Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< September 25 September 27 >

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 merge‎ to Hydrostatic test. RL0919 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AS/NZS 3788[edit]

AS/NZS 3788 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. TarnishedPathtalk 11:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My PROD was removed with no improvement. No indication this generic standard is notable – there's a lot of standards out there and would need sources and explanation beyond statement of existence. Reywas92Talk 13:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Standards Australia - Follow-on to AS3959. Even with good sourcing (which this does not have), the subject does not pass WP:GNG. It clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and nothing else points to notability. This is an individual standard that, as important as it may be in specific circumstances, is simply not that notable. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many standards, including this one, are adopted by government agencies and therefore have the force of law. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The result would be identical if it were an actual law. On its own, it is simply not notable. The Standards Australia article is the right home for this info. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not make them notable in and of themselves. Please refer to WP:KITCHENSINK. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. TarnishedPathtalk 00:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any coverage that would meet GNG. The fact that many standards have the force of law is irrelevant to satisfying GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge maybe into Hydrostatic test NealeWellington (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple Merge targets proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We are just trying to settle on one Merge target article here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 26 September 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 Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Magitek. czar 02:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magicite[edit]

Magicite (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 could only find one reliable non-primary source at https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/magicite-review . The reviewers at Capsule Computers (the only non-primary source used in the article) don't seem to have much in the way of credentials, so I don't think that that review can be used for notability. QuietCicada (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure that redirecting to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series is the best option as that article is also at AFD right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series. I don't agree it's a bad option since it looks like the AFD discussion there is a WP:SNOWBALL towards keep. BrigadierG (talk) 22:45, 26 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mnet (peer-to-peer network)[edit]

Mnet (peer-to-peer 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)

A piece of dead P2P software that unfortunately died without a splash. BrigadierG (talk) 22:37, 26 September 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 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Materials World[edit]

Materials World (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)

could be that "Materials World" is a very broad term, but I haven't been able to find any sources on it minus the website of the organisation linked on the article that writes the zine and one website linking to the publisher of the zine.

website claims that it's "widely accepted as the leading publication in its field, promoting the latest developments and new technologies" but I haven't been able to locate anything that would confirm this and I haven't been able to find anything that cites this zine at all.

article has had one singular source for 3 years (added 11 years after its creation in 2009 by what seems to be a single-purpose account as it made the one singular edit creating this page and then disappeared) and the body has remained almost completely the same since its creation. —darling (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Engineering, and Environment. —darling (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - Seems like it's had no real edits since it was created and there's nothing I can find online in terms of coverage. BrigadierG (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to IOM3. This is a real scholarly periodical: take a look at the sample issue on the Taylor & Francis website here. Skimming the table of contents is enough to see that this is a serious publication featuring prominent scholars at reputable institutions. Looking further for coverage of it I found that the description mimics (maybe too closely -- I'm too tired to pursue that thought) the material on the IOM3 website here, explaining that Materials World is their publication. So my thinking is that the magazine itself is not independently notable so far as I can tell, but at least the core description of it should be moved from this page to the page for IOM3. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to IOM3#Activities where the magazine's mentioned under the publications subheading and it's a membership journal. Wouldn't advise merging the article text because as the contributor above says it's almost a replication of the Institute's blurb. Rupples (talk) 01:36, 2 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Baetz[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:NARTIST. The sources listed only mention the subject in passing, or are trivial local press covering minor events. The New York Times article for example includes her name in a long list of names. (FYI The article's title is "Art In Review" in the subsection of "At the Jumble Shop") The reviewer, Edward Alden Jewell, didn't even review the art only mentioning food was available and people could walk around and look at the art. The main criticism of the piece was directed at other unconnected art events in other parts of New York City. A WP:BEFORE search didn't yield anything better. There isn't anything here to suggest the subject is encyclopedic. 4meter4 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: More than enough discussion of their work as a composer in Gscholar. A quick perusal shows the first 6 mentions in Gscholar to be decent. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b I looked at most of those (as in actually read them). They only mention Baetz in passing as a student of Johanna Beyer who performed with Beyer at the Composers’ Forum Laboratory Concert in 1937 (a work composed by Beyer not Baetz) with no other biographical content or discussion of Baetz's music compositions or work beyond that. The articles in question only briefly nod at Baetz, and do so entirely in the context of coverage of Beyer's music and its performance in 1937. Can you please point to a journal article that actually has "in-depth coverage" that goes beyond a passing mention in a single sentence (literally that is the length of Baetz's coverage in those journal articles).4meter4 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've had deep dive in the sources, (the Jstor one in particular), Baetz seems to be a student of Beyer, mentioned as you said over, and over, in her article. I feel like we could selectively merge some of the Baetz article into the Beyer. I mean, Baetz is mentioned several times, but always as being "a student of" Beyer. That would make the most sense to me, rather than a wholesale deletion of this article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what it seems to be, this thesis on page 52 [1] mentions Baetz in a footnote; that appears to be the extent of coverage/notability. She's a student of Beyer with some connections to her, but never rising to her level of critical notice. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Women, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - much of the original article, and the current one, directly matches this article (footnote 38) - however, the user who added that text has a username that matches the author of the article, so this is presumably not a copyvio as such. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning Keep. There seem to be multiple articles discussing her as a composer, esp. "Never Call Us Lady Composers": Gendered Receptions in the New York Composers' Forum, 1935-1940 by Melissa J. De Graaf American Music, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Fall, 2008), pp. 277-308 (JSTOR 40071709) as well as the book The New York Composers’ Forum Concerts, 1935–1940 also by Melissa de Graaf (review by John D. Spilker mentions Baetz; Journal of the Society for American Music, Volume 10 , Issue 4 , November 2016 , pp. 511 - 514 doi:10.1017/S1752196316000420). Newspaper search finds local newspaper coverage of an art exhibition (Kingston Daily Freeman 31 Oct 1970) and several other mentions. Not really seeing a pressing need to delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to formal keep per additional sources found by Tagishsimon. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Oaktree b and Espresso Addict. I'd like to add too that as a female composer of note, she would be of historical interest there as well. I'm confident that going through books more will be turned up. Karl Twist (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a consensus to Keep but it's unclear if newly discovered sources are sufficient to meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I personally believe the keep voters haven't demonstrated WP:SIGCOV. In looking at the sources presented by Espresso Addict and others above, the coverage appears to be very thin. There isn't any critical commentary on her compositions and no larger discussion of her work as a composer. She's largely only mentioned in passing in connection to Beyer. Further, it's telling that no one has been able to come up with a review of her music; which to my mind demonstrates a lack of notability for a composer. One would think a critical review of a concert where here music was performed would be locatable, but there isn't anything newspapers.com, The New York Times archives, or music magazines or journals. That would be very odd for a notable composer based out of New York. The "art reviews" aren't all that significant as they are all small local affairs and not at a significant art venue, and the reviews themselves don't have in-depth coverage of her art and work as an artist. They are more focused on her husband's work (the couple exhibited together), and the one larger art review in the Kingston Daily Freeman only mentions her as creating new pieces while people were watching at the art exhibit as a form of "improvisational art" in one sentence while her husband's work got a few paragraphs of coverage. In short this is all trivial coverage in my opinion. I also note the subject doesn't meet any WP:SNG criteria either. 4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're aware that you believe the article should be deleted, but I don't personally believe that you have demonstrated a case for the necessity for deletion. None of us can access the book I mention, so the extent of coverage of Baetz is only known via the fact that a book reviewer explicitly chose to highlight her, which to me suggests likely to be significant. I don't believe anyone commenting here has access to specialist music library sources -- I certainly don't. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Besides incidental mentions, there's a couple of pages on Jessie Baetz in The New York Composers' Forum concerts, 1935-1940 by Graaf, Melissa J. de, pages 100 & 101, available via Internet Archive. Not sure if this was the book Espresso Addict is pointing to. More generally, an IA search for "Jessie Baetz" comes up with plenty of hits suggesting that she's not obscure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware, but I fail to see how this essentially one event passes GNG. All of the music related sources are about the New York Composers Forum. The one you found, while in-depth (where the others are not), is so negative in its reception of the subject and her work I question whether this really lends notability/credibility towards creating an article on the subject. It looks to me like we have a composer who had her music performed at only one notable event at which point her music was harshly received and she simply stopped after that. To my mind that doesn't reach the standard of GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:NARTIST. 4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ima stop you at 'while in-depth'. 'so negative in its reception of the subject and her work' might be said about any number of people; it's not an AfD criteria that people must like her music. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon I never said a positive review was required. However, WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources with significant coverage and this is only one source. Further I take issue with this source as providing a neutral or balanced picture of Baetz. Reasonably WP:NPOV requires a balanced reporting on a subject. Ironically, the author of the book including this coverage was doing so to demonstrate a larger historic pattern of bias against women composers in music criticism; and really the main topic here was not Baetz and her music but the potentially unfair assessment of Baetz and women like her through a cultural problem of systemic bias against women composers of that era. Unfortunately, there is no counter-assessment from a contemporary author to remedy the historical critique.
My main concern in creating an article based on this one solid piece of evidence is we are essentially encoding the negative reception of Baetz from a single event into an encyclopedia article on her, and are taking one small window of her life and work to build an article which will inevitably skew negative. More importantly, there are zero sources with a broader view of her life and work as either a composer or an artist, which all add up to failing WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. In short, I believe the scholarship just isn't there to create an ethically responsible encyclopedia article. This is clearly a woman that deserves to be researched and potentially re-assessed. However, that is not our job at Wikipedia. Until that original research is done by academics in published sources, I really don't think we should have an encyclopedia article on her. 4meter4 (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tfw it's your ethical responsibility to remove an article supported by 15 referenes, on a women, b/c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kepp. Appears to be sufficiently notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Notability" appears to be based entirely on passing mentions. Looking through newspaper archives and JSTOR does not turn up any significant coverage. Am I missing something here? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Flipping through the de Graaf book right now. Again, mentions of Baetz are all in passing: as being one of several "ultramodernists" (p. 46), her music was played at the Forum twice once (p. 97), the audience derided her music (p. 101). What very little is mentioned sounds tantalizing enough to make one want to hear her music and learn more about her. But as de Graaf herself admits (p. 100) "unfortunately, very little is known about Baetz". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing pretty much all of WP:GNG here; notably, pages 100-101 are 'significant coverage' in GNGs terms, and the rest of GNG is met. Only knowing little about the subject is not a reason for deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage would address "the topic directly and in detail". However, de Graaf's book does not do this. I agree that knowing little about a subject is not necessarily reason for deletion, but in Baetz's case there are also no studies, books, reviews, etc. that specifically cover her work. Whatever the worth of her music—and, again, de Graaf suggests that it may have been very interesting—that does not make up for lack of significant, much less sustained coverage. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of pages is in detail, CurryTime. It's not a passing mention. It is direct. GNG is satisfied. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Four fleeting references that total about 2 1/2 paragraphs in a 290-page book is not "detail", Tagishsimon. They are passing mentions. They are not direct. GNG is not satisfied. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV is not determined based on the length of the rest of the source. 2 1/2 paragraphs is indeed significant coverage. A passing mention would be one or two sentences. SilverserenC 22:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. To me, 2 1/2 paragraphs of scattered passing references in a book that otherwise is not about her specifically, but about an organization of which she was but one member of many (and where her music appears to only have ever been performed once) is not significant coverage.
My vote to delete has nothing to do with the possible intrinsic quality of her music, which may be considerable. If any other editors turn up reviews, interviews, studies, etc. about her specifically, believe me, I would enthusiastically vote against deletion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:20, 29 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voznesensky Alexander Ernestovich[edit]

Voznesensky Alexander Ernestovich (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)

Notability highly dubious. Article appears to be a rudimentary translation of the Russian one, down to the title (ru-wiki uses paper-encyclopedia conventions for names). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:19, 26 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Jalal[edit]

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

While performing clean up, I'm not sure there's a Wikipedia article here. There's WP:RS of the subject's claims, but not about the subject to establish notability. In fact, the RS reporting places doubt on the credibility of the subject's claims, and the RS coverage is only because a parliamentarian provided a platform. In addition, the coverage was not sustained beyond his initial 2016 claims. Basically, the RS does not establish GNG, from my read. Longhornsg (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with the nominator. Although there are articles covering him, they primarily focus on a single event. This doesn't sufficiently establish notability in my eyes. - The9Man (Talk) 15:07, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naugachia[edit]

Naugachia (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)

Lacks reliable sources. Full of WP:or. Fails WP:v. Thank you.— Mikeanand (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know everything about the region. Even you know that Naugachia doesn't belongs to Mithila Region. But you're trying to manipulate the history. you're totally politically influenced or you're the puppet of any political leader.
But here are some the some online news media links, which can help you to understand Naugachia better.
1.This shows that Angika is the notable language in Naugachia Region. [1]
2.This shows that Naugachia comes under Anga Region. [2]
M Nitishbgp (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nitishbgp: We need reliable sources for the article. My wp:pov or anyone's for that matter, doesn't matter. And maybe you should look at wp:NPA. @Ponyo: could you please take a look. Thank you. — Mikeanand (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, everyone is requested to read the cited source in the article to see for yourself if it is wp:or or not. Thank you.— Mikeanand (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "नारायणपुर पहुंची लोकगायिका देवी ने कहा:अब अंगिका भाषा में=www.naugachia.com". Retrieved 2018-03-13.
  2. ^ "अंग जनपद का प्रसिद्ध लोक पर्व मनसा विषहरी पूजा नवगछिया शहर में धूमधाम से शुरू=www.gs-news.in". Retrieved 2022-08-18.
  • comment This could be remedied very quickly if the article were properly sourced. Mangoe (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from a deletion point of view, and easily so - it's clearly a notable place from a quick book search. The problems with the article can be solved through editing, maybe even WP:TNT, but deletion is not an option here. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NPLACE as it is real and populated. I've removed the OR. It also looks like this title is spelled wrong - the town is recorded in the 2011 Indian census as "NAUGACHHIA" with two H instead of one. Once this AFD closes I will move it, or if nom will withdraw the nomination given the obvious NPLACE meet, I will do it sooner.BrigadierG (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is full of unverifiable original research and needs a huge rewrite, but does pass WP:NPLACE. GraziePrego (talk) 04:07, 3 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 merge‎ to Steve Earle. RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Steve Earle Show[edit]

The Steve Earle Show (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)

Unable to find any secondary coverage for this defunct radio show. Hits for "The Revolution Starts Now" are about the song of the same name, not the radio show. Fails WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Steve Earle per WP:ATD. Currently the biography doesn't even mention the show by name and the content would seem like a better fit on Earle's bio page than on the radio station page for WP:WEIGHT reasons.4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 2 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Fletcher[edit]

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

Article is entirely unreferenced and the external links are marketing her products for sale. WP:NOTADVERT would seem to apply. Further, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. 4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I haven't been able to turn up any useful sources that could be used to confirm notability. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:47, 1 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State High School Mathematics League[edit]

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

This article only cites primary sources (two to the competition's website and one to a book written by its founder). A WP:BEFORE search found primarily trivial mentions in local news. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 16:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable secondary sources beyond MILL competition results found. Listing of winners isn't appropriate as discussion of non-notable minors is something to be avoided here. There's nothing here that wouldn't be better contained in the organization website. Fails NORG; likely fails NOT. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG due to a lack of independent and secondary coverage. Trivial mentions regarding results don't contribute to notability. User:Let'srun 03:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 1 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 further input since initial disagreements, despite two relists. RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malik ibn al-Nadr[edit]

