actually was. FOARP (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Piotrus: - just a ping to say that Cieleśnica Palace is now an article. BTW - looking at the area of the palace you see the kind of harm these inaccurate articles cause on widely-used websites like Google Maps which scrape data from Wikipedia - the ENTIRE area, including ALL of the street-names, are labelled "Cieleśnica PGR", a name that properly belongs to absolutely nothing in that area since the state farm there shut down decades ago. You can simply look at the road-signs leading in to the area and the address of the local museum to see that the locals simply refer to this as "Cieleśnica" and probably wonder why they have this weird name on Google Maps and elsewhere. Indeed, Wikipedia may have essentially wished a place into existence since inevitably the locals will use addresses that can be easily found by delivery drivers/taxis etc. on Google maps. FOARP (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP I wonder where does the Google Map PGR error originates, since wikidata entry I link below has the English name (and Polish) correctly at Cieleśnica-Pałac, not some PGR. Minor note on errors: that I fixed the interwiki (or to be clear, deleted the connection). Cieleśnica Palace which you created is notable, but it is not the same as the village pl:Cieleśnica-Pałac which has no en wiki article right now (pl wiki does not have a separate article about the palace yet). Note that I've restored the pl wiki link at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3270790). Cieleśnica PGR should be moved to Cieleśnica-Pałac, assuming this is the village (or deleted if the PGR entity is some TERYT error). Pinging Polish experts: @Stok, @Malarz pl, @Aotearoa so that we can figure if that PGR article needs to be renamed (if it is about the Polish village) or deleted (if it is about a non-notable PGR)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Piotrus: - To make things easy for the closer, unless anyone else comments here, would it be fair to summarize where we've gotten to here as:
Delete - Jeżew PGR, Zalesie PGR, Jawory PGR, Potworów PGR, Ostrowy PGR, Torzeniec PGR
Redirect to respective village - Klejwy PGR, Ołownik PGR, and Holeszów PGR.
Waiting for Stok - Cieleśnica PGR.
Is that a fair summary? FOARP (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More or less. Since nobody I pinged from pl wiki seems to have time or will to comment, I'll ping few more folks in case anyone cares to offer a useful comment here. @Mathieu Mars @Azemiennow @XaVi PROpolak Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Zalesie PGR, Jawory PGR, Potworów PGR, Ostrowy PGR, Torzeniec PGR
Redirect: Klejwy PGR, Ołownik PGR, and Holeszów PGR
per FOARP. Many thanks to FOARP and Piotrus for their work on this. As for Cieleśnica PGR - I'll support what you two finally decide.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the articles in question were created by a bot, it is likely that the non-existent populated places were described due to database inconsistencies. It would be tough to establish otherwise as Kotinski has already quit. However, let's leave the ones that are present in pl.wiki and can be verified in TERYT. May redirects be created if you prefer so, I am not gonna insist. Mathieu Mars (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mathieu Mars - Thanks for responding. Just to be clear on this, none of these are present in PL Wiki as articles - they've all been deleted or redirected there. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I meant: if for any of them the redirect exists in pl.wiki, we should exclude such an article from deletion by leaving it or turning into redirect. Should've been more precise. Mathieu Mars (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shihab Thangal Charity Trust[edit]

Shihab Thangal Charity Trust (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)

Bringing this to AFD as a redirect to Syed Muhammedali Shihab Thangal was objected by the creator. The article fails WP:NONPROFIT. The primary sources include press releases and local coverage about some charity works did by them. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added translations of the titles of the Malayalam-language newspaper articles used as references. The Hindu is a national newspaper, and there is also international coverage from the Saudi Gazette. I think that the coverage adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 23 October 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, Daniel (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: If 2 reliable sources aren’t enough to establish notability then I don’t know what is. So keep per WP:GNG Nagol0929 (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Yep, looks to meet WP:GNG. Tollens (talk) 06:47, 3 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. I don't think there's going to be any agreement on this, after several resists some think the article should be kept, others think it should be deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of adult television channels[edit]