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

No indication whatsoever of importance or notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. WP:BEFORE shows no indication whatsoever of historical importance. Notability is also WP:NOTINHERITED, but even if it were, this subject is 14 generations away from Muhammad. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being a distant ancestor of someone notable does not equate to notability. FatCat96 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Family tree of Muhammad is a potential redirect page
    • Comments similar to those above about notability could be made about Jesus’s ancestors, however articles about minor Biblical figures are usually retained in AfDs (sometimes “keep”, sometimes “no consensus”).
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could go for it as a potential redirect (it borders on clutter, but redirects *are* cheap, and it'd make it easier for someone to rebuild the article if it ever acquires any sort of actual notability). Regarding minor Biblical figures, I can't say I know much about that. I would definitely still disagree with keeping a Bible figure of similar notability, but at the very least with a lot of obscure Biblical figures, I imagine there's been extensive, citable theological research about them (if not, then again I'd heavily disagree with keeping them on notability grounds). With this one, it's 1) some random person fourteen times removed from Muhammad 2) whose only source is a non-profit that 3) frankly doesn't even seem to mention him one time, let alone in any detail. Truthfully, I have no idea why the creator of these (I'll note previously deleted) articles even used this source when it doesn't mention the relevant subjects. Update: found him in another chapter. He's dedicated approximately 10 words in this entire thing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not Muslim; I hope we’ll get Muslims joining this discussion.
As I understand it, Muhammad was created before other humans and then his Nūr was implanted in Adam. Adam in Islam is a bigger deal than in Judaism; he’s a prophet and not just some schmuck who ate the wrong apple. Muhammad’s nūr was carried down from Adam through multiple descendants to Muhammad. So Malik is important - not just some guy but the carrier of Muhammad’s nūr.
However, even if Malik’s important, is he notable if we don’t find something comprehensive written about him?
I’m no scholar; this is just what I’ve found since deleting the speedy tag.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.:, all figures of ancestor line of Muhammad are (not very, but average) a little bit important issues in Islamic studies, see my comment below, and the term nur is risky to use in case of Muhammad because of the important islamic basic ideology of Shirk (Islam), because calling him God's light (Nur of Allah, sometime being extreme and too much liberal in emotion) is an extremely controversial issue, because it can associate him in the part and power of God in Islam or Allah, which is prohibited in Islam as Shirk (Islam), you can study it on Sufi–Salafi relations, also search the topic in google, many contents related to it are available in english. 202.134.8.130 (talk)
  • Keep, ar wikipedia has an entry ar:مالك بن النضر with 6 more language entries. If مالك بن النضر is searched in google, a lot of important entries are found in google and google books. As a family ancestor of Muhammad, an important figure. Suggest to verily keep and improve the article, google translate can be used to translate the contents found in arabic while searching in google, in arabic, google translate really works nice. Btw, I added the article to the respective interwikilink of the rest 6s. The most important islamic academic database maqtaba shamila (ar:المكتبة الشاملة) has also 2 entries when searched in google (see here). And for help, if anyone wants to learn Arabic they can follow 3 minute lessons of lesson b's of this video series on youtube. And to know Muhammad's life, english translation of Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum is suggested, available in google as free pdf. 202.134.8.130 (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per 202.134.8.130. Thanks for explaining this to us! It was fascinating to read about this last night.
    —-A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 26 September 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 Workers' Party (Ireland). RL0919 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Socialist Network[edit]

Irish Socialist 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)

I can find almost no indication that this organization exists or is notable outside of its own publications, do not believe that it meets the WP:GNG. Bestagon ⬡ 17:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Wilkinson (entrepreneur)[edit]

Philip Wilkinson (entrepreneur) (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 entrepreneur. There are reliable sources that mention him such as Forbes (staff written), TechCrunh, and The Guardian, but these are mainly mentions of him founding the companies. A lot of quotes and directly listings as well but nothing that adds up to notability. CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No sources beyond PR items found for this individual Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniël van Goens[edit]

Daniël van Goens (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 subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Nothing in the article is a discernible claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The newspapers linked in the comment above the relist are simply name drops. I can't find anything else for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Best I can find are various musical works (sheet music) in the BNF Gallica and a few mentions in Gscholar, mostly confirmation of his works. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Dutch wikipedia article lists a number of sources such as JH Letzer: Musical Netherlands 1850-1910 . Bio-bibliographic dictionary of Dutch musical artists - as well as writers in the music-literary field, 2. edition with additions and improvements. Utrecht: JL Beijers, 1913, page 239 Illustrated music lexicon, edited by Mr. G. Keller and Philip Kruseman, collaboration with Sem Dresden , Wouter Hutschenruijter (1859-1943) , Willem Landré , Alexander Voormolen and Henri Zagwijn ; published in 1932/1949 by J. Philips Kruseman, The Hague; page 178 Jozef Robijns , Miep Zijlstra : General music encyclopedia , Haarlem: De Haan, 1979-1984, ISBN 978-90-228-4930-9 , volume 4, page 29 Necrology Caecilia 1904 by Simon van Milligen. Several of those books have dutch wikipedia articles about the books themselves. Also coverage here and here. Together there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on the coverage provided by Atlantic306, I think we can say this passes WP:GNG. I really suspect there is a lot more, but I have trouble assessing it with my limited language skills. There is certainly a lot of his work available, especially since he died 114 years ago. Jacona (talk) 01:02, 3 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CEVA Logistics[edit]

AfDs for this article:
CEVA Logistics (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:NORG. The article is a catalogue of mergers and acquisitions without any claims that the business has done anything notable. A BEFORE search comes up with nothing but listings entries and their own social media. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, while I commend HighKing's research, the sources found are market surveys which are indiscriminate listings of the companies in the market rather than significant coverage of CEVA. Cabayi (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, its a pity I can't return the compliment because by labelling the reports as indiscriminate listings, you're just demonstrating that you didn't bother to even look at the reports. These reports contain detailed information and analysis about CEVA. HighKing++ 09:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since HighKing calls upon me to prove I've looked at their sources, here goes:
        1. alliedmarketresearch.com : "Some leading companies profiled in the freight forwarding market report comprises Bollore Logistics, CEVA Logistics, DB Schenker, DHL Global Forwarding, Dimerco, DSV Panalpina A/S, Expeditors International, Fedex, Hellman Worldwide Logistics, Kuehne+Nagel International AG, MGF (Manitoulin Global Forwarding), Nippon Express Co., Ltd., Transporteca, UPS Supply Chain Solutions, and UBER Freight LLC.". $3,456 for more detail.
        2. globaldata.com : "CEVA Logistics SA (CEVA), a subsidiary of CMA CGM SA, is a provider of contract logistics and freight management services." There's nothing in the paragraph available to show notability. $295 for more detail.
        3. technavio.com : paywall semi-broken by web archive, " The market report also offers information on several market vendors, including AP Moller Maersk AS, Agility Public Warehousing Co K.S.C.P, Aramex International LLC, C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., CEVA Logistics AG, CJ Logistics Corp, Deutsche Bahn AG, Deutsche Post DHL Group, DSV Panalpina AS, FedEx Corp., Gati Ltd, GEODIS, Kerry Logistics Network Ltd., Kuehne Nagel International AG, Nippon Express Holdings Inc, Omni Logistics LLC, Singapore Post Ltd, SINO Group, United Parcel Service Inc., and XPO Logistics Inc. among others." $2,500 for more detail.
        4. mordorintelligence.com : The link provided is a list of 20 reports three of which feature CEVA's logo, priced at $4750 per report.
I won't claim that I've laid out the $20,501 necessary to read the complete text of these reports. I don't think any of our readers will either. With these pricetags, it's the pricetag and the alleged insider knowledge that are the points of those articles. If the other sources established CEVA's notability then I'd have no objection to these sources further down the article. However, to require $20k to just establish the company is notable is the antithesis of notability. If notability is only established by insider knowledge, the entity is not notable in any rational interpretation of notability. It's a variant of Jasper Carrott's old joke, "I'm world famous in Birmingham."
If the "detailed information and analysis about CEVA" shows CEVA's notability, please provide the proof. Cabayi (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, put it in the article. Cabayi (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's your point? Even by your own arguements, these reports go far beyond "indiscriminate listings".
  • For example, the alliedmarketresearch link says that it *profiles* those companies and if you click on the Table of Contents you can see section 10.7 is dedicated to Ceva under a number of headings.
  • You misunderstand the purpose of sources and the manner of meeting the criteria for establishing notability. It isn't the case that the report *content* needs to show notability, it is merely the fact that a publisher has created in-depth "Independent Content". The globaldata report is entirely dedicated to Ceva and is a detailed profile. This is not "trivial coverage" and that fact alone means this source meets the criteria.
  • The technavio report is similar to other research reports and the Table of Contents link shows section 10.5 dedicated to Ceva under a number of headings.
  • For mordorintelligence, you realise you can click on the link to get more details of each report. For example this report profiles Ceva at section 6.2.4.
The points you raise only really serve to demonstrate a lack of understanding of our criteria for establishing notability. It is enough that sources exist which contain in-depth "Independent Content" and Research reports (especially when they profile the company in questions) have long been accepted as meeting the criteria and aren't regarded as "inside information". They're no guideline to say that sources must be freely available, only that they are published. The requirement for "multiple sources" has easily been met, there are (even by your own admission) 6 independent analyst reports listed above and I've no doubt more exist too. HighKing++ 15:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's your point? Even by your own arguments, you have not read these reports. WP:PAYWALL allows the citation of sources behind paywall. Your assertion is that the material hidden behind the paywall must be presumed to show the business is notable. It's an equally valid assumption that the material behind the paywall is a copy of the Wikipedia article for which someone has the chutzpah to charge their users extortionate fees.
    If you have read the reports, please cite them in the article, along with some of their great insights, and we can all happily !vote keep. Cabayi (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I take it (although you've yet to acknowledge your error) that you've retracted the "indiscriminate listings" objection now that you've actually read the guideline? Your new argument has now changed to not accepting the bona fides of the listed analyst firms. I don't have access to these specific reports right now but I've read analyst reports from technavio and Mordor in the past and it is for this reason that it is frankly ridiculous to say that it is a "valid assumption" that the reports are mere copies of this Wikipedia article. Perhaps you've not bothered to check out the available Table of Contents for some of these reports from which you can see the headings under which the analysis/profile of the company is provided? Perhaps you've also not read WP:PAYWALL - the first sentence reads Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. and I can find no evidence you've even bothered to make a request at RX. HighKing++ 13:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sources currently in the article are not independent from the subject - 1 is co-authored by an employee of CEVA Logistics, and 2-5 are press releases released by CEVA Logistics or their business partners. It is not possible to determine what depth of coverage the four market research reports provided by HighKing give to the subject. Given their unknown reliability, unknown independence, and very low diffusion (these are meant to be sold to a handful of companies), I choose to err on the side of what is available to us, and find myself agreeing more with Cabayi's case. There's simply not enough reliable material to justify a standalone article when all the content we should be using sits behind an inaccessible paywall. Pilaz (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a new one for me at least. Technavio is one of the biggest analyst firms in the world. Mordor is one of the biggest research aggregators. Have you located something which says they are of questionable reliability or independence? Also, see WP:PAYWALL. HighKing++ 14:29, 3 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

District Planning Committee[edit]

District Planning Committee (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, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH. Article is based on primary self-published sources by the government with run-of-the-mill routine material; lacks secondary (WP:PST) or independent sources (WP:ORGIND). Governments have many local bodies under it, but Wikipedia is not a database for every such orgs. The Doom Patrol (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - two reasons. First, it seems to me that a function described in the constitution of a nation state is very likely to be notable as it is likely to be closely examined by independent journalistic sources. Second, a brief survey of GScholar shows that there are many journal papers and books discussing the way this works in India. To the extent that it would be too much effort to discuss them all here. Conclusion: it's a function of the state, we have access to the output journalists and academics who keep track of such things, hence it is notable because it is noted. JMWt (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JMWtDo you have any policies that support your position or can you provide the sources? Nagol0929 (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: There seems to be content forking. I can see one more article District planning in India. District planning is done by DPC.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A merge might be appropriate, but it seems to me that the content in the two articles doesn’t overlap that much. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Topic is clearly notable. Furthermore, I second JMWt’s arguments.
Previously, the nom had attempted to PROD this article, an action inconsistent with policy that PROD "is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".
I objected at the time for these reasons, and left a message explaining why at nom’s talk. While the message was probably a bit too brief to be clear, well, see the history for their user talk. Nor did nom ping me when they AfDed.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulsamed Akin[edit]

Abdulsamed Akin (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)

Completely fails WP:SPORTCRIT, no coverage in WP:RS whatsoever. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Germany, and Turkey. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can only find match reports about games he played in, nothing in-depth about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A stub a decade ago and still a stub. Aintabli (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be exact, a single-sentence stub, and nothing changed after a decade. Aintabli (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article lacks any depth and fails to comply with WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 4) as it does not include any SIGCOV (just databases). Also, my searches turned up nothing that would constitute SIGCOV that might satisfy WP:GNG. Not finding a suitable redirect target, so deletion unfortunately appears to be the right result. Cbl62 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A check for this player that is football base is next to nil. HawkAussie (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article.
Villon411 (talk) 11:59, 1 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jafarabad High School[edit]

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

High school, fails GNG and NORG, unreferenced, BEFORE showed nothing.  // Timothy :: talk  20:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only potentially notable coverage could be in this book (preview not working), but that alone wouldn't be enough to pass GNG. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the only sources I could find were mostly on Facebook (in which FB is considered unreliable), and I'm assuming this is a non-notable high school which is improperly sourced. Signed, 64andtim (any problems?) 14:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 (sockpuppet of User:HassanHussainOfficial) Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shehr Main Dihat[edit]

Shehr Main Dihat (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 WP:DEPTH of coverage in any of the sources that might meet WP:RS; some of the sources don't even mention this channel. The "detailsbiography" source clearly does not meet RS criteria. Prod was disputed by page creator.OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. While some people certainly did not agree with this, there is a general consensus that this subject does not have the requisite source coverage for NLIST. There were some alternative proposals made for better-focused lists, and of course that can also change in the future, so that is certainly not to say Wikipedia shouldn't cover this topic at all; just not quite in this way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of electroacoustic composers of color[edit]

List of electroacoustic composers of color (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)

De-PROD'd. Original (endorsed) rationale: I see no indication that this specific yet subjective and undefined cross-categorization meets WP:NLIST. "Of color" is a very American-centric phrase that essentially categorizes people as "white" or "not", smushing everyone in the "not" category into one homogenous mass with no respect to actual cultural differences that may be relevant. Japan, for example, might have a particular style of electroacoustic composition where it would be relevant to discuss Japanese composers (and their non-Japanese adherents) together, but there's no indication that every "non-white" electroacoustic composer should be grouped together in this way. (And that's not getting into how we may or may not be defining "of color").

DePROD'd by creator with the following rationale: Removed deletion proposal because this is a useful resource for teaching. My students (who are not in the US) use this page, as do other lecturers.