List of adult television channels (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 sources indicated as it fail WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:LISTCRUFT. MirrorPlanet (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. How can things be categorized unless they have some citeable qualification making them worthy of the list? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With the wind-down of pay-per-view on cable/satellite, many of these networks are defunct and no longer active, and I wish you (and your anti-virus program) good luck trying to find sources for all of these; most of the properties have long transferred to the Internet. This is a declining list better as a category. Nate • (chatter) 19:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List serve a useful purpose to me and other encyclopedia users. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:12, 30 October 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, Daniel (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I agree that the list would be better as a category. The already existing Category:Television pornography seems like it already duplicates most of the entries – I'd be all for categorizing each entry in the current list that isn't already in the category under it. Tollens (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This list article would not fit in there Category:Lists_of_television_channels_by_content instead?
    A improvement to make it match other article like List of documentary television channels would just be to add a short description beside each channel and make everything into a table. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be perfectly fine – it's simply that a list of links is exactly what a category is for. If you'd like to expand the article with additional information, by all means go ahead. Tollens (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A category and a list on one given subject matter are partially, not exactly, the same. Not only does the category here duplicates only most of the entries (i.e. not all), but the list allows to organise links in sections, add sources and comments, which seems indeed necessary for the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:59, 6 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 Zee Marathi as there does not appear more input is forthcoming and a change in target, if needed, can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Yuva[edit]

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

This is only a procedural AFD nomination. I was about to redirect this article. But a redirect to Zee Marathi#Sister channels has been reverted several times by an IP editor against general consensus. So we should either delete or keep this. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises: Seems like the best choice, this is just a long list with no discussion of the channel. Sourcing I find is all about individual TV shows, not about the channel. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zee Marathi which contains more information specific to this channel than Zee Entertainment Enterprises. Zee has a lot of channels in large part because of the multilingual nature of Indian media, and this target makes more sense as it is the main Marathi channel and the article contains summary information on other Marathi channels run by Zee. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to get this down to one Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 30 October 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Protheroe[edit]

Guy Protheroe (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)
From my PROD which was just removed:

The only source on this page is an obituary of another person which doesn't even mention Protheroe, and the only sources I could find which did only had passing mentions. I'm surprised to find so little, especially for an article this extensive, but I do not see evidence of notability here.

The removal suggests sources in Google Scholar which may be of use here, but I could only find passing mentions in there as well so I'm doubtful. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are bios available, [14] and [15], and some coverage in the NY Times [16]. He appears to have a chapter in this 1975 book but I can't access the text: [17]. Judging by his AllMusic credits, link, Protheroe appears to have an extensive career. Given this I have a suspicion that Protheroe may prove notable - but further work, potentially with offline sources, is needed to find the evidence. If kept, the article really does need an ounce or two of WP:TNT. ResonantDistortion 20:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Internet Archive has British Music Now. Protheroe contributed a chapter (on Alexander Goehr) to the book; except for a short "contributor" bio (likely autobiographical) he's not profiled in it. Jfire (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly a notable (GNG) individual who is featured in multiple publications. Google Books, Google Ngram and Google Scholar. For these reasons, the article should be kept. Aye, the article clearly requires a clean up and referencing, but that's not a reason to delete the article. IJA (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: though simply pointing to google books and google scholar results is insufficient to demonstrate notability, I think the Milken Archive bio and couple of paragraphs in the NYT pointed to by ResonantDistortion are just about sufficient on their own to demonstrate a GNG pass. (The English Chamber Choir bio isn't helpful, as it is not independent, and as Jfire says Protheroe is a contributor to, not a subject of, British Music Now). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neera Arya[edit]