As much as I respect that, whether or not something could be useful to a small subset of people is not a basis for keeping a list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah! I didn't realize that existed. I'm happy for a merge/redirect instead of deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This list exists for the same reason lists of women composers exist. It's to simplify research for people who are trying to find representation. The history of this genre has been heavily whitewashed to the point that it's usually credited to being invented in France by Schaeffer. In fact, the origin was in Cairo from El-Dabh. He was not an obscure composer. He moved to the US and moved in all the important musical circles of the post-war era, but his contribution has largely been neglected. I'm using him as an example, but this is a systemic problem, similar to the one that has also historically impacted women. I understand that this is a 'smushing', but systemic erasure is also a smushing.
    Drcchutch (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understanding "of color" as an exclusively North-American phrase is a very limiting way of framing the rationality of this list. It also conveys non-Western artistic practice, and art manifestations from the Global South, which, in the context of the history of electroacoustic music, includes a highly-relevant number of practitioners, past and present. Since this kind of list page is very useful for discoverability by the general public as well as by students in the field, deleting it would be a mistake, and the rationale presented for deletion would not speak very highly of the principles of the Wikipedia community. Kamen~enwiki (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The assumption that all "people of color" are non-Western and/or from the Global South is, itself, a limiting point of view. The color of one's skin does not determine their artistic practice. Do you have any reliable sources which treat all "people of color" as coming from a single or related electroacoustic tradition? Presenting sources would be the most useful argument towards keeping this list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said "all 'people of color'" above. I clearly stated "It also conveys". Kamen~enwiki (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But my point is that that's what this type of list conveys, unintentionally or otherwise - that somehow all "people of color" are the same. It's one thing to create a list of "List of composers from X" or "List of composers in X style", but "people of color" is a subjective term that homogenizes all these people. Again, if there were sources that discussed "people of color" as a specific group within electroacoustic music, that would be a much stronger argument for keeping this list - do you have any? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want this broken down by country of origin or what are you looking for?
    And what time frame are you looking for it in? It's my first week of term and I did not have refactoring this list in my schedule.
    Drcchutch (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reinstate my vote to keep, on the grounds I stated above. Further arguments for this have been made by others below. Kamen~enwiki (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been thinking about it and there's no obvious way to refactor this list and retain it's current utility. This list exists because of historical and ongoing racism in music education and textbooks.
    Racism lumps diverse populations together and sees them as interchangeable. Dozens of different countries and cultures become "Asian." Educators and researchers trying to mitigate the effects of this use the same terminology, because anti-racism is a reaction to racism.
    Breaking this list up into "Asian", "Black", etc, however, becomes more specific to a particular western country, rather than less. The categories used in the UK differ very significantly from the ones used in the US and neither is exhaustive.
    This list is of most use to academics, musicologists and students, who are a small subset of people, it's true, but they're also the experts in the topic.
    Again, wikipedia does have artificial, homogenous groupings like "women" in other places for very similar motivations, utility and audience.
    Drcchutch (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the discussion here, I'm going to recommend a keep based on WP:NLIST clause, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, as a list that is both informational and developmental. I would entertain other options that serve the purposes this one does including renaming the list. I currently view merge as a subpar but viable alternative.
    I will also note that an editor removed several redlinks from the list recently, and I'm not equipped to know if they should be restored per the intended informational and developmental purposes of this list. —siroχo 08:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those names were there for developmental purposes. Drcchutch (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a UK perspective the 'of colour' term does seem extremely broad in a way that centres whiteness, while excluding many people who experience racism such as Roma and Jewish people.
    More specific information is already there in existing finer-grained categories, e.g. someone might be in both a 'Indonesian composer' category and an 'Electroacoustic composer' category. Does wikipedia have functionality for selecting/grouping by category and presenting that as a meta-list? That would allow suppressed histories to be brought to light without the USA-centric 'smushing'. Nonetheless I'm going to vote keep because fundamentally I think this should not be framed as a deletion discussion and would be better as a more expansive discussion on the category's talk page.
    Yaxu (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no ability to create a list on the fly based on categories. You could run a query using an offwiki tool to pull entries in Category X that are also in Category Y, but that's offwiki. I'm not sure what a discussion on the category talk page would have to do with keeping this list article or not, as regardless of the outcome of any categorization discussion, this list would still exist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, first and foremost as a WP:CROSSCAT, but especially due to the generally racist overtones of lumping anyone not "white" into the group of "of color", whatever that even means. Racial identity is extremely thorny, and what constitutes "of color" is almost always going to be WP:OR.
    Even though WP:PANDORA is about redirects, I'm going to invoke it in spirit here as a good reason why this list shouldn't exist. Every single list of people could be split off into an "of color" version.
    I also find the pleas to NLIST's clause of valid "informational" or "developmental" list completely ludicrous grasping at straws. Any list could be "informational", and any list with red links could be "developmental". You forgot the qualifier of recognized, which this isn't. In any case, this is just a glorified WP:ITSUSEFUL and doesn't justify keeping this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. For what it's worth, "lumping anyone not 'white' into the group of 'of color' is racist" is itself a well-known racist concern troll that attempts to support white supremacy by forcing every other ethnicity to act independently against it instead of working together to dismantle it. It's roughly the equivalent of union-busting tactics that convince workers they're better off negotiating on their own. Assuming you're operating in good faith, you should probably rethink why you think that argument is valid - and regardless, I don't think it's a valid argument for deletion here. The entire point of the article is to attempt to de-whitewash the genre. Etherjammer (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am operating in good faith, and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I or anyone else in this discussion is "supporting white supremacy" or engaging in "union-busting tactics". I would appreciate if you would strike this bad-faith assumption. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto what PMC said, but also, your statement that "The entire point of the article is to attempt to de-whitewash the genre" (along with other similar ones made by others above) is wholly inadequate, per WP:RGW. If you have sources on which to base a list, then by all means, let's see them, and we can reconsider. But until then, WP:RGW and WP:NOR forbid this list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following Siroxo's reasoning. It seems that people's knees started jerking when they read "of color". Any entries in this list should also be included in List of acousmatic-music composers. Apocheir (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Apocheir "It seems that people's knees started jerking when they read "of color"" I would love it if you could explain what you mean by this insinuation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST as the sourcing does not satisfy the guidelines at WP:CSC which states that a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I would ask that those arguing for or against this list for any reasons other than policy language should take a step back and calm down. Topics involving racial identity or social justice often draw controversy, and in the end the best thing to do is not argue for or against a topic for ideological reasons because that is WP:POVPUSHING. Our goal as an encyclopedia is to include the sum total of all human knowledge; even the knowledge that we may personally find distasteful for whatever reason. There is absolutely nothing wrong with including lists of this type if reliable sources exist which use similar language. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black Academy Award winners and nominees ended in a keep result because of the sources available on that topic. However, this list is entirely unreferenced and I am unable to locate any sources discussing "electroacoustic composers of color" as a group or set. As such the list is entirely WP:Original synthesis and is not suitable for Wikipedia because of our policy of no original research. While I appreciate and agree with the decolonial ethics of Drcchutch and Etherjammer this is a case where academics need to first do the work of discussing this topic as a group/set in published literature before we can create such a list on Wikipedia. @Drcchutch and Etherjammer, wikipedia is not the place to pioneer new decolonial scholarship, but we can include existing sources and topics of this kind and update the encyclopedia as new sources are published which decenter whiteness from the academic canon. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do lists normally have citations?
    The most pertinent article is Patel's 'Exploring Cultural Diversity in Experimental Sound' https://doi.org/10.25370/array.v20213269 (See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf1WNUQQ-DA&list=PLnr5LpGO6hU0siuZfAwYKe13PMzGhQdZN&index=8 )
    George Lewis, one of the artists on the list, writes that there is a specific style of white music production, which implies that being unbound by those constraints would have stylistic implications: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1513376
    Lewis also writes about "race-aware genre scholarship" in the Journal of the American Musicological Society, in an essay that posits this applies to every genre. https://www-jstor-org.chain.kent.ac.uk/stable/26908092
    I'm sure there are other examples, but again, I wasn't expecting a list to have this sort of citation Drcchutch (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drcchutch Yes lists are expected to have citations per policy at WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. For examples of high quality lists you can browse Wikipedia:Featured lists. However, lack of citations alone is not a valid reason for deletion if we can locate sources in a WP:BEFORE type search per WP:NEXIST. The issue here is that our notability language for list topics requires the identification of multiple independent sources which address the group topic of the list directly and in detail per WP:CSC and more generally WP:GNG. If you were to locate a couple of sources which discuss "electroacoustic composers of color" as a group directly and in detail (such as journal articles or books from a reliable academic publisher or even a article in a The New York Times or other similar publication) than we should be able to keep the list. It looks like the first source you provided above is one potential source, although it doesn't use the exact language of the list title which could be a problem for some editors in this discussion. (not for me though) The other sources look to be related but too tangential to the topic to be used to prove notability. Ideally we would have an academic publication that already has a list of "electroacoustic composers of color" which it discusses as a group. Usually "multiple sources" is interpreted as three sources with in-depth coverage of the topic at AFD. Please ask me if you need further clarification or have any more questions. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Lists are normally expected to meet NLIST, yes, and content does require citations if challenged. In this case we are looking for sources that discuss the concept of "electroacoustic composers of color" as a set. An article which says "there is a specific style of white music production" doesn't discuss "electroacoustic composers of color" as a set, it discusses the idea of a culturally "white" style of music production (which could probably be a really interesting article in itself if there are other sources about it). An article about "race-aware genre scholarship" is the same. What you'd want is an article whose topic is something like "The most groundbreaking electroacoustic composers of color" or "Production style of electroacoustic composers of color". Not every source needs to mention every entry on the list (or even most of them), but there needs to be enough sourcing that the grouping is not arbitrary or original research. The issue with it now is that it is completely subjective - there is no standard definition of "people of color", and without outside sources grouping these people together, the list as it stands is entirely populated by making subjective judgements about peoples' skin color - which is original research. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good points PMC. @Drcchutch If this discussion closes as delete, you might consider trying again by attempting to better delineate a topic that more accurately reflects the exact language of the references being used. It's important that the language of the title of the article comes directly from the sources supporting the article. For example, if you located multiple articles on "Black composers of electro-acoustic music" you could create a List of black composers of electro-acoustic music. I'm sure there are many potential related articles that could be created from the available academic literature. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If views (before the discussion) are anything to go by, this isn’t a particularly useful navigation tool, and it otherwise doesn’t hold up to NLISTS. Mach61 (talk) 02:00, 3 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 delete per A11 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate Of IbraheemLand[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Zero reliable, in-depth sources on this topic. FatCat96 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Yemen. FatCat96 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is wild, there's so much stuff in here and zero corroboration for any of it. Top search results are this and other wiki pages. Moonreach (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 as rather clearly made up by the editor who created the article. So tagged. --Kinu t/c 19:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have blocked the article creator as a rather-obvious single-purpose account whose only substantive edits have been to create a walled garden related to this non-notable micronation. --Kinu t/c 21:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Crazy dedication to a fake article. Jebiguess (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this article was deleting without a consesus PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:44, 27 September 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Shelby[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. Possible redir to Covert-One series. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 26 September 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 Trash Talk (band). Star Mississippi 02:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shame (Trash Talk album)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and album-specific notability policies. Could be redir to Trash Talk (band). - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rabinarayan Acharya[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. h-index in Google Scholar is 19 and the search for references only finds articles such as this which falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season of the Sakura[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and game-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Computing, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's likely that the vast majority of any coverage is in paper sources, given the game's age. But, the article creator never included any and the WP:BURDEN is on the maker of an article to prove notability. In English, there is very little to be found, with Mobygames only listing a single contemporaneous review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was able to find is a >200 word review in dead tree magazine, Animeco #9 Winter 1998, page 31-32. Magazine has an editor-in-chief/masthead. —siroχo 19:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BugBug, a Japanese adult gaming magazine, appears to have a spread's worth of coverage (a lot of it NSFW images) in its June 1996 issue, pages 56-57. Dunno about its reliability, but from Google searches it's claimed to be one of Japan's longest-running gaming magazines.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the two sources Laukku found above, I found additional coverage in the Spanish print magazine Loading Extra #3, pg. 24-27. Honestgamers published a review of the game (note: outlet seems to be marked as "situational" at WP:VG/S, not sure how this would affect a game review where subjectivity is expected). This game was bundled as part of the JAST USA Memorial Collection, where slightly more coverage of it can be found. Season of the Sakura also appears to have been one of the subjects in The Impact of Telepresence on Cultural Transmission through Bishoujo Games., a 2005 paper published on behalf of Temple University. It seems to me that there are sources out there, they just need to be integrated into the article. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in addition to the above theree's an article on Vice here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG —siroχo 09:14, 1 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriko Saito[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and professor bio specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Philosophy, Japan, United States of America, and Rhode Island. UtherSRG (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets NPROF with >1000 citations on a solo-authored book chapter [3], 1000 on a coauthored paper [4], and many hundreds more on other works [5][6][7][8] [9][10]. (addendum Thanks to David Eppstein below for noting the messy profile. I've updated my comment as such, but my !vote remains the same. —siroχo 19:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her Google Scholar profile [11] is a mess of unrelated works, but I agree that the ones by her on aesthetics are heavily cited (especially for philosophy), enough for WP:PROF#C1. Additionally, I found enough book reviews (and added them to the article) to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just considering the works on aesthetics the subject appears sufficiently cited to meet WP:PROF (1174,257,227,220,119). Additionally David Eppstein has shown the subject meets WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A GS list that is, as David says, "a mess of unrelated works" is almost always a strong indicator that GS has again screwed-up. If you look closer, you will find that most of the highly-cited contributions in this GS listing (with the exception of the Everyday Aesthetics chapter) were not authored by the subject, but rather by other, similarly-named individuals at other institutions. Aside from the EA chapter, she seems to several other papers with >100 cites, but it tails-off quickly from there. To me, this is borderline, so I'll refrain from !vote. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's merely an indicator that the subject has not curated their GS profile. GS always screws up, but with a fair amount of effort you can clean up your profile. Not everyone does this (nor should they be expected to) but when they don't it makes the profile not much better than searching the author's name yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NPROF, as this is an impressively accomplished and published philosopher author. Impressive sourcing, encapsulated on her Rhode Island School of Design profile, is more of the overall. You can find more on various searches. — Maile (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per comments that have already been made. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:11, 30 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kravtsov family (Don Cossacks)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; "Notability" tag was ignored. - Altenmann >talk 17:56, 26 September 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 Interstate 85 in Georgia#Atlanta to South Carolina state line as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Boulevard[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This doesn't seem to be a notable street, simply saying it's the location of American Megatrends isn't enough - that's the company being notable, not the building. (If this were not the case, AM's article would mention the street). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—this utterly fails both WP:GEOROAD (not a state highway) and WP:GNG (not the subject of significant coverage), thus it fails WP:N. Additionally, both images in the article are copyright violations and should be deleted from Commons shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 16:14, 26 September 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. Star Mississippi 02:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ejes Gist News[edit]

Ejes Gist News (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 any notability, the two sources have identical text, which is logical as they are a press release, not an actual article by a journalist. The site has not been the subject of much attention in general (only 10 Ghits?, some more as Ejesgist apparently). Fram (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A third source has been added[12], coincidentally posted today, about an endorsement of the news site by the "Humanitarian Movement for Development". Impressive, too bad that the organisation has apparently never been mentioned before they made this statement[13] and organised the "lecture" the other two sources are talking about. All of which is rather fishy. Fram (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator also shares a name with the site's founder (but claims to only be a relative of them), and their user page has been deleted twice for misuse of Wikipedia as a web host (autobiography). Possibly some sanctions are warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The said pages were delete because they were not properly arranged or put together on Wikipedia.
    2. Being a relative is not against Wikipedia policy... I don't think so...
    3. The issues at hand is that the Name is Worth to be on Wikipedia a. It has been registered with CAC b. Names who are not registered with CAC are already here as cited by another users. Omajemite (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2023-09 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Talk Penn State[edit]

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

Subject lacks the necessary sourcing to pass WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Let'srun (talk) 14:42, 26 September 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 WTGZ#Programming. History will remain, so anyone interested in doing any merging can do so at their convenience. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SportsCall[edit]

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

Subject lacks the necessary sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, and Alabama. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WTGZ#Programming, and add a passing mention preferably somewhere in the last sentence. According to WTGZ's website they still actively host SportsCall, so it'd make sense to redirect the article there. I agree that SportsCall isn't notable enough to have a standalone article, citing my severe struggle to find any non primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deauthorized (talk • contribs)
  • Agree with above as a partial merge to WTGZ § Programming. —siroχo 02:30, 27 September 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 Bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics#Europe. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw bid for the 2036 Summer Olympics[edit]

Warsaw bid for the 2036 Summer Olympics (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)

Nusantara, Istanbul, and Mexico City have confirmed bids, but Warsaw does not. In general, cities that have official bids for the 2036 Summer Olympics should get articles, and none of the 3 officially bidding cities currently do. Georgia guy (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeshree Singhania[edit]

Rajeshree Singhania (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)

Promo piece on a non-notable doctor. Sources offer only passing (or no) mentions, plus a couple of works authored by the subject, and a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG, and nothing to suggest WP:NACADEMIC or similar notability either. Was draftified, but author moved straight back to mainspace, so here we are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 26 September 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 United Nations Department of Global Communications. RL0919 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development Business[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Only non-WP:IS sources. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been at AfD for four weeks running now. Somebody else please weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Maile66: you participated in the last AfD, any additional thoughts? – Joe (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Making it unanimous with the respondents below. — Maile (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to United Nations Department of Global Communications. According to their history page, Development Business was launched by the United Nations Department of Public Information (now United Nations Department of Global Communications), so a better merge target, since I can't see anything that links this with the UN DESA. Maile66 is right that this seems significant, but I cannot find any independent reliable sources which would establish notability; the best I can find is this interview, which is not independent. So, failing GNG, a merge seems most appropriate. (I'm surprised that I can't find more on this and wonder if I've missed something - very happy to change my !vote if additional sources are uncovered.) WJ94 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to United Nations Department of Global Communications, with no prejudice against future expansion -- I was also surprised by the lack of SIGCOV sources here. Suriname0 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 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. Sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 02:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Master ad Vitam[edit]

Master ad Vitam (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 doesn't seem to have received significant attention from independent (non-masonic) sources. Could be a redirect to Scottish_Rite#Degree structure, but doesn't have the notability for a separate article. Fram (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In general articles on Masonic degrees are sorely lacking on Wikipedia to the point where it isn't a very good source of information on Freemasonry. Even the basic ritual structure is hard to figure out from the Wikipedia articles, which are in sore need of revisions. Also instead of having these giant articles with poor structure and organization, I am hoping to craft smaller pieces to try to clear up the issues, but it is going to take a while.
Scottish_Rite#degree structures is a big part of the problem - It has about 60+ different degrees smashed into a chart that is hard for anyone to understand.
Full disclosure, I'm both a member of the Scottish Rite and a Freemason - But the current slate of articles needs a larger organizational revision in some places. Jjazz76 (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't address the basic issue, that this degree doesn't seem to have the necessary attention from non-Masonic sources to warrant an article here. If no one else has taken such an outside interest in these degrees, then we shouldn't be the first to do so. Fram (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of stuff on Wikipedia that doesn't have much if any "outside" interest. Pretty much most religious topics are relevant in for that religion but other folks outside would say "who cares."
Again I'll wait for the discussion to conclude, but there is plenty that has been written on this degree. Just look at the cited sources as a start.
Instead of trying to delete Wikipedia, which seems to be your long term strategy, how about actually build it out? Do the work instead of critiquing others. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:47, 26 September 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. Comments made after a list of sources was provided converged on keeping the article. RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Bee[edit]

Aunt Bee (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)

Many sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Andy Griffith Show characters. Spinixster (chat!) 07:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sotirin, Patricia J.; Ellingson, Laura L. (2013). "(Not) Like a Mother: Black and White Maternal Aunts". Where the Aunts are: Family, Feminism, and Kinship in Popular Culture. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press. pp. 15–36. ISBN 978-1-60258-330-6. Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The book provides extensive analysis of Aunt Bee. The book notes: "The links between the aunt as mother, the nuclear family, and cultural nostalgia for a sanitized version of American small-town life are starkly evident across the episodes of The Andy Griffith Show that centrally feature Aunt Bee (about 55 out of 249 original shows). Aunt Bee mothers both her widowed nephew, Sheriff Andy Taylor, and his son, Opie, in the absence of a wife and mother. Aunt Bee was introduced into the Griffith bachelor household in the premiere episode "The New Housekeeper."" The plot centers on Opie's resistance to her and his eventual acceptance based on his realization of her need to care for him and his father and their need for maternal love and housekeeping order. Given that the show casts her as the maternal center of the Taylor family, she affirms the promise of the nuclear family as a source of nurture, resilience, and strength, offering cultural reassurance that the bosom of the family is larger than the biological mother (a reassurance physically embodied in the plump, matronly dowdiness of actress Frances Bavier)."

      The book later notes: "In spite of the assurances of the maternal aunt figure, Aunt Bee transgresses this depiction of idealized American family life in subtle ways that invite us to critically examine this representation of the maternal aunt and her place in the family. First, her presence unsettles the insularity and stability of the nuclear family. By standing in for the deceased mother, Aunt Bee marks an absence in the familial triangle, creating a dynamic imbalance that unsettles assumptions even as it affirms the value of the mother and the ideal family. In addition, Aunt Bee belies the cultural promise of feminine fulfillment in marriage, home, and family. Several episodes revolve around Aunt Bee's need to ..."

    2. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000) [1985]. "Aunt Bee Taylor". The Andy Griffith Show Book: From Miracle Salve to Kerosene Cucumbers: the Complete Guide to One of Television's Best-loved Shows (2 ed.). New York: St. Martin's Griffin. pp. 53–59. ISBN 0-312-26287-6. Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The book provides seven pages of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Bee Taylor is a warm and gentle lady. She has been baptized. She is Mayberry's Good Samaritan, and it is her tender heart, which is as wide as her kitchen, that makes everyone love her. It can truly be said that a stranger has never entered the Taylor house, because Aunt Bee makes all feel right at home immediately. Bee takes mighty fine care of Andy and Opie by nourishing them both physically and spiritually. The coffeepot is never empty, and the cookie jar is always full in Aunt Bee's kitchen. And there's plenty of homemade loving to go around."

    3. Kelly, Richard (1981). "Aunt Bee and Opie". The Andy Griffith Show. Winston-Salem, South Carolina: John F. Blair. pp. 45–46. ISBN 0-89587-043-6. Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "The character of Aunt Bee, played by Frances Bavier, provided a stable domestic center for Andy and Opie. Like Griffith, Knotts, and Dodson, she had a strong theatrical background. ... The Andy Griffith Show provided her with her longest and most successful run—from 1960 to 1971. Unlike Griffith, she continued in the series when it became Mayberry, R.F.D. As the fussing and matronly Aunt Bee, Bavier's acting was always precise. Kindly, sympathetic, domestic, and somewhat naive, Aunt Bee was at her best when housekeeping for the Taylors or becoming "tiddly" after purchasing some tonic from an itinerant medicine man. Although she sometimes provided complications for Andy—as when she appeared to be dating the married butter-and-egg man, or when she went off on a visit, leaving Andy to maintain order in the house—she ostensibly served as a sort of mother-aunt-wife to Andy, one who looked after his home, son, and stomach. They cared for each other, respected each other, but there was not a strong emotional tie between them. Both characters, but especially Aunt Bee kept a tight rein on their feelings in favor of domestic and social propriety."

    4. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (1991). "Aunt Bee". Aunt Bee's Mayberry Cookbook. Nashville, Tennessee: Rutledge Hill Press. ISBN 1-55853-119-X. Retrieved 2023-09-24 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "It's no surprise that a cook as wonderful as Aunt Bee can't keep her talents hidden under a bushel basket. She once entertained international palates when a Russian-American summit meeting took place in her house. And she even went Oriental when she opened Aunt Bee's Canton Palace, a Chinese restau- rant. Though an unpretentious soul, Aunt Bee has had her moments in the sun. She won the Tampico Tamale Contest with a grand prize of a trip to Mexico. ... What Aunt Bed means most of all to Mayberry is love. Whether it's her delicious cooking, her warm smile, or her caring hugs, nobody brings more heartfelt love to Mayberry than Aunt Bee."

    5. Parness, Jeffrey A. (October 2013). "Aunt Bee as Mom, Stepmom, or Grandmom?" (PDF). Drake Law Review. Vol. 62. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-09-24. Retrieved 2023-09-24.

      The article notes: "At times, the benefits of expanded parentage and nonparent childcare orders over parental objection are clear: Opies need Aunt Bees, and Aunt Bees need Opies. Andy clearly invited Bee to help rear Opie. In the event of a falling out, any newfound displeasure Andy had with Bee would probably have nothing to do with Bee’s care of—or love for—Opie. Allowing courts to order continuing contact between Bee and Opie on Bee’s request and over Andy’s objection in order to serve Opie’s interests seems quite sensible."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure how reliable or independent the fourth source is because it is a cookbook based on Aunt Bee's recipes, and the note is from the introduction of the character.
    The second source seems to be more of a plot summary, which does not necessarily prove notability. Other sources seem okay. Spinixster (chat!) 09:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. With three out of the five sources considered "okay", there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started a cultural impact section in the article. Some of these sources might do well there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forensics on the purported support for the article, provided above by Cunard:
  1. Sotirin, Patricia J.; Ellingson, Laura L. (2013). "(Not) Like a Mother: Black and White Maternal Aunts".
Exactly as the title promises, this work is about aunts and their maternal role in black and white families. The passages on Aunt Bee are used, as many other characters are used, to drive the points made in the book about the idealized American family and other notions. This is a book, if we must take it down to the plainest of descriptions, about aunts; and not about a specific aunt. In plain terms, every aunt referenced in this book does not acquire the attribute of notability.
  1. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (2000) [1985]. "Aunt Bee Taylor" in The Andy Griffith Show
Is every character in that show notable enough to merit a separate, dedicated Wikipedia article? This book reveals its hand on the cover, where we read that it's The Complete Guide to one of Television's Best Shows. The key word here is "complete." And, as promised, it has chapters dedicated to each and every speaking character that passed in front of the show's cameras. One is on aunt Bee. So, essentially, a directory of characters, enriched with photos and history. Mayors Pike and Stoner get their write up but they dare not wade inside Wikipedia.
  1. Kelly, Richard (1981). "Aunt Bee and Opie". The Andy Griffith Show.
Another completist's tome. Aunt Bee appears in the sub-chapter "Aunt Bee and Opie", part of the chapter "Developing a Cast". Although the quote appended in the book's citation above appears promising, in reality it offers just a tad more than a TV Guide's presentation of a show's characters. This, too, is a directory. What it certainly is not is something dedicated, to any extent, to our contested, beloved aunt.
  1. Beck, Ken; Clark, Jim (1991). Aunt Bee's Mayberry Cookbook.
A commercial, tie-in cook book using the character's name to attract buyers. Nothing more. We've had soundtracks and other marketing offerings tied to the show. None of them, per se, rendered notable the character they used. Andy wore roper boots; we have a lemma on cowboy boots but not on roper boots, no matter how many times these boots got a write-up.
I'm sorry. I loved that show, and I loved the character, but I'd be amiss in my work here if I were to base my suggestions on emotion or nostalgia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

    "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

    In "(Not) Like a Mother: Black and White Maternal Aunts", Aunt Bee receives extensive analysis on multiple pages. Even though she is not "the main topic of the source material", multiple pages of coverage clearly "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail".

    This article from The Journal of Popular Culture notes:

    The Andy Griffith Show is a nostalgic American popular cultural masterpiece valid for all time. Consistently ranked in the top ten television shows (and number one during its last season), The Andy Griffith Show ran on CBS from October 3, 1960, through the end of the 1967-68 season. It has had perpetual mass appeal in syndication, and since its debut, it has never been off the air. Learning its origins, revealing some behind-the-scenes aspects, and reviewing many of the episodes have led to the identification of specific factors that have contributed to the show's phenomenal success and endurance.

    Owing to its "perpetual mass appeal in syndication" and legacy, many books from academic publishers have covered the show in substantial detail. There is no support in policy to discount the coverage in academic books for being too detailed. The Andy Griffith Show's last new episode aired in 1968. The Andy Griffith Show Book: From Miracle Salve to Kerosene Cucumbers: the Complete Guide to One of Television's Best-loved Shows was first published 17 years later in 1985. Very few television shows receive this level of coverage 17 years after they have finished airing. Very few television characters have numerous pages in multiple books about them.

    Cunard (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the show might be notable -and this one certainly is- but its notability does not pass on to every character independently. I guess we differ on what stand-alone lemmas need keeping and what not. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on sources above. I agree that GNG does not say Aunt Bee would need to be the main topic of a scholarly work (meaning a book written entirely about her character). A discussion of Aunt Bee within a book about fictional aunts is fine for GNG, and a discussion about Aunt Bee within an independent and secondary book about the show (which they do appear to be) is also fine. Others may have a stricter interpretation of GNG, but to me we are well within the bounds of acceptability for an article. Rhino131 (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Doesn't that line of argument make practically every character that appeared on the Andy Griffith Show notable enough to merit their own, stand-alone article? As Cunard wrote, there's a ton of written material about the show out there. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends of the level of scholarly analysis. A simple mention that a certain character appeared in a certain episode is not Significant Coverage. But the above clearly shows there is more written about this particular character. The fact that a lot of books have been written on this show means there are lots of potential reliable sources out there, which are what we use to determine notability in articles. We go by what the sources say. Rhino131 (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG per above sources. Allow me a few words.
What's important in each and every case is that it be possible for someone to write encyclopedia article about the topic. The never-to-be-reached ideal is for every article to reach "Good Article" status. But note that Good Articles have no strict length requirement (WP:GACR), they merely need to cover the notability of the subject in appropriate breadth.
It's not unlikely that most main or recurring characters on The Andy Griffith Show are individually notable given the place that show occupies in the American television canon and the syndication and coverage it's received over the past 80 years.
—siroχo 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: Just notifying you that your signature didn't render correctly. Spinixster (chat!) 08:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added date. —siroχo 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listing these other sources here not necessarily for use in the article (which needs more sourcing) but as examples of the ubiquity of this character in the culture: Culture Wars, When Do I Get to Be? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:10, 27 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Models[edit]

The Models (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)

Notability is not inherited. Why the members might have achieved success with other bands, here we have an issue with one single and a Peel session that does not indicate any chart success. Language is also promotional in character. Karst (talk) 13:23, 26 September 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. Star Mississippi 12:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rho Capital Partners[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No references hace significant coverage so fails the general and corporation specific policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Most sources are just based on investment participation for other companies. Still, no significant coverage.
Toadette (let's chat together) 12:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIGCOV about the fund, beyond routine business transactions or non-independent sources. 22:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
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.

(non-admin closure) The result was Speedy delete‎ per WP:G11. Conyo14 (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Gee[edit]

Mario Gee (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)

Advertorialized WP:BLP (actually WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username, because he didn't even try to obscure his identity) about a musician not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC.
For starters, the page was actually created at the title "New drill king from Ghana" rather than his name -- but we title articles with the subject's name, not with promotional marketing statements, so I've had to move the page.
But even more importantly, even the body text is written in a promotional manner, and is failing to document any specific achievements that could be measured against NMUSIC criteria at all, and it's referenced entirely to primary sources (Twitter, Instagram, the results page of a Google search) and blogs while not showing one shred of WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources at all.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which emerging musicians are free to write about themselves in an advertorial manner -- but nothing here, either in the content or the sourcing, satisfies our inclusion standards at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced WP:ARTSPAM does not meet any inclusion criteria one might name-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:17, 26 September 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. Star Mississippi 02:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Fetter[edit]

Trevor Fetter (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)

References are corporate profiles, PR, other routine coverage, WP:PRIMARY non-independent non-coverage, X of Y non-rs articles and passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. UPE. scope_creepTalk 09:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might do if he has published a good bit, if he is doing that. I don't think a lecturer position is particular notable. See what turns up. He has an award the "2017 Henry Cohn Humanitarian Award" which may be something. scope_creepTalk 14:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 26 September 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 Great Directors. Star Mississippi 02:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Ismailos[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the "Great Directors" as suggested seems ok. There is coverage for the film/work. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone else agree on the merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio (Internet humour)[edit]

Ohio (Internet humour) (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:N. Couldn't find much secondary sources online and the article only cites 6 sources, two of which (Dexerto and Sportskeeda) have been deemed as unreliable per WP:VG/RS. It also cited We Got This Covered which I've removed in accordance with WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED.

indy100 could be reliable due to being owned by The Independent, but I'm not so sure about Distractify. Jurta talk 11:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jurta: Comment I feel as if this is one of those weird situations where the subject itself is certainly notable (billions of views), but there is not enough coverage in reliable sources. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. Jurta talk 11:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i don't think it should be deleted, per se, but it is not yet notable. unless and until it can be featured in more secondary sources, this article should stay off of wikipedia and on other sites more suited to the coverage of such topics. Nucg5040 (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Mary Sue is considered to be generally reliable. Dexerto was incorrectly tagged as unreliable. It is only listed as an unreliable source regarding video games, and a recent, fairly extensive RfC did not establish general unreliability (because it was archived before it was closed). Not sure about Yahoo, as this is a syndicated In The Know piece, not a Yahoo News article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 12:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an argument to delete the article. This article looks terrible to me, and there is only few cited sources. 2001:448A:11A2:14E2:5D16:892A:8ECB:CDEF (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm with Panamitsu on this; I think the meme is well-known but the lack of serious coverage makes it unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Moonreach (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not know your meme. Yahoo and the like will always run throw-away pieces on every internet trend.. that does not mean that we have to have an article on it. This does not raise to the level of something like Florida Man or other 'notable' memes. A sudden blip of interest (which is self-feeding - one article will always spawn a nearly identical one from a different outlet) does not mean there is enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability (web) in my view ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure what is this page? This is an unclear page at all. There is also no indication of sources and it has only few sources on it. 2001:448A:11A6:1B76:D15B:60DD:5E62:AA13 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 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 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. History is under the redirect if someone wants to merge it. Star Mississippi 02:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Hodges (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation)[edit]

David Hodges (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation) (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)