Neera Arya (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 was previously deleted as a Hoax at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4#Neera Arya. However this article cite additional sources which I checked few of them and they did not check out. Some source do not even mention "Neera Ayra" include the BBC others are not functional links. I will leave it to the community decide rather than go for speedy deletion FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be helpful if @Dsrprj:, who created the article on 13 August 2023, would explain why the access-dates on their sources range from 2016 to 2021. Did they actually consult these sources? Or is this an unacknowledged translation from another Wikipedia? PamD 07:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm still suspicious about some of the further sources added with ancient "access-date"s, suggesting that the editors haven't looked at the material, but the book First Lady Spy Of INA: Neera Arya (ISBN 9789354886621) is published by Prabhat Prakashan on whom we have an article. If some of the sources are dubious, or cast suspicion on whether the whole tale is true, then that seems a need for careful editing and addition of further, reliable, sources. PamD 07:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That biography is listed on Amazon as "biographical fiction" [18]: I am skeptical that it is a reliable source. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      read the discription or checkout this - [19] DSP2092talk 09:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This 2021 version is what triggered my thought about this being a hoax. However the current 2023 version seem to be perceived as factual.
      @DSP2092 I think it will help everyone if you can fix the archived links and remove the unreliable references indicated in the previous discussion and also remove the irrelevant references like the BBC which doesn’t support the content attributed to FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep: I have recently expanded this article from the Hindi article. This article needs additional reliable sources, but it definitely meets the Wiki guidelines. There are even movies and books based on Neera Arya. DSP2092talk 08:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DSP2092: did you check the sources you added, or just copy the work of the Hindi editors without acknowledgment? PamD 09:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked all the sources, but I have read the article, and it does contain information I have read in a book about her. I am going to copyedit and add some reliable sources soon. DSP2092talk 09:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that will help, given that this is a previously deleted article for being a Hoax FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Dympies, @Georgethedragonslayer, @Jay, @Someone-123-321 and @Editorkamran who participated in the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4#Neera Arya FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the RfD, my opinion was to discuss at AfD, which we are now doing. Thanks for the ping. I don't have an opinion as of now, will go through the sources. Jay 💬 10:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. I would like to thank Fuzzymagma for pinging me. Anyone can see my comments on RfD and my analysis of sources there. All of the sources that have been used here came after 2015, which itself proves that we have no actual serious source that is discussing this non-existing subject. Not a single cited source has any expertise in history. Dympies (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dympies How do you explain the references to an award in her name, and to a memorial to her being built, which appear genuine according to Google translation? PamD 23:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: Kindly post the sources here. There are just too many listed unreliable sources to wade through to find what you are saying. Dympies (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dympies Sources such as those currently refs 4, 5 and 7. PamD 06:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of them are newly created articles. Having a non-notable award created after a fictional person is not any evidence of WP:N. Dympies (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just like what I had said on RfD, there is no source to confirm if this person was real. It is easy to viral fake news on internet but Wikipedia is not their backwater. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dympies. Yes the subject is nothing more than a hoax. There are no scholarly sources to confirm the existence of this fake subject. In India, state-sponsored efforts are being made in the recent years to falsify history but we must avoid entertaining that.[20] Editorkamran (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The number of sources, found, even if some are considered unreliable, suggests that even if she did not exist she is notable as a fictional or legendary character, the subject of books and apparently a film. If the reader finds [ https://m.timesofindia.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/roopa-iyers-bollywood-debut-is-on-indias-first-woman-spy-before-independence/amp_articleshow/95093222.cms a Times of India article] about her biopic, Wikipedia should have an article about her.PamD 06:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the current article is not written as fictional and please consider that Tines of India might not be a reliable sources as it known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage, see WP:RSP. I am still waiting for @DSP2092 to do what they promised (adding reliable sources and fix the dead links) FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to rewrite the article. I am copyediting in my sandbox but it will take some time. I have my exams running so i can't rewrite whole article in few days. It needs a lots of work to find RS and rewrite whole article, Regards. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 16:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. We would know that from hundreds of scholarly sources written about Indian National Army if this subject was not a hoax but it is clear at present stage that it is indeed a social media fake news. CharlesWain (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Its a WP:HOAX. Agletarang (talk) 14:57, 5 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 12:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Gardens Shopping Centre[edit]

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

This is a pretty standard shopping mall without demonstrated notability. Several of the citations included are reliable and independent but are not supportive of notability. This title was previously deleted via AfD, but this is not a re-creation of the original but a new and improved (albeit still not notable) article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Wingert[edit]

Kelsey Wingert (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 individual. The incident with the foul ball is 6 of the references out of 15, and none of the others are substantial coverage about her. GraziePrego (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - she was struck by a foul ball twice and received coverage in reliable sources after both incidents, as well as the coverage identified by Oaktreeb above. Hatman31 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 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, Daniel (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:52, 1 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 Battle of Achelous (1359). If there is something worth saving, any editor is free to rescue the content from behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian-Epirote War of 1359[edit]

Albanian-Epirote War of 1359 (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 page is simply a cut and paste copy of Battle of Achelous (1359) with a couple of superficial edits Lokosos (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting an entire page on the grounds of its minor similarities with another page is excessive and absurd. The Battle of Achelous (1359) was a battle in the Albanian-Epirote War of 1359 which is crucial to know. It's also worth noting that this conflict had a relatively short duration and culminated in a single battle. As a result, it is entirely justifiable for the page to incorporate information regarding this singular engagement. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the majority of the article copied with minor copy edits and most significantly only a single extra source added. As rightly you point out it's a campaign with a single battle. There no need for two articles. Lokosos (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up if needed. It is notable and referenced.. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this isn't a question about the referencing - it's two essentially identical articles that should be merged for what extremely small difference there is between them. 37.245.43.164 (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a content fork. BLAR also acceptable. Srnec (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:34, 30 October 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 Scotland ODI cricketers. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 14:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Naylor[edit]