Most sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Spinixster (chat!) 10:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 10:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters per nom. Conyo14 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like other articles about CSI characters, this is bloated and in need of better sourcing, but it needs to be trimmed down, not deleted. Looper TV Insider Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is a character from a show I've watched many times, I was able to reduce much of its excess content. Take a look at the article now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources are routine at best. Sorry :/. Conyo14 (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The two sources are either plot summaries or interviews, which do not prove notability. Sources need to be secondary, cover the character extensively and be written from a real-world perspective. Spinixster (chat!) 03:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SECONDARY. These sources are fine. In this scenario, the primary source would be the episode itself. I am not at liberty to comment on your other concern. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at liberty??? Conyo14 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right. I was placed under a topic ban at AE. I don't agree with it, but I don't break it. I have opinions about WP:FICTIONAL but I'm not allowed to tell you what they are. That part of this issue must be decided without me, at least for now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it may be fine as you said, but it is not enough to prove notability. More sources that discuss the character extensively and in depth (WP:SIGCOV) and talk about the character from a real-world perspective (WP:FICT). It should not only be plot summaries (WP:NOTPLOT). Spinixster (chat!) 01:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not allowed to discuss the issue of real-world vs in-universe perspective with you. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop talking to me about it. Here are some more sources: Collider rankings feel clickbaity but the character is being discussed as a character, not an actor. Distractify Cinemablend Again, these aren't the best, and I wouldn't necessarily use them in the article. This is about whether secondary entities not connected to the show talk about the character. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cinemablend is listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S. Either way, it's a plot summary.
    Distractify source is more about the actor's return to the show and only briefly mentions the character.
    Collider listicle only briefly summarizes who the character is.
    Again, you will need SIGCOV from a real world persective. Spinixster (chat!) 14:29, 3 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 Criminal Minds characters#Matt Simmons. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Simmons (Criminal Minds)[edit]

Matt Simmons (Criminal Minds) (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)

Most sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Matt Simmons. Spinixster (chat!) 09:36, 26 September 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 Criminal Minds characters#Derek Morgan. Complex/Rational 18:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Morgan (Criminal Minds)[edit]

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

The article has a lot of WP:CRUFT with no proof of notability, mostly primary references, and a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Derek Morgan. Spinixster (chat!) 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This time we have a Reception section, limited to the sentence "Morgan was included in TV Guide's list of "TV's Sexiest Crime Fighters"." If anyone thinks this is not the very definition of laughable, raise your hand. For me, well, this is an obvious fail of GNG in need of redirecting if not deletion (but since redirects are WP:CHEAP, let's be merciful...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Restore Redirect - This was just Redirected via an AFD consensus a couple of weeks ago, and then the article was reverted back to an article with absolutely no changes. This should not even be at AFD again - it should just be immediately reverted back to the redirect that was already decided on, and then protected to keep this from happening again. Rorshacma (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirect, as this could be considered a subtopic and just deleting it wouldn't be helpful. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 06:08, 28 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Africa Report[edit]

The Africa Report (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:ADMASQ for non notable periodical. Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE failed to find any useful sources. Current references are from the org itself, a one para "description' of the item, and a 404/server failure error. Puff piece. Note that the item is stated to have won the 'Diageo Africa Business Reporting Award', an award by a drinks manufacturer about which I can find no significant coverage, thus have concluded that it is a 'Marketing Award' for Diageo (to sell more drinks?), and does not confer notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:33, 26 September 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 Angel characters. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Groosalugg[edit]

Groosalugg (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)

99% plot summary, and a short section on "Concept and creation" consisting almost entirely of quotations. No analysis, no reception. My BEFORE shows few mentions in passing and some discussion of plotlines involving him, but nothing stricte about him. Suggest redirecting to the List of Angel characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 26 September 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carnage Crew[edit]

Carnage Crew (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 notable pro wrestling Stable. Besides WP:ROUTINE results or passing mentions, there is no in-deep coverage about them. [15] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:33, 26 September 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 consensus to delete, was gonna relist but gut feeling tells me it's probably not gonna change the consensus Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thala (film)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NFILM. Sources in article are promos, mentions, listings, etc.; nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing. Article also exists at Draft:Thala (film), was rejected at AfC,[16] and then created in mainspace. Author has had multiple articles rejected at AfC, only to be created directly in mainspace.  // Timothy :: talk  16:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Author pblocked at ANI for disruptive editing.[17]  // Timothy :: talk  16:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:23, 26 September 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. Star Mississippi 02:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elke Jeinsen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elke Jeinsen (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 seems ONEEVENT at best. Bild is sensationalist tabloid and the rest of the sources that don't cover Trump are meh. The context of notability is Trump so it should be covered as a footnote there or in a jumbo article covering DJTs alleged infidelities. Spartaz Humbug! 07:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sent this back to Afc where some minor work was done to it, but it can't really disguise the lack of notabilty. As far as I can see there is not an indication of significance and the coverage, which is all the article and is very poor. Fail WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 21:27, 3 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. Complex/Rational 18:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn Rogers[edit]

Fawn Rogers (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)

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 07:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding significant coverage or evidence that this artist is in any collections. The "Publications" section of the article is particularly puffy. It is basically a listing of press releases. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. promo cv. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick L. Evans[edit]

Roderick L. Evans (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)

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 07:18, 26 September 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) 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 01:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Vishal[edit]

Mohamed Vishal (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)

Roles confined to brand ambassador and web-series, this Maldivian TikTok personality/actor is not notable per WP:NACTOR. The article is promotional and links to other articles by the same author of productions that have, at best (and being generous), dubious notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 26 September 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spycatcher (band)[edit]

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. Music is one of those areas where self-promoting wannabes routinely try to game our rules by falsely claiming to pass NMUSIC criteria that they don't really pass, so passing NMUSIC doesn't hinge on the claim nearly so much as it hinges on the sourcing that can or can't be shown to verify that the ciaim is true -- but while this makes claims to passing NMUSIC's radio airplay and touring criteria, it's referenced almost entirely to primary sources, like the band's own social networking profiles and the self-published websites of non-media companies directly affiliated with the claims, that are not support for notability at all -- the only attempt at citing media coverage just footnotes the name of a magazine that purportedly published content about the band once in a listicle, while failing to provide the date on which that listicle was purportedly published. But even if it can be recovered, it still takes more than just one blurb in one listicle to pass WP:GNG anyway.
As I don't have particularly good access to archived British media coverage from a decade ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 26 September 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. Possibly leaning delete but this has been running for 2 weeks and there is no strong consensus to delete to justify a deletion at the moment. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K Muralikrishna[edit]

K Muralikrishna (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)

Movie director with no indication of notability. Of all sources cited, the subject received single passing mention in 3 of the sources, 2 passing mention in one while the others do mention them at all CrucialEditor (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. What we contributors need to understand and accept is that notability is not inherited. Almost all sourcing one can dig up is about the films; not the director himself. It;s indicative of desperation when some of the sources already cited, such as this or this, do not even mention Muralikrishna! A new, young director trying the fast lane. -The Gnome (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green Enterprise Initiative[edit]

Green Enterprise Initiative (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:GNG. Their website, [18], is dead and was last archived on January 2016. Actually, I have to go back to 2014 to find a website not entirely broken, although wayback machine seems to of not properly archived the website rendering the authors used: [19]

While notability is not temporary, I cannot find any sources (primary or secondary) about the organisation. It is possible that most or all of their work was written in Chinese, but I could not find anything on a Baidu search either. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I think we're done here: serious SNOW. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Hunka[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yaroslav Hunka (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:1E. This man is famous as of yesterday for one event. Not notable. cagliost (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. It is preferable that the page be renamed the "Yaroslav Hunka Affair" or "Yaroslav Hunka Controversy" and go into detail on the whole incident instead as it affects more than just Mr. Hunka. Factchecker72946482 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

*Keep. Removing this summary from Wikipedia will remove one of the most detailed summaries about this Nazi from the internet, which will aid conspiracy theorists and the like. Having a detailed summary (including that he continued to be an activist for officers like himself in later life) is important to the understanding of a major political scandal surrounding the most important war of the twenties.Jamesjansson (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, This article is defamatory harrassment and it infringes on the privacy of mr. Hunka.23.236.83.249 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Single person - perhaps true. But, he is a classic example of washing up the Ukrainian/SS-Galizien history of genocide and crimes against the humanity. Shall be kept in place. 157.231.243.194 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Making the atrocities of the Nazis is paramount to the education of all generations and the prevention of such horrors happening again - I hope. Not a perfect model, but one that can help. 2607:FEA8:E2C0:61E0:B0C5:22CC:2429:37FF (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename and rewrite, as the defined subject is not a notable individual.  —Michael Z. 13:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:*The individual is notable as he and his attendance at the Canadian parliament and the praise given him by the Canadian house speaker, makes him notable. his presence in Canada along with others from Division or the SS 14th Waffen Division is also notable and worthy of mention in this article as well. 208.123.202.108 (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC) :*This assertion is false. Hunka is a Nazi SS officer that has been the subject of global news. If he didn't want to be known, he should have kept a low profile. 2604:3D09:147F:F910:19F5:E9C8:F704:754F (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: non-extended-confirmed users are not permitted to edit this project discussion per WP:GS/RUSUKR.  —Michael Z. 13:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I haven't delved deep into Ukrainian-language sources but there's evidence that he has been active in Waffen-SS veteran's circles post-war and information that makes him more notable beyond a single event could be find. But even if there isn't, I think the controversy surrounding his summon to Parliament is receiving such a great deal of attention that's going to be known for a long time that it's notable. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::Could not agree more. This was an historical event. Gary 7vn (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the article as per suggestions above, and have it focus on the incident first and Hunka second, as opposed the other way around. Hunka is primarily covered because of this incident.Cortador (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and thus WP:NOTNEWS. This person warrants no notability by themselves, is in the media for a brief instant, then is gone. 14.2.192.61 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article looks fine to me, the incident has made Hunka a major topic. Maybe a page about the incident itself would be better. LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no real problem with it. Jingiby (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering that due to the controversy more of the subject's history are being bought to light and how it has become a scandal in the Canadian politics of recent time. Toadboy123 (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Deletion the article after the person become scandalous compromises Wikipedia's neutrality. 37.186.45.57 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

The article was not created until the scandal. That's why cagliost nominated referring to WP:1E. glman (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I also agree that the article should be named "Yaroslav Hunka affair".--Mhorg (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would the retitle be to "Yaroslav Hunka affair". Is that phrasing used in any sources? I feel like it's a very vague title. glman (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is international news coverage and Poland is now seeking his extradition as a war criminal. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:Agreed. 170.63.193.132 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, wide-spread international coverage of the subject Crackjack (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect either to the "Hunka affair" which doesn't yet exist, or to the article about the current session of Parliament. He's not notable, the kerfuffle around it is. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not opposed to moving the article to cover the scandal, or even making it part of a larger article highlighting Zelenskyy's trip to Canada.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Maybe rename it to "Yaroslav Hunka scandal" or "Yaroslav Hunka controversy"? Sidney.Cortez (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This subject meets WP:GNG as it stands through the sources provided in the article (although I'm open to a discussion of a title change in the talk section here). A note to the closer, this deletion discussion has been discussed off wiki on various social media platforms, such as [[20]]. User:Let'srun 15:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what outside discussion has to do with this. WP:BLACKMAIL is not a good argument. glman (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm in favor of keeping the article, the last thing we should be doing is making our decisions based on what far-right provocateurs think. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has received international notoriety and coverage. Hunka is now a public figure. Evans1982 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC) ----[reply]
  • Redirect to a new page on the event, or on the trip to Canada. I agree with the nominator, policy WP:1E applies. However, the event seems notable. I'm not sure we've shown that it's lasting effects, so WP:NOTNEWS may apply. Could we roll it into an article about the visit as a whole? At least until we have evidence it's an event with sustained effects? Lots of arguments in the comments that to not reference any Wikipedia policy. glman (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. While the recent incident has certainly put the spotlight on him, he has a well-documented history and as apparently had a leadership role among the Nazi-collaborator Ukrainian veterans in Canada. Given the integral role that he's played in this national and international event, his bio is deserving of inclusion. Note that, following this event, Poland may seek his extradition on war crimes charges. [21] -2003:CA:8707:C60:1E85:2D36:7F42:DCF4 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:I went to several news sites trying to figure out how easy his involvement with the SS was. I found it in this article. I would be very concerned about this article being deleted. While I agree that he has achieved national notoriety for the one event, is irrelevant. It appears that a very superficial vetting of this person would find concerns. Don't hide this information. 96.30.130.38 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He is the subject of a notable international incident and Canadian political scandal. This article should be kept, either as one about him or about the affair. DrOwl19 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the incident and the person has now made international news and can be cited on multiple reliable sources. Anvib (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The incident is notable at least as part of Rota's biography, but the person is not necessarily notable. There were more notable members of SS Galizien living in Canada and the US.
    Also, it's a curious cultural phenomenon: Canada accepted many of the SS Galizien veterans in the aftermath of WWII, but the headlines appear only 70 years later.     --Amakuha (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. "Honorary Citizen" of a Ukrainian town and a philanthropist. So narrowly notable. --Amakuha (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the 1st and to date only Nazi SS officer honoured in Canada's Parliament, during a high profile visit by the Ukrainian PM during the war with Russia, and the subject of international news coverage- he is very notable. --TheTruthiness (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename/Merge. Deletion of this article would be politically motivated in my view. I would like this to be kept or renamed/merged into something like the "Hunka Affair" etc. This is a major scandal in Canada and has had international ramifications now that it appears that Poland is seeking this individual's extradition. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move. This individual is only notable for one event, and as per WP:1E, the general rule is to cover the event, and not the person. If anything, this should be covered under an article about the event.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "only notable for one event". That is not exactly true, it appears he has been in the media before at least in Canada; there are other sources from 2022 which noted his presence at protests against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Anvib (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the subject may not have been very notable on his own for his actions during the war, the politization of him in recent times has definitely made him notable enough to keep. At the very most, this article should be renamed/recentered around the events that took place in Canada and not in Europe. EytanMelech (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though renaming or moving to a “Hunka controversy “ article would be acceptable. Both the man and the controversy over his being honored in the Canadian Parliament are notable. His individual case, which may extend to war crimes charges and trial, and the history of the SS Galizien division as a whole are complicated and nuanced. A rational, sourced article that can help shed light on them is of significant value. Brons (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for tapping the wrong level of reply 18:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Brons (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or Rename. It's especially become notable now with the Speaker resigning as a result of the event. Either move to new article or keep the article as is. :Emkut7 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: It is important not to delete history, especially a chapter as pertinent as this101.78.67.231 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agree with above, deleting this article is trying to sweep the event under the rug as a political move. People deserve to know who was honoured by the Canadian parliament. There are plenty of secondary sources even without the controversy to substantiate Hunka's notability. Deathying (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep but note how many people visit the page. If the visit count is sufficient, then retain longer term as important. User:meteorquake — Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

*Keep. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about people who are known for one or few things - someone which is at the heart of a national/international political "incident" figures relatively high-up in the "encyclopaedia-worthy" list. Whilst Mr Hunka may have become famous for the incident, it does not appear as if that is his only history-worthy fact, given that by definition there may well be citeable research in the near future into his actual contribution to the war/his biography between the war and showing up in the Canadian parliament. Peter Kelford (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - BLP1E doesn't apply for the following reasons:
  1. Hunka was the central figure in the event, rather than being only incidentally involved.
  2. The controversy occurred in large part due to Hunka's overall biography and personal history, rather than some specific action he took during his visit to the Canadian Parliament.
  3. The reporting on Hunka in many cases covers his entire life as relevant to the central controversy rather than merely for color. Many journalists have focused specifically on Hunka's past and thus his life story has now become notable, even if he only originally gained widespread public attention due to his Canadian Parliament appearance.
  4. Hunka has been profiled as an individual in both Canadian and international media.
  5. Hunka has become involved in other events beyond his initial appearance at the Canadian Parliament. The Polish government has publicly announced that it is investigating him and may seek to extradite him to Poland. This constitutes another event in which Hunka has been implicated and of relevance to this article.
Accordingly, the article should be kept and not moved to another name referring only to a single incident. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Anthony Rota is the central figure. 2. seems to contradict your 1 if the subject’s actions at the event were not central. He’s in the news because the speaker acknowledged him; not because he was a person present at the event, and not because he’s one of the one of the Canadian immigrants who’d been members of the Galicia Division. 3. The biography seems to be based on one blog post by the subject, reporting about the blog post, and incidental mentions elsewhere. 4. Here’s the crux: is there any SIGCOV from before the current event? 5. One Polish minister tweeted. I’m not aware that the Polish government announced anything.  —Michael Z. 02:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP without question. Although I'm sure scrubbing all information about this guy's crimes against humanity from the internet would be advantageous to the Canadian government and the Kiev junta, we cannot cover up information about war criminals nor people actively involved in contemporary news, such as his involvement in Canadian events and the extraction to Poland he is currently facing. This is a very clear attempt at censorship of the flow of inconvenient information and Wikipedia has a moral duty to not obfuscate current events or cover up history. 2601:602:8B80:7520:51CB:DA4F:C3FF:5553 (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notable public figure. — Omegatron (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article looks good and its extremely relevant. I've seen worst article that aren't being nominated for deletion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Member of the SS that somehow managed to immigrate to Canada who is still living in 2023, and led to the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Canada. That seems to be at least three items that makes him noteworthy. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many former members of the Wehrmacht and SS emigrated to Western countries like Canada, that part is not at all noteworthy. Inviting one of them into a democratic institution is though Anvib (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the US, the number of former Wehrmacht and SS who successfully immigrated to the US is a pretty quantifiable number. The John Demjanjuk case was noteable even before he was old. That makes at least three reasons he is noteworthy: 1) SS to the West 2) Lived to old age and 3) Canadian scandal. Jjazz76 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Is that you, Kaurine Gould? She literally tried to do a motion to remove multimedia about the incident. https://www.kossyderrickent.com/2023/09/photo-karina-gould-and-anthony-rota.html?m=1 109.252.170.135 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Important individual especially considering the impact he caused. Durangoose (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Relevant and necessary, especially when the governments trying to pretend it didnt happen, having a bank of sources like this is important. 2607:FEA8:BADF:7450:BC7F:E811:1727:F546 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep The fact that the speaker resigned over the affair makes it noteworthy. That said, I would not be opposed to moving the page to focus on the incident rather than the person.--Tulzscha (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - considering the impact this incident has caused he warrants notability I'd argue Claire 26 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. He is not any more notable than any other SS officer. What is notable is the controversy surrounding, and thus I think this should be an event page rather than biography. It would be more informative to the average person looking this up to have a box on the impact of his being applauded in Parliament, result, date of this happening and so on. Any information about him specifically should be framed as secondary, as the details of his deeds are not as pertinent information. Focusing too much on the deeds of any given SS officer on Wikipedia is liable to glorification when framed out of context of consequences (which are why people are searching for this information). Keeping this as a biography page sets a precedent to continue to have articles for every former SS officer who ends up commended; whether in Canadian Parlament or through something like Operation Paperclip. People years from now who will not have the fallout of this fresh in their memory may have a distorted view of what happened if it is framed as an individual Nazi who received a standing ovation on his own merit, having to scroll down sections in order to find out that the Speaker in the House Of Commons resigned after he learned what he had done, or that numerous MPs spoke out against this after the fact in disbelief that the Speaker would have done this, citing having been misled. It matters to know that this was not accepted, and it had consequences, as the primary leading information in this article, above the individual Nazi. He could have been any Nazi that the Speaker befriended. Most of the information can remain the same, but there is no reason this should be a biography page specifically. He does not have a page because he himself was notable. We do not have pages for Holocaust survivors who have been mentioned in Parliament. Again, he is not notable on his own without this incident. (As much as I am certain many of us wish his actions were an outlier, and thus notable.) It should be a page categorized as a major incident or event in ongoing Canadian history. Averagecryptid (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He does need to be known, especially in light of what happened in Canada because of their shortsightedness. Thank you. Openskye (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment problematic phrasing; Rota and his office were shortsighted, not the entire country of Canada. Rowing007 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an article about the event itself per BLP1E and NOTNEWS. I will note that the vast majority of replies here do not cite any policy as a basis, simply that he "needs" to have an article because of said event, which is notable but apparently lacks a page of its own. Additionally, I agree with @Mzajac that per GS/RUSUKR it is not particularly constructive to have many IP editors giving inputs, particularly as, at risk of breaching AGF, I will say at least a handful of these votes do not seem to be particularly interested in making arguments based on policy and guidelines.
Mupper-san (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the talk page: [22]. Do defamatory comments violating BLP need to have the history wiped?  —Michael Z. 03:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac How does one defame a Nazi? From the talk you linked, the only comment of concern is an IP calling the subject POS. And that is minor incivility as per WP:CRD#RD2 — hako9 (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and potential move to "Yaroslav Hunka affair". This person has now received international news coverage and is the central figure surrounding why the Canadian Speaker of the House has resigned. I think it's fair to say that meets notability guidelines. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only is this person notable for having been celebrated in the Canadian parliament, despite apparent ties to Nazi Germany, but it is very very strange for this article to be proposed for deletion immediately after the event. Jkp1187 (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - typically I'd vote against this, however, there seems to be enough cited material to substantiate an article. Oppose move to dedicated article about the wider event though I can understand the WP:BLP1E concerns, there is actually sourcing prior to the events of September 2023, with one even going back as far back as March 2011, and two from last year, meaning that I think this barely passes the threshold for being a standalone biographical article. — Knightoftheswords 01:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2011 source is a primary source (Hunka's letter, published in a blog). There is only one 2022 source: a short mention of Hunka participating in a rally in support of Ukraine. All other sources are after 23 September 2023. So, definitely, a WP:BLP1E. --Amakuha (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This indivdual pretty much created a huge political scandal on the federal level in Canada. He is noticeable in the public and among concerned citizens of a certain country called Canada and he is an exceptionally noticeable individual in the history of Canada's Westminster parliamentary system despite not being an MP or a parliamentary officer. This incident shouldn't go unnoticed. So, keep. Komitsuki (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - maybe rename the article to refer to the political scandal it has wrought instead of just him, but the article itself is clearly notable. Is this even a serious question? --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Usually I'd vote delete under, WP:BLP1E, but causing a speaker of a national parliament to resign and then potentially getting extradited for WWII war crimes is pretty exceptional. Of the three BLP1E criteria, he probably fails two of them. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article subject is, broadly construed, involved in the ongoing war. So, all votes and comments by non-extended confirmed users should be stuck as null and void per WP:GS/RUSUKR --StellarHalo (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename and Rewrite This article falls short of a few guidelines. Such as the guidance in WP:1E avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. and The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. It also falls short of WP:SUSTAINED - the significant coverage of the topic of the article in secondary sources has just come from a span of a few days. I would consider this whole controversy to amount to a single event. --Tristario (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:1E. If this is going to be kept, it would need to be rewritten to focus on the one event rather than the person. However, as an event, the jury is still out on whether or not it will clear WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING. --StellarHalo (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh... the fact that the speaker of the Canadian House of Commons resigned over this satisfies WP:LASTING. I don't think the jury is out on that. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though notable for one event, the event is having a major impact on Canadian politics. Possibly move/rewrite to focus on said event, but it nonetheless passes WP:GNG. Lucksash (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename. Notable because of his political impact. The article could be rewritten and renamed to focus on the controversy as a whole but I think there's enough material about him to have a personal article. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: cagliost says it's "Not notable" and yet as I write this, the article has had 267,150 pageviews since it was created 2 days ago. The number of pageviews indicates that it is in fact notable.  selfwormTalk) 05:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep Current discussion is unlikely to succeed, and would probably benefit from being a discussion on a potential move rather than a deletion. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 10:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree. cagliost (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Also agree. I would withdraw/close this, and then consider whether it should be left as a BLP or moved to the Yaroslav Hunka affair. Might wait a week or so before that to see if there are more developments that might influence that discussion (e.g. more SIGCOV on him as a person vs. him in the event). Aszx5000 (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a very well written and well-sourced article about a person of some notability, not just due to recent events, but also of significant historical importance. Poyani (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site should be moved to another name, i.e. "Yaroslav Hunka controversy," or another one that puts the emphasis on compromising the Canadian parliament. Hunka himself is a background actor in this case; during the war he was one of thousands of soldiers in the division, and after the war he was one of many exile activists.Marcelus (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep. He has achieved world-wide notoriety. The rumored forthcoming Polish extradition for war crimes is the cherry on top. — The Anome (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RUMOR, so far all we have is a tweet from the Polish education minister. cagliost (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move High scale political event which easily passes GNG. AFD is the wrong avenue for this.★Trekker (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major ongoing Canadian political scandal which might be the worst in 21st century.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep None of the three required WP:BLP1E criteria apply: 1. multiple events (Nazi past, parliamentary standing ovation in the presence of Zelenskyy, resignation of the speaker of Parliament in Canada as a result of his appearance); 2. unlikely to remain low profile given the possible extradition to Poland and trial for war crimes; 3. Hunka's role in a Nazi military unit appears to be well documented (though his possible role in war crimes remains speculative). Meets WP:GNG based on wide international coverage and political significance in several different countries (Canada, Ukraine, Poland). Boud (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per D. Benjamin Miller above and do not move to Yaroslav Hunka affair or other page, because of the Poland extradition request and other followup events that may occur. Dan Carkner (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CRYSTAL Don't consider unsourced events that may possibly occur in the future. cagliost (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • +1 to WP:CRYSTAL. The controversial Polish politician, who "took steps for extradition", said that he only asked Polish historians to check whether Hunka is known to have commited crimes. This is far away from an actual extradition request. --Amakuha (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move - Canadian and international scandal. The Canadian Speaker of the House of Commons resigned as a result and Russia is using this as a propaganda victory for its war against the Ukraine. What's more, the article is well-sourced and easily meets WP:GNG. For editors arguing WP:1E, the solution is to simply move the article to Yaroslav Hunka scandal, Yaroslav Hunka controversy, Yaroslav Hunka affair or something similar. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not move because he absolutely qualifies for WP:GNG and even WP:1E doesn't seem to apply, since he's notable for participation in at least two major events, as the article makes clear. "Notable is not a synonym for famous", and his status as a living former member of the SS and the route he took to Canadian residency is a notable and important part of history, regardless of any potential or theoretical extradition requests related to that participation. Combine that with the more recent events he's involved in this article should definitely be kept. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "route he took to Canadian residency" – What are you reffering to? There were many veterans of his unit living in Canada. It's no secret. See Deschênes Commission, which found it "not guilty of collective war crimes". --Amakuha (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:HadesTTW.——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 13:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename The subject of this article is notable and covered by many secondary sources. I am not opposed to changing the name of the article so it becomes an event rather than a biography. Waters.Justin (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per User:A Quest For Knowledge. The event itself is notable enough to warrant its own article, regardless of Hunka's notability. The proposed titles are good, but potentially something more verbose like Canadian Parliament Nazi ovation scandal. eduardog3000 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-title. The scandal is notable. Srnec (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As highlighted above, BLP1E does not count here. It seems to be snowing here, so any scope for a speedy keep or even a withdrawal of the nom? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:1E doesn't mean that you don't have an article on the event. It only means that you don't necessarily have one article for the event, and one article for people involved in it. This article is clearly notable, regardless of what the title is. Therefore, keep. As for the title, I don't think it needs an suffix, further context can be added where appropriate within references to him (eg the guy who quit because of it). Either way, it's not the point of an AFD. Keep. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Objectively fits all of the criteria of a BLP. NPOV? Check. NOR? Check. Verifiability? Check. And, if the extradition request goes anywhere, there will be even more content to add and secondary sources to cite. --Panian513 21:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid resolution therapy[edit]

Rapid resolution therapy (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 seem to meet WP:GNG, and WP:FRINGE is also relevant in giving this subject more notability than it deserves. Google scholar, books, news search turns up nothing. I encounter "accelerated resolution therapy" and "rapid transformation therapy" too, though. These all seem to be just marketing buzzwords, I cannot see a single news article or peer reviewed study or university endorsement/publicity. The only two sources which I could find to specifically refer to the term which wasn't on a therapist's personal website, was:

- [23] Which has a link to J Connelley's website (which is flagged as phising by my ISP so I'm not going to check it). The article seems to ramble about a lot of topics, it is not peer reviewed, and writes as though RRT is a cure-all.

- [24]. This one puts RRT in the same sentence as "tapas acupressure technique, emotional freedom technique, thought field therapy, body psychotherapy, and biodynamic massage". Sure looks like psuedoscience to me, and I cannot make out anything substantive about RRT in this article other than the author likes it, and that it can supposedly treat "anxiety, panic attacks, PTSD, sexual trauma, childhood trauma, sexual violence, guilt and shame, social anxiety, rage and resentment, insomnia, addiction, and phobias and fears". Darcyisverycute (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be enough coverage to keep the article but probably only in stub form with most of the content removed. I think it should really only state who created it, the intended use, and the lack of studies to confirm its efficacy. There are some references and books on Google Scholar and ProQuest including https://www.proquest.com/docview/1418171748/17C57E2356AB44A8PQ/19 to support inclusion however. - Indefensible (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, that source you provided is paywalled and I could not find a safe alternative download for the article. It does not mention RRT in the first few paragraphs of the visible free preview. It is also a magazine article, which are generally not subject to academic review. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well this is quite the mess. It does not seem to be notable, and it has a promotional feel; further, the name RRT is trademarked; and the topic is as nom indicates close to fringe medicine. The sourcing is poor, and worse than it looks:
  • 1 is RRT's founder Connelly's page on Psychology Today, so it is not a reliable independent source.
  • 2 is about "inspiring stories". I found a URL for it and the text does not mention "Rapid resolution therapy". If the claim is only the preceding sentence then it is just off-topic; if it's the preceding two sentences (of the lead) then it fails verification.
  • 3 is RRT's founder Connelly's book on RRT, published by "Rapid Resolution Therapy" so it is not a reliable independent source.
  • 4 is about approaches in general, not RRT, so it's off-topic.
  • 5 does not mention RRT, but the paragraph it claims to support does, so it fails verification.
  • 6 failed to load, appears to be a dead link. Its title is on PTSD so the comment on 7 and 8 below probably applies.
  • 7 and 8 do not contain the words "rapid" or "resolution". The entire paragraph they support is off-topic, on PTSD not RRT.
  • 9 is Elsevier's Scopus welcome panel requiring a login, no use for anything.
  • 10 is just a Google Scholar search, not a valid citation.

It appears therefore that the article as written is entirely without reliable sources. The items retrieved on Google appear to be purely commercial. The items retrieved on Google Scholar are not much better, with "helpful tips for counselors", personal statements, and woo-woo articles such as Bowles ("For survival, humans need safety. Without safety, the thriving brain does not work to its full potential.") There is no sign of a systematic review as required by WP:MEDRS.