Liam Naylor (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 was the only in-depth coverage I was able to find on the subject, which is not enough to meet WP:GNG as more than one publication is needed. JTtheOG (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect. I'd also classify it as WP:TOOSOON, as the article only lists minimal play. Also, he's 22. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:35, 23 October 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, Daniel (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: notable per independent, reliable 2 refs added since the deletion nomination; both are from the Liverpool Echo[23][24]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- GNG states that "a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." JTtheOG (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • JTtheOG, thanks for pointing that out -- I'd never noticed that footnote (Wikipedia:Notability#Notes, footnote 4). My interpretation is that "a series of publications" does not refer to 2 or more unconnected articles. I suspect footnote 4 probably refers to serialized content (for example, a 3-day, 3-part series on a given topic). If that's correct, I don't think the footnote applies to this subject. Over the course of 100s of AfDs[25][26], I've never seen this footnote invoked before -- this makes me think this is a narrow rule. Otherwise, we'd be tossing articles just because a subject's multiple references are only to New York Times articles or to Economist articles.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is humbling. After saying I've never seen footnote 4 come up before, this was just raised 4 hours ago at Articles for deletion/Sangramsingh Thakur. That said, I still think this refers to serialized content.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. I think that this is a very reasonable interpretation of the excerpt. I can't say that I've seen this exact quote used in an AfD before, although I've seen the principal applied in a couple of sportspeople AfDs. Cheers, JTtheOG
  • Redirect per Rugbyfan22. The two RS seem to be considered by GNG to be one source – while the footnote requires a series, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability pretty clearly considers multiple articles by one author the same source. Pinging A. B. due to the GNG discussion above. Tollens (talk) 06:39, 3 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. A move can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 14:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Today[edit]

Midlands Today (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 see no claim of significance. My BEFORE search found this Coventry website, BusinessLive, and this mere mention and I still don't see enough for WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move: We would probably move to BBC Midlands Today since BBC regional news since many articles have the BBC prefix in it. Akhil K. (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Rillington (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no justification for this article's deletion, It is a significant regional news programme and contains independent references. Rillington (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's enough coverage in the sources already in the article and these further sources to pass the GNG: A look back over the first 50 years of the programme is SIGCOV.[27]. Brief comment on new look [28]. Changes to the set [29] and similar. [30] Suzanne Virdee leaving [31]. Mentions in this book [32] Agree with title change to BBC Midlands Today. Rupples (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Foster (comedian)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sources are opinion, unreliable or otherwise general fluff. See also related issue at fringe theories noticeboard. A source assessment table will follow shortly after the creation of this page. Fermiboson (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fermiboson
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
[33]
No Site appears to be catalogue of people; information likely provided by the subject himself.
? N/A
Yes N/A
✘ No
[34]
No WP:OPINION
No WP:SPECTATOR
Yes N/A
✘ No
[35]
No Self-published podcast and interview
No WP:UGC, WP:INTERVIEW
✘ No
[36]
? No apparent affiliation of publisher with subject.
No WP:INTERVIEW
? Podcast is no longer available.
✘ No
[37]
? No apparent affiliation of reviewer with subject.
~ Reviews would normally be uncurated content and unreliable, but per WP:NARTIST 4(c) it could be significant.
~ One paragraph at the end. Normally would be a no, but since the rest of the sources are so bad some leeway is fine.
? Unknown
[38]
No Site is a catalogue of events; information provided by subject.
Yes One would be reasonably confident that the person at least is a comedian from the page.
✘ No
[39]
No WP:IMDB
✘ No
[40]
No WP:UGC, WP:INTERVIEW
✘ No
[41]
No WP:DAILYEXPRESS
✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Sources in the article excluded from this article are nearly identical in nature to those listed in the table. Fermiboson (talk) 11:34, 30 October 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 06:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wraith (video game)[edit]

Star Wraith (video game) (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)

Star Wraith is a video game created by StarWraith 3D Games, composed only of its founder, Shawn Bower. The problem is that, since the fall of the space combat genre, games of this genre have been minimally covered, and Star Wraith is no exception. I am forcing users to review this article, as well as all others about other games in the Star Wraith series, which also suffer from the fact that they appeal only to niches in gaming. The series, nonetheless, seems notable enough that its article may be kept. Eurogamer ran a feature about Bower's 30-year-plus efforts to deliver space sims. Some of the individual games may be notable enough to keep their articles, particularly some of the Evochron games. Komputer Świat had an in-depth article about Evochron Renegades, and Rock Paper Shotgun interviewed Bower about his Evochron Legends. The articles of games like these should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The rest could be merged into the Star Wraith series article. FreeMediaKid$ 06:49, 30 October 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 06:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Bridge Golf Resort and Spa[edit]

Ross Bridge Golf Resort and Spa (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 citations. Cursory glance seems to indicate it fails WP:GNG, although I didn't try very hard since there isn't any content here which would lead me to expect any articles with depth. Daask (talk) 06:22, 30 October 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 03:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priti Jain[edit]