We should DELETE this article as non-notable, probably fringe, and making unverifiable medical claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Martin[edit]

Irving Martin (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)

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a record producer, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. There are statements here that would be valid notability claims if they were sourced properly, but the article says absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability -- however, seven of the nine footnotes are simple directory entries that are not support for notability at all, one more just tangentially verifies a fact while completely failing to mention the subject's name at all in conjunction with it, and the strongest source of all is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a very short blurb, which isn't enough coverage to singlehandedly vault him over WP:GNG all by itself.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better than this, but nothing here clinches his inclusion without better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links are reliable or notability-building sources. Notability doesn't vest in using primary sources to verify facts, and can be established only by showing that he has received independent third party coverage and analysis about said facts in media. That is, notability isn't established by sourcing his credits to discogs.com, TCM, Soundtrack Collector, MusicBrainz, IMDb or Spotify directory entries — it requires journalists and music critics to be writing newspaper or magazine articles and/or books about him and his work. Notability is not "did stuff", it's "had independent analytical attention paid to the things he did in real media". Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing admin. If by some chance the consensus leans towards a deletion, could we please look at redirecting this page rather than deleting it? This would preserve the history. In addition to / through his prolific work as a producer, Irving Martin has worked extensively with both Brian Dee and Des Champ as well as worked on various music library recordings. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to post at 15:54, 16 September 2023. The links I gave here weren't to prove notability. I just wanted to show the body of Martin's work. When you nominated the article for deletion on See: Revision as of 13:44, 11 September 2023 & (saved example), I could understand this as the references were poor back then. Since then I have done a fair bit of work on it myself, and prior to your response at 15:54, 16 September 2023, it looked like this at Revision as of 13:32, 16 September 2023 & (saved example).
    The majority of the references now are relaible with about 14 from music trade (Music news) magazines. There are only about 2 or 3 from Discogs and a couple from MusicBrainz. The 1960s British Beat Music Producers & Labels - Discographies catalogues are I believe from music trade reports. I am confident by doing the reverse, I can find release references and reviews. From now on I will do my best to track down the music trade references for any additional releases. Keep in mind that the British Beat Music Producers & Labels catalogue caters to CBS releases. Martin produced for other labels as well. The majority of the others are Pye, Decca, Deram and Fontana. Martin's greatest production success was probably the Guy Darrell single, "I've Been Hurt" (a Top 20 hit). But Martin also had chart success with the Sounds of Glory album by The London Philharmonic Choir which spent ten weeks in the chart and was a Top Ten selling album. It actually charted again in January 1977, for just one week getting in at no. 50. He also had a degree of success with the group Sheer Elegance and the single he co-wrote, "Dance the Night Away", which while not a national chart hit, it was a radio hit and performed on Top of the Pops. With the mainstream television shows, Return of the Saint, The Sweeney, Space 1999 and The Jigsaw Man, composing and producing music for them. Well, there's a lot here. The part that is unsourced and is "Résumé-like" as you said is the only part that is unreferenced bar a small section at the end. Since taking up this cause after you nominated it for deletion, I was very surprised, and nothing short of amazed at the volume of Martin's work and who he has worked with. Karl Twist (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSICBIO#C10 for Return of the Saint theme song, and this is not the only claim to notability, meets WP:NCREATIVE.3 for a variety of recordings including I've Been Hurt and Sounds of Glory. Meets WP:MUSICBIO#C8 for winning a GMA Dove Award in 1979, the highest award for Gospel music. —siroχo 06:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the available sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Koudis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nick Koudis (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:NBIO. No reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Tails Wx 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Australia, and New York. Tails Wx 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The page has the potential to meet GNG (given the subject is a photographer with 20+ years experience and this page seems pretty dated with little work since its creation in 2005--authored by the subject himself) but presently I don't see any WP:RSs. Cabrils (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Cabrils. Appears to have been a promotional WP:AUTOBIO created during the earlier days of Wikipedia that has skated by for years despite not meeting notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 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 Green Gully SC. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green Gully Reserve[edit]

Green Gully Reserve (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 fails GNG and GEOFEAT, with sourcing being deficient for SIGCOV. The current sole working external link is four sentences and insufficient for SIGCOV; other ref has a 404 error. Of the sourcing I can find:

A highly brief listing and entry from the city council, which is non-independent and non-SIGCOV IMO.
4 sentence non-SIGCOV coverage from an unreliable source. Its about us shows no staff expertise or editorial policies.
An ongoing project entry of unclear reliablility covering this briefly along with another location.
<5-sentence non-SIGCOV entry mentioning this reserve while noting a case study that has since been removed.
<5-sentence announcement on the creation of a new car park.

Overall, I am unconvinced that any of the sourcing meets GNG, and am surprised this passed NPP. I am also fine with restoring the previous redirect target, but because the BLAR was contested, AfD is the next logical step. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect and Merge to Keilor Downs, Victoria, Green Gully SC is named after the Green Gully Reserve area, its a multi-use area. And not solely used by Green Gully SC. @GiantSnowman: Did you even read the prose on the article? Govvy (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, you mean the article which opens 'Green Gully Reserve is the home of Victorian Premier League team Green Gully' and which does not mention any other notable occupants? Don't be such a mardy bum. GiantSnowman 14:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things to point out, There is one ground right next to the Green Gully training pitches, but it does not belong to Green Gully, it belongs to the Keilor Wolves Soccer Club. From the prose and from the infobox, owner is City of Brimbank and not the football club. Now where do you want to go? City of Brimbank or for more accuracy Keilor Downs, Victoria?? Govvy (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Green Gully SC per GiantSnowman. The other tenant is not notable, and a brief mention could be added if necessary. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seriously, whats wrong with people, Green Gully Reserve, is a reserve (a park area) [25], all the pitches are in the reserve, along with other sports pitches. Housing multiple things [26], the article is so wrong. I suggested a redirect, but hey it needs a total rewrite, GiantSnowman, really, your suggestion on the redirect is so wrong. @Presidentman: Did you even have a proper look? Govvy (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with VickKiang's assessment of the sources in both the original nomination and their response below. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Presidentman: Is it your intention to ignore the whole nature reserve, park, play area, other sports solely to have a redirect?? Govvy (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being rude to people is no way to encourage people to change their mind... GiantSnowman 18:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unsurprisingly, after doing a proper looking, what we have is a massive reserve (park) under the name of Green Gully Reserve. The article needs a total overhaul, clearly the above and nomination have no interest in doing proper research otherwise they would know that the article should easily pass WP:GEOFEAT. Green Gully is a national park.[27]. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you linked above shows this being a track in the Werrikimbe National Park, Oxley Wild Rivers National Park in North Coast, Country NSW. Whereas this is a Victoria park, a different state compared to NSW. This edit you made claimed that this reserve in Melbourne, Victoria and another track part in a NSW park are possibly related. This is incorrect- if you want to refactor this to be about a track in a completely different national park, then nothing here should be retained and you should start a new article anew. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, [28], Proludic was engaged by Brimbank City Council to provide the main attraction of the new playground at Green Gully Reserve: a landmark play tower with two thrilling slides that integrates into the natural reserve. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, [29], Discover this 5.3-km loop trail near Keilor, Victoria. Generally considered an easy route, it takes an average of 1 h 13 min to complete. This trail is great for birding, hiking, and mountain biking, and it's unlikely you'll encounter many other people while exploring. The trail is open year-round and is beautiful to visit anytime. Govvy (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, [30] Green Gully Reserve is a wonderful adventure playground for families located in Keilor Downs, north of Melbourne. The playground highlight is the huge three story tree house tower with two connecting slides that the kids will just love exploring. Other play equipment includes swings, balancing beams, climbing ropes, nature play areas, native bird sculptures, basketball court and fitness stations. The kids will be so entertained at this park, they’ll want to fly back soon. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, [31], Brimbank City Council is restoring Green Gully Reserve, a former tip site located above Taylors Creek to native vegetation. Building on the previous years successful revegetation of 3,000 seedlings at Green Gully Reserve, Brimbank city council enaged Anglopac Environmental in Spring 2011 to install 6,000 seedlings on the site. The hill side has now been transformed into a forest of tree guards. The native species planted there will establish over the next 6 months and flourish with the amazing growth already witnessed from previous years seedlings. The friable and nutrient rich soils will help the seedlings to out compete the weeds and provide soil stability for the steep slopes and provide habitat for the flora and fauna in the area. Govvy (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These references indeed are about the same reserve, unlike the link to the NSW national park. But I've analysed this in my nomination, whereas these two encompass IMO non-reliable UGC content (the articles include reviews by users with no subject-matter-expertise, and is akin to sites like TripAdvisor, that IMO doesn't help in notability). Finally, this website has a basic about us page but insufficient editorial control (i.e., staff page, editorial policies, and the like) to be a reliable source. I understand that we disagree in whether the materials here are sufficient regarding whether they are reliable and meet significant coverage. I have already commented enough to make my case, and will leave it for other editors to the opine. So I will abstain from commenting further. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, @VickKiang: Did you look at the map? See where the pin is, that is the grounds and sports area, then to the right on the map you see all the green space, so the reserve runs from Keilor Downs all the way to Keilor East. You should understand the scale of the reserve from that. So all that area redirected to a football stadium makes no sense to me. Regards. Govvy (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the problem is that the other green is not part of the Green Gully Reserve but part of the Brimbank Park. Yes I agree that the latter is notable, but it is not part of the Green Gully Reserve. It is true that I have not been to there (I do not live in Melbourne), but I have carefully inspected the map, and have researched this, with no sourcing treating this reserve and the other park separated by a road as the same. In the other AfD, you say that I've never been to there. That is completely true- I do not live in Melbourne, but it is unpersuasive and unrelated to notability. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The link you provided is for a place in the state of New South Wales. The article we are currently discussing is about a reserve in the state of Victoria. Two completely different parks in different states. TarnishedPathtalk 07:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but just because some online sources attest to Green Gully Reserve being a great place does not constitute SIGCOV of this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that as a nom I still support a redirect to either Keilor Downs, Victoria or Green Gully SC. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Govvy - I wasn't involved in this AFD until you mentioned it on my user talk page. I haven't yet reviewed the article or its sources. But what is clear to me is you, User:Govvy, are insulting other editors. Did you even have a proper look? and Did you look at the map? are disrespectful to other editors. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - A review of the sources shows that they are all tourist information sites, and as such are not independent sources. Tourist guidebooks published by independent publishers are independent secondary sources contributing to notability, but these are not tourist guidebooks.
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 anglopac.com.au Web site of a conservation group that has restored the park No Yes Yes No
2 alltrails.com Description of a hiking trail at the park No Yes Yes No
3 melbourneplaygrounds.com.au Description of facilities in the park including dog runs No Yes Yes No
4 play.com.tennis.au A guide to tennis courts and clubs in Australia No Yes Yes No
The article as written does not establish general notability because it is does not establish independent coverage. Not expressing an opinion at this time as to whether to redirect to the football club or to the town. Maybe Govvy's arguments are based on sources that they have read that are not listed. If so, adding the sources and tying them into the article might be the Heywood criterion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Have rebuilt the article, added more citations, added citation ideas to talk page. Changed info box over to Infobox park. Please review. Govvy (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry to comment again. Of the talk page sources, ref 1 is a submission from Brimbank City Council on a proposed change to the park. Because they played a large role in constructing and updating the park, I do not believe it is independent. The other three new refs are clear trivial mentions. So I still support a redirect to either of the two mentioned targets. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumbong High School[edit]

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

Tagged for references since 2015, no reliable non-directory hits in Google, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively, redirect to Caloocan#Education. --Lenticel (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are over 60,000 public high schools in the Philippines, and there isn't enough information that would make this article notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given recent expansion of article. I'm surprised the editor didn't come here to comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the article was expanded with the directory type websites that I mentioned in the nomination. --Lenticel (talk) 11:16, 1 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. I don't think further relistings would result in a clearer outcome between those editors arguing to Keep and those advocating to Delete. This is not a comment on the article content, sources or page title which can be discussed on the article talk page. It also does not preclude future trips to AFD but I would advise waiting several months before nominating this article again or it could result in a procedural close. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kelmendi[edit]

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

A search on google books bring zero results for a Battle of Kelmendi article is an orphan, none of the sources mention a significant battle but clashes that took place between 1624 and 1638 (already mentioned on the Kelmendi article). Fails WP:N(E) No historical significance & no sufficient sourcing for a standalone article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 1 1685 treatise WP:OLDSOURCES seemingly unrelated quote Red XN
  2. 2 1866 book WP:OLDSOURCES Does not mention a “Battle of Kelmendi” but various clashes taking place between 1624 and 1638. Red XN
  3. 3 1722 book, WP:OLDSOURCES + does not mention a specific “Battle of Kelmendi” Red XN
  4. 4 website article using the same old sources to illustrate folktale Red XN
Primary sources do mention this event, but I don't think that it ever acquired a distinctive name in historiography: Winnifrith 2021.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maleschreiber There is no denial that clashes between Ottoman troops and the Kelmendi took place between 1624 and 1638, both Malcolm and Elsie mention them, but neither of them bring up a 1638 battle of Kelmendi. Elsie in the Tribes of Albania writes: "In the following decades, (after 1624) the Turks made numerous efforts to subject the Kelmendi, but with no decisive result"; Winnifrith says: "In 1638 Turkish forces had taken the field against this tribe to punish them for brigandage" while Malcolm 2020 just says: "in 1638 the local inhabitants of Novi Pazar and northern Kosovo sent a petition to the Sultan, pleading for action to be taken to defend them from the raids of the Kelmendi". If a significant battle did take place WP:SIGCOV from contemporary sources would exist which would warrant a standalone article, otherwise Ottoman-Kelmendi clashes can be sufficiently described in the Kelmendi (tribe) article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There does appear to be at least one contemporary report of the campaign, by Frang Bardhi (1606-1643), reprinted at [32] with some commentary credited to Robert Elsie. It is cited in the Kelmendi (tribe) article, with other sources. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RecycledPixels Yes you are right, I added that content to the Kelmendi article, it also includes Elsie’s commentary/warning that this 1638 document was a “somewhat glorified text” about the Kelmendi tribe under attack, which may explain why he chose to repost it on his personal website and not use it in his reference book The Tribes of Albania (Kelmendi Tribe chapter pp. 15–36). I also added two more sources (Ernest Lavisse and François Lenormant) mentioning that same punitive expedition sent against the tribe (short/trivial mentions) both relate a completely different outcome which also casts doubt on the accuracy of that 1638 document. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC) edited Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that, I don't understand why you're nominating the topic for deletion with the reason that there are no sources that refer to the campaign as a more than small clashes (a term that I'd define as opportunistic and somewhat unplanned skirmishes between forces, but you may be using with a different meaning), and that there aren't any sources that support a standalone article. You've just identified several, and I pointed at one (that you had provided) that clearly indicated that it was a significant, well-planned campaign with a large buildup. Perhaps the title can be improved. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I researched the topic first and found no battle of Kelmendi, the closest thing I could find in 1638 involving the Kelmendi was a punitive raid which is not addressed by WP:SIGCOV, directly and in detail. The one source that you mentioned is an WP:OLDSOURCES which does not seem to be WP:RELIABLE (see previous comment), and is not backed up by any contemporary source. Albanologist Robert Elsie’s history of the Kelmendi makes no mention of it (you can actually read the whole chapter here); neither does Malcolm (see first comment). The French sources that I found say that in 1638 the Kelmendi chiefs got their head cut off (!) following a punitive raid. This is hardly enough for a standalone article that's why it was added to the Kelmendi (tribe) article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maleschreiber Bardhi has been discussed previously, it is a single OLD source posted on Elsie’s personal website with a warning and contradicted somewhere else, it seems to be more documentary-archival material than reliable description of an event; I doubt it is a RS but this can of course be discussed… nevertheless more than one source is needed to show NOT so please share your research and where you have seen a 1638 Kelmendi campaign “described in detail and at length by several primary sources” Thank you. Wafflesvarrg (talk)
  • Keep I am in agreeance with @Maleschreiber that the article should be renamed as opposed to deleted. There is indeed primary source material and even some secondary source literature describing this specific campaign. Aside from Bardhi's report mentioned above and in the article itself, there is also a report by the Ottoman historian Mustafa Naima who presents the campaign in a very different light and, perhaps, more detailed manner than Bardhi - thus adding nuance to the topic. Naima's report is also discussed by the Albanian historian Selami Pulaha who critiques Naima's clear bias in portraying the campaign as an Ottoman victory. In short, if renamed and expanded appropriately, the article does have potential. :Lezhjani1444 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lezhjani1444 That sounds interesting, regarding Naima/Ottoman and other sources, can you please also share? as long as they are reliable since WP:AGE MATTERS and address the topic directly and in detail to pass GNG, it would be good to see new material. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Naima's historical account is published in Selami Pulaha's Qëndresa e popullit shqiptar kundër sundimit osman nga shekulli XVI deri në fillim të shekullit XVIII: dokumente osmane (1978). Pulaha also includes a commentary and critique of Naima's account, describing it as a biased source which was written to portray Vučo Pasha's campaign as a success, when in reality (as Bardhi mentions) the Ottoman army under Vučo Pasha was forced to retreat from Kelmendi due to heavy losses and a lack of supplies. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a more recent paper (2017) by Luan Tetaj on this campaign titled: "Kryengritjet e Kelmendaseve në shekullin XVII". Lezhjani1444 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thank you @Lezhjani1444 for actually doing research this is really helpful to the discussion; from what you sent, the only one accessible one is "Kryengritjet e Kelmendaseve në shekullin XVII" but that looks like a simple mention, (please correct me if wrong): Sultan Murad IV, fearing an unexpected situation, in 1638 ordered Vuço Pasa the Beylerbey of Bosnia to gather an army from Hercegovina, Albania and Serbia to start military expedition as soon as possible in order to press the main center of the movement, namely Malësia e Madhe. However, even this time, as many times before, ottoman attempts failed this is good for the Kelmendi article mentioning the campaign but not enough to warrant a stand alone article. Is there anything else that addresses the topic directly and in detail? Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad to help. Tetaj does write more about the campaign and seems to agree more so with Bardhi's account, although he does include information which from Naima. I have translated it and will include below, although apologies if my translation seems clunky and a little incoherent at times, I'm not accustomed to translating entire paragraphs of Albanian, however, this should give a general idea hopefully:
In February 1638, fearing the unpredictable situation, Sultan Murad IV ordered Vučo Pasha, the beylerbey of Bosnia, to raise a large army from his own pashalik and those of Herzegovina, Albania, and Serbia for a final expedition against the main centre of unrest in Malësia e Madhe; aiming to spare the locals no mercy and put them all to the sword. Being charged with this task, Vučo Pasha gathered over 15,000 soldiers, composed of Dalmatians, Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Bosnians. While chosen for their physical strength, these troops had no experience in battle and war. Vučo Pasha arrived in Albania, setting camp above Lake Shkodra where the Ottoman army rested for 3 days. On the fourth day Vučo Pasha arrived at the city of Shkodra where he called upon the sanjak-beys of the city and Dukagjin, ordering them to raise a force of 1,000 Albanians - either Muslim or Christian - and attach them to his army. It is believed that Vučo Pasha was accompanied and supported by 9 sanjak-beys and 2 pashas with inferior ranks, Halil and Nahun Pasha. However, Vučo Pasha had supreme control over the imperial army. After all the preparations were made, he began his military expedition into Kelmendi. After reaching a mountain peak from which the inhabitants of Kelmendi could be seen, Vučo Pasha ordered his troops to expand into the interior of Kelmendi; keeping a guard of 2,000 soldiers with him on the mountain top. However, as the Ottoman soldiers entered, the local rebels rushed to blockade the roads from which the army had entered; entrapping them with with large stones and trees. As such, the Ottoman army was trapped and resorted to razing and pillaging the villages, gathering sums of loot. Aware of the threats against them, the Malësors had previously taken their women, children, cattle, and valuables up into the mountains to hide, while the men prepared for battle; also leaving the Ottomans empty handed. It is during this confrontation that the popular folk saying "it is not Kelmendi which fights, but the country" was invented. As a result of heavy snow fall in the region, the roads and passes which the Ottoman army had planned to cross in order to engage the rebels had become impassable. Having razed a number of villages and running low on food reserves, Vučo Pasha ordered his troops to retreat two weeks later. Meanwhile, becoming aware of the Ottoman retreat, the Kelmendi - under the leadership of Vuk Doda - attacked the Ottoman army, where it is believed that a thousand soldiers were killed. The Ottoman army suffered heavy losses and were routed, leaving many casualties and spoils of war behind them. When Vučo Pasha was informed of his army's defeat, he attempted to flee but was stopped by the sanjak-bey of Dukagjin, advising him to wait for the remnants of the army. After joining with the rest of the army, Vučo Pasha returned to Shkodra and spent a few days there before returning to Bosnia. Vučo Pasha was unable to subdue the Kelmendi by force and thus attempted to establish agreements with the tribe. For example, news had spread among the Kelmendi that if the locals, both men and women, were to surrender within a week they would be forgiven and compensated for the damages caused by the campaign. Despite this proposition, the Kelmendi refused and Vučo Pasha's attempts were unsuccessful. Lezhjani1444 (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Lezhjani1444 for the quotation and transcription, we are definitely making progress as this source contains details that corroborate Bardhi. Could you provide the full details please, the full reference with the page..etc if Naima wrote this and when. Since we also have two conflicting accounts, could you tell us more about Pulaha’s commentary and critique of Naima's account? The more details we have the closer we get to SIGCOV. Once established I would suggest a rename and move this conversation to the new TP. You do not need to translate by hand, you can take a screenshot and upload as an image to google translate for instant translation. Thanks again. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above is my translation of pages 85-7 from Luan Tetaj's paper "Kryengritjet e Kelmendaseve në shekullin XVII" (2017) discussing the campaign of 1638. As for Naima's historical account of the campaign, I am not entirely sure when it was written, though I think it was part of his historical compilation of 1704. Naima's account (including footnotes) spans pages 110-5 of Pulaha's book, I can share the pages if you and others would like, although note that the report has been translated into Albanian. As for Pulaha's commentary (starts with a brief introduction of Naima's account), I can translate since it is shorter:
1638, January-February The Albanians of Kelmendi, Piperi, Palabardhi (i.e., Bjelopavlići) and Rožaje rise up in revolt/uprising and begin launching attacks, extending into Bosnia. An Ottoman army composed of around 15,000 soldiers under the command of Vučo Pasha, the beylerbey of Bosnia, is sent in order to counter the rebels and manages to penetrate into the highlands of Kelmendi. However, the Ottoman army is encircled and attacked by the rebels. During the fighting, the Ottomans suffer heavy losses of both men and resources, forcing them to retreat without confronting/subduing the rebels - whom were revered/noted for their unparalleled heroism and bravery. This is reflected in the works of Ottoman historians from the 17th century themselves, although their works present a distorted and false versions of the historical events. (p. 110)
Naima distorts the the events and defeat(s) of Vučo Pasha's army in Kelmend, portraying the campaign as a victory. [The defeat of the Ottomans] can be convincingly proven when referring to documents/sources of the 17th century. For example, Frang Bardhi, a contemporary source who lived during the events, testifies that while Vučo Pasha's army entered into Kelmendi during the winter of 1638, the army was encircled and that all the paths for escape and resupplying were blocked. The unrelenting attacks from the Kelmendi and the and the lack of food supplies placed the Ottomans in a very dire situation, the army was left with two decisions: either to break the encirclement or succumb to starvation. During their efforts to break the encirclement, the Ottomans suffered heavy losses in both men and resources, with Frang Bardhi stating that the Kelmendi had managed to kill around 1,000 Ottoman soldiers during their first attack. Even in Naima's distorted narration the heroism and bravery of the rebels in their fight for freedom is presented clearly. (p. 115)
Regarding Naima's attestation of an agreement (Ahdname) reached between Vučo Pasha and the rebels of Kelmendi, in which it was stipulated that the latter would: no longer cut off trade routes and roads, pay tribute/tax (haraç) as before, and be resettled from Kelmendi to the nahiyah of Plava, becoming loyal subjects. Pulaha considered this to be evidence of Vučo Pasha's defeat or inability to fully subdue to the Albanian rebels, and Naima's attempts at embellishing the event to deny the Kelmendi of victory:
The arrival to an agreement clearly shows that Naima embellished the events and attempted to deny the Ottoman defeat. Via the agreement, the Ottoman state was forced to recognise the autonomy of these regions, which they had enjoyed in previous years, and this would only have been possible if the rebels had managed to defeat Vučo Pasha. (p. 115) Lezhjani1444 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Maleschreiber, plus the discussion I had with Wafflesvarrg when I hijacked Maleschreiber's comment thread above. Satisfies WP:GNG, so keep and rename to a more appropriate title if needed. I don't think a merge/redirect to the tribe article because some of the issues that Wafflesvarrg has raised relate to the accuracy and reliability of the sources. A standalone article is the place to expand upon modern interpretations of the reliability of earlier sources, not hijacking the tribe article where this subject might merit, at most, one paragraph before overwhelming it. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RecycledPixels I’m not sure how you can already vote and say that it satisfies WP:GNG, without “significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail”; we only have one source which may not be RS contradicted by two passing mentions that do not address the topic directly and in detail. At the moment it clearly fails to meet the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't already vote before this, I was asking you questions for clarification while I formed an opinion. This was my first and only bolded vote as a result of that discussion. I don't agree with your assessments about the sources. We have a contemporary report by Frang Bardhi that is significant coverage of the facts of the event. We have a modern re-publication of that report with some critique by Robert Elsie on the albanianhistory.com, as well as another source by Elsie, the 2015 Tribes of Albania, page 31, he uses Bardhi's writing again in mentioning the attacks by the Kelmendi on caravans in Albania, Bosnia and Serbia so clearly he felt that Bardhi's writing was factual, albeit possibly embellished. In mentioning Bardhi's work in that book, he cites "Injac Zamputi (ed.), Relacione mbi gjendjen e Shqipërisë veriore e të mesme në shekullin XVII. Teksti origjinal dhe përkthimi nga Injac Zamputi. Burime dhe materiale për historinë e Shqipërisë, 3. Vëllimi I (1610 – 1634), Vëllimi II (1634 – 1650) [Reports on Conditions in Northern and Central Albania in the Seventeenth Century. Original Texts and Translations by Injac Zamputi. Sources and Material on the History of Albania, 3. Vol. I (1610 – 1634), Vol. II (1634 – 1650)]. Tirana: Universiteti shtetëror i Tiranës, 1963, vol 1, pp 276-278" (citation 35). The webpage reprint of Bardhi's writing also cites "Peter Bartl (ed.), Albania Sacra, 3 (Wiesbaden 2014), p. 137-140" and "Injac Zamputti (ed.), Dokumente për historinë e Shqipërisë (1623-1653) (Sankt Gallen & Prishtina 2015), p. 193-198." so there's clearly more written about this event and/or Bardhi's writing on the event (that I haven't attempted to access since those were clearly written in a language I don't understand and don't have the time or interest to translate). Those by themselves establish WP:GNG, without even considering the other sources brought up here, such as Lavisse, Lenormant, and others. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elsie is using the part of the document that is backed up by other sources (Kelmendi attacking merchants, mentioned by everyone) Elsie is skipping the part we are talking about which is also how we should proceed here per wiki standards. A mere mention of an unnamed event doesn’t help with GNG, neither does a single possibly unreliable source from 1638 not corroborated by other independent sources or by recent research by modern historians. “To be suitable for a stand-alone article a topic needs to show significant coverage in reliable sources” none of the sources you mentioned satisfy that. Bartl and Zamputti only present archived documents related to Albanian history. If you look it up and translate all that it is easy to check. Lavisse is also just a mention, Lenormant contradicts Bardhi and is not enough for an article (full quote is on the Kelmendi article). You need to look at the type of content to see if they provide SIGVOV not just at their existence. At the moment we do not have anything significant or reliable to warrant this article. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Maleschreiber, sources clearly indicate that it wasn't just some clashes but an full Ottoman campaign against the Kelmendi tribe. I think its also important to note that it is very strange, that the User who joined Wikipedia a few days ago directly starts to nominate 2 articles of another user for deletion. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the prior comments so you can familiarise yourself with the discussion. Maleschreiber has not brought source(s) (yet) but the same source (Bardhi) that I was already discussing with RecycledPixels, an OLD source that might be unreliable since it comes with a warning and is also contradicted by other mentions. At the moment we only have passing mentions which do not address that event in details and are not enough to demonstrate GNG and SIGCOV. Not sure I understand your last comment but you're welcome to comment on my tp. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To be clear with all the participants (and with the administrator closing this AfD), since I don't think I can keep answering such a large number of editors for long. Frang Bardhi's report from June 1638, has value as a historical source, but its reliability may be subject to scrutiny. Robert Elsie has characterised Bardhi's account as "somewhat glorified" which suggest that the report contains elements of exaggeration, myth-making, or bias that may have distorted the true nature of the event (looking now at new source provided by Lezhjani1444). Here are the other two sources mentioned, translated from French, which contradict "Bardhi" [33].:
  1. Ernest Lavisse - Histoire générale du IV siècle á nos jours: Les guerres de religion, 1559-1648. P. 894 [34] All the mountains were engulfed by the hordes of Doudjé-Pasha: the majority of the Klementi, Albanians of the Catholic religion, were transplanted to Serbia and Macedonia (1638); and Sultan Mourad IV, to whom Albanian heads were brought, with their hair divided into four braids and decorated with silver chains, joked about it with the nobles of his court, saying: “See how well Doudjé adorned the heads of my subjects of Albania.“ This servitude of the Albanian and Serbian mountains was to last sixty years.
  2. François Lenormant - Turcs et Monténégrins P. 129 [35] Despite so much suffering, they still resisted in 1638, when Sultan Mourad IV, freed from the war with Persia after the capture of Baghdad, charged Doudjé-Pasha, former bostandji-bachi, appointed governor of Bosnia. (...) Doudjé-Pasha's expedition opened in the heart of winter. The courageous mountaineers, although weakened by famine and lacking ammunition, put up a desperate defense. They rolled huge blocks of rock from the tops of the mountains onto the Turkish army. The death of their knèze Vokodoud, killed in a fight, and a few days after that of the voivode Hotasch, whom the Pasha himself surprised by climbing an inaccessible peak with crampons, deprived the Clementi of their best chiefs and determined their submission. The leaders of the tribe were decapitated, and their heads sent to Constantinople. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as currently, there is No consensus. A couple of comments, first, the time stamps on this AFD are all out-of-whack because the AFD wasn't transcluded correctly. It was started 9/14 but didn't get placed on the daily log page until 9/18. Secondly, User:Wafflesvarrg, please do not bludgeon this discussion. Do not respond to every comment here that has an opposing point of view with a contradictory comment. Finally, AFD is not the proper location for a content discussion so please do not get into a debate of minute details on each source that is better to have on an article talk page. This is a general discussion on whether this article should be Kept, Deleted, Merged or Redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Apologies all for hijacking the conversation earlier, I'm a newbie to this! I am summing-up all the findings below and on the article TP. I am not against a rename to "1638 Ottoman expedition against Kelmendi" for example, but is that enough material for an article? wouldn’t it make more sense to create a section with that name in the Kelmendi (tribe) article?. I will let the community decide and will do my best to improve the topic following whatever decision is taken. If new sources are found please share. Thank you to User:Lezhjani1444 for all his research, wishing everyone a good day. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC) edited (typo) Wafflesvarrg (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In February 1638, Sultan Murad IV commanded Vučo Pasha, the beylerbey of Bosnia, to lead a 15,000-strong army, composed of soldiers of various origins (Dalmatians, Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, and Bosnians), to quell unrest in Malësia e Madhe and to punish the local tribes for brigandage. After stopping in Shkodër to receive an additional 1,000 Albanian soldiers, the military expedition entered the the highlands of Kelmendi. The challenging terrain and heavy snowfall compelled the Ottomans to resort to pillaging and razing villages in search of supplies. Anticipating the Ottoman threat, local Kelmendi rebels concealed their families, cattle, and valuables in a grotto in the mountains. Outcome of the campaign differs depending on sources: According to Ottoman historian Mustafa Naima, and to 19th-century French historians Ernest Lavisse and François Lenormant (using Ottoman and Western sources) Kelmendi leaders were caught and beheaded, their heads were then sent to the Sultan in Constantinople, while the surviving members of the tribe were relocated to Pristina and other regions. Austrian historian Spiridon Gopčević writes that starved to death, the Kelmendi surrendered after the death of their leaders Vukodud and Hotaš, and that the majority of the tribe was relocated to Pristina. According to Albanian bishop Frang Bardhi, and to modern Albanian scholars (using Bardhi’s report as source) the Ottoman force found itself encircled and attacked by the Kelmendi, during the confrontation a thousand Ottoman soldiers were killed, leading to the Ottoman force retreat to Bosnia. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are sources and there are questions about the sources. I suspect this article is not the correct final form, and a rename of the article may very well be in order, but that is not an AfD outcome. A redirect or merge does not seem like a good outcome in this case, as there is some subject here that has not been shown to be a clear sub topic of an existing target. The sources that are identified are sufficient to pass GNG for an article about these events. It may not be this article but improvement by way of renaming and refactoring the article would be a content discussion going forward and is out of scope of AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can someone point to which secondary RS provide SIGCOV of this skirmish as a defined event? If the only sources with more than a passing mention are primary then they unequivocally do not contribute to notability and the article should be deleted.
JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 1 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, withdrawn (non-admin closure)‎. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biota, Cinco Villas[edit]

Biota, Cinco Villas (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)

Has one sentence, one source, and basic infobox. Got DEPRODed PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Spanish article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biota_(Zaragoza) has plenty of content and sources, I've added Template:Expand Spanish. Reywas92Talk 00:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will translate the article PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep municipalities clearly pass GEOLAND and the status of the article isn't normally relevant as long as sources do exist, see WP:RUBBISH. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep a stub with room for improvement is no valid rationale for deletion in its own right.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: the subject clearly passes WP:GEOLANDm and sources can be added to improve the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
◆NOM WITHDRAWN PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 16:52, 26 September 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_September_26

Leave a Reply