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

As per the flag of a previous editor, this subject – however admirable her work – does not at all seem to meet notability criteria for a Wikipedia article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:17, 30 October 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 Reframe‎ following discussion below. I'm not calling consensus here, but rather withdrawing this as the nominator given no other support for deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Sakhi[edit]

Tessa Sakhi (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 find evidence that this person meets WP:GNG or another applicable notability standard. The sources in the article, and the ones I was able to find, are all either not intellectually independent, or are not substantive. I suspect this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and that this would benefit from being draftified, but the creator moved this back to mainspace after an initial draftification by someone else. There's also clearly either a COI issue or a copyright issue with the image, and the article was substantially promotional when created; that's not a deletion reason in and of itself, but it does make working with the creator to fix this a lot harder. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:42, 30 October 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 dams in Tottori Prefecture. No prejudice against a continuing discussion on whether the list is notable, but that's beyond the scope of this AFD. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misasa Dam[edit]

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

One Source, is a Stub, & WP:BEFORE found nothing. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Japan. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The database maintained by The Japan Dam Foundation is the equivalent of an encyclopedia of dams. There's nothing wrong with a stub. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's a database with bare statistics, not an encyclopedia. And there's nothing wrong with a stub when the topic is notable, but stubs for non-notable topics shouldn't stay either. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain Plus, who on earth are the Japan Dam Foundation? I don't see any reason to consider them a reliable source. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this is: http://damnet.or.jp/jdf/kyokaisigoto/sigotoB.html 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a GNG failure. To the nominator, note that simply being a one-sentence stub with one source isn't really a reason to delete, as such topics can still be notable. Per WP:NBUILDING, "Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG." However, I can find no sources to get over the GNG bar. The one in the article is simply from a database with a little bit of bare statistics, and I don't really see anything else beyond that, even searching for the Japanese name. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its just a bad habit of mine to put in the size of the article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There appear to be hundreds, if not more, of these sub-stubs on Japanese dams. They appear to have been automatically created and all use the same source. While I'm sure there are a handful of notable entries in here, the vast majority of these probably fall under the same umbrella as this one. A wider RFC on their mass deletion could be called for here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you do that? 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bundled deletion per WP:BUNDLE. FOARP (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of dams in Tottori Prefecture as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 04:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator Nirmaljoshi has previously been notified and asked not to create these stubs. See also Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Dams articles. Many of these have been sent to AfD and the result has generally been "redirect to list article" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not redirect. That this fails WP:GNG is well argued above. People arguing for redirection to a list article need to show that the topic "list of dams in [district]" passes WP:LISTN, because I don't see any evidence that it does. If we're doing this for navigation, then we need to link to pages we have articles on, and exclude the ones that don't have articles. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of dams in Japan article was AfDed last year and it was overwhelmingly kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dams in Fukui Prefecture. Even if my proposed target fails an AfD, the most likely case is to merge back up to it's parent List of dams in Japan, in which case the WP:DOUBLEREDIRECT gets automatically fixed by bots. Jumpytoo Talk 19:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit disingenuous. It seems like that AFD was focused on a particular usage of Wikidata entries and nothing else. Notability wasn't examined, which is the complaint here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of dams in Tottori Prefecture per User:Jumpytoo. The list passing NLIST or not is a different matter and nobody seems to have raised the issue on that list talk page. It is also long standing, so it could be assumed for now that it does. As others have pointed out, this seems to be the way articles created by this particular creator has gone as well. Fermiboson (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The list passing NLIST or not is a different matter - there's no point creating and adding to non-notable list-pages that can also be deleted. Pointing to no problems having been raised so far and the page being around for a long time is neither here nor there - these are both considered fallacies here at AFD (see WP:LONGTIME). Does any reliable source consider lists of dams in Tottori Prefecture to be a notable subject? FOARP (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. The last existing consensus on the subject per the bots noticeboard link above is that redirect to list is the thing to do though of course you are welcome to try and overturn that at the talk page of the list or other relevant venue. I think you would be very hard pressed to find RS specifically about a collection of dams in any place. Fermiboson (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The last point means we shouldn’t have this list because it won’t pass WP:LISTN, since no-one ever gave any significant coverage to it. This list won’t serve a navigational purpose since none of these are articles, nor can they be developed, and Wikipedia does not host WP:IINFO. FOARP (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of dams in Tottori Prefecture per Jumpytoo. Rusty4321 talk contribs 01:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect - Fails GNG and LISTN. We shouldn't be indiscriminately creating articles or even lists for every tiny dam in the database. –dlthewave ☎ 15:58, 4 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_October_30

Leave a Reply