Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< February 01 February 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan-O[edit]

Dan-O (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:BIO. Most statements in article are sourced to the author's website, another to an article that mentions him, and another to IMDB. Searching only turns up results for "Dan O Seasoning" and the General Hospital writer, Dan O'Connor. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncertain. While it once seemed that this guy (and especially his unusual business model) might be going somewhere, he does seem to have faded away. However, he seems no less notable than, say, the Hollywood Freeway chickens or Ayalahi, to name two. Minturn (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as one reliable source does not an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the current sources, the first is from the website of the company owned by the subject, the second is independent but lacks depth at only a couple of short sentences, and the third is a database. A BEFORE check doesn't come up with much else. Let'srun (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No SIGCOV and GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2024 (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 Mableton, Georgia#Government. as a viable ATD. While this appears to be N/C based on head count, keep !votes are not based in policy Star Mississippi 23:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Mableton mayoral election[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2023 Mableton mayoral election (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)

Local election for a small suburb. It has not been covered by any media outside of the Atlanta metropolitan area, failing WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:GNG. Previous discussion was closed because it was still linked from the Main Page. SounderBruce 22:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Mableton, Georgia - Most of the content of the page is background information explaining that Mableton was incorporated in 1912, then disincorporated in 1916, the re-incorporated in 2022, with information on the campaign, election and opinions of the latter. The actual content related to the 2023 election is quite limited, and I don't see why it would not be folded into the Mableton article, which already has a section on Government. If there is continued interest in the mayoral election in the future, this could be split off into a thematic article such as Mableton, Georgia mayoral elections, but I don't think this topic alone meets WP:N. Shazback (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The one delete comes from a reasoning that is obviously applicable anymore. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboard Park Tycoon[edit]

Skateboard Park Tycoon (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 video game. This article has been un-cited since 2008, and I can't find a single professional review online. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2024 (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 Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California#Lincoln-Villa. No clear case has been made for why the content should be deleted, so it remains under the redirect Star Mississippi 23:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln-Villa, Pasadena, California[edit]

Lincoln-Villa, Pasadena, California (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)

Came across this guy working on WP:FEB24 and I'm really struggling to find *any* mention of this neighborhood name that's not realtor-spam. The closest I could find was a mention of a Cypress-Lincoln-Villa as "stakeholders" on a petition. Lincoln and Villa is clearly an intersection, and I suspect this overlaps a lot with something called New Fair Oaks Historic District but IDK about notability on this one. I've come up blank on Newspapers, HathiTrust, and the City of Pasadena website. jengod (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2024 (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 DMC World DJ Championships as it looks likely that the target will be kept. Should that change, this will be resolved as a deleted redirect Star Mississippi 23:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Mix Club[edit]

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

Non notable, per both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sources cited are non-independent, and a Google search fails to find anything suggesting that the necessary level of in-depth independent coverage can be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2024 (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. SIGCOV met with reliable sources. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DMC World DJ Championships[edit]

DMC World DJ Championships (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, per WP:GNG. Neither of the independent sources cited covers the topic in any depth, and an online search finds nothing obvious to suggest that the required level of sourcing can be found elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a big event in the turntablism world. While the article may be poor there is a significant amount of independent coverage available - with statements such as "The event is a showcase of the world’s best scratch DJ’s who play portable turntables and vinyl" in a reliable music source ([1]). Other WP:RS/WP:RSMUSIC coverage includes [2] and [3] and [4]. A quick look on ProQuest and there is a lot more. ResonantDistortion 19:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not voting yet, but I will say for now that the company behind this has been on a crusade to edit-war a 27000-byte list of every winner of every variant of the competition into the article ([5] [6] [7] [8]), so if this article does continue to exist after this the article needs some form of protection--and more watchers, because if e.g. it gets semi-protected and the company creates another account to edit it, I'll no longer be able to revert them. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D1A0:7BBB:E6CF:5C27 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC) (Please send talk messages here instead)[reply]
    (Personal attack removed) 2001:56B:3FF1:1F4D:C499:C323:8671:C49B (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ResonantDistortion 00:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has in-depth mentions in The Cambridge Companion to Hip-Hop ISBN 9781316239926 and Groove Music: The Art and Culture of the Hip-Hop DJ ISBN 9780199913015. It is described as having an "enormous impact on the development of playing skills" in the former. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on recent changes[9], Rjjiii (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ski[edit]

Luke Ski (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 music artist. No significant coverage or secondary coverage seems to really exist. No notable albums. Was created in 2004 back when notability guidelines were a lot less stringent, so I've heard. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2024 (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 Caucasian carpets and rugs. Star Mississippi 23:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quba rugs and carpets[edit]

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

As pointed out by User:2003:EA:4F4F:CF9D:8063:A628:6C7F:FCC7, the article features mostly unsourced content as well as possible WP:NPOV violations, and has had an unusual citation style for nearly 11 years. Only 3 references exist, with unclear relevance to the topic of the article. WP:NPOV violation may have come from Encyclopedia Britannica entry, which was not listed as a source. Someone, i guess(talk i guess|le edit list) 21:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aguarecords Productions[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability. There is really no independent coverage of the company much less corporate GNG coverage. And the contents reflect that, being basically a short self-description. Of the three references, one is their own website, one is a wayback link about release of a record and one is an interview of their founder by a website with the only info in there about the company being a self-description. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2024 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dieschburg[edit]

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

I am failing to find indication that this painter meets WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The coverage is not significant, and mostly what he is known for is a case of possible plagiarization of another artist's work on social media. I'm not finding a track record of notable exhibitions, reviews or permanent collections in notable museums that we would normally find. Perhaps it is TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There are sources (as pointed out by the keep voters), but only about the copyright infringement controversy so far. Brachy08 (Talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: For new users participating, this is NOT a vote. Brachy08 (Talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dieschburg is pretty known in Luxembourg for his skills in oil painting, a craft that he honed since being a little child (shown in a news coverage available on Youtube). It drew attention fast and a quarrel, often in public, between him and contemporary and avant-garde artists started.
His works featured in newspapers, publications, and catalogues. The whole copyright law case only came later and went viral in social media because of misinformation, racism and sexism allegations against the painter, regarding his work Turandot. The enormous amount of hate he received led him to close his social media (as stated by RTL). It is true that most Internet searches point to the court case, however he won it.
I think the page about him contains good information and I don´t see why it should be deleted. He is young, the page will probably grow within the next years. JdAlembert (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) — JdAlembert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete The article's references are largely trivial mentions, often one or two sentences[10] or even less,[11] with at least one reference that doesn't even include this person's name a single time.[12] Despite unsupported claims like "pretty known in Luxembourg" and "vastly discussed in social media," there is no sign that a single event of an art student getting caught copying from other's work is an event of encyclopedic notability, let alone one that would make the student themself meet the notability guidelines of WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Elspea756 (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's coverage of the copyright case [13], [14], appears to have some lasting effect. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article also contains a copyvio of one of his paintings, perhaps ironically. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Dieschburg is a known artist in Luxembourg because he is the only one in the country who really wants to paint like the masters from centuries ago. He is still very young and his art undeniably draws attention [1]. As someone already pointed out, he is not appreciated by everyone, especially the more contemporary school of thought in art reject him. However that is no reason to ignore him. There absolutely is information around him, not only in the context of the copyright case (that he won). The Luxembourgish Doctor of Law, author and philosopher Gaston Vogel said Dieschburg was very important painter for Luxembourg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JangdeBlannen (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) — JangdeBlannen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.100komma7.lu/program/episode/399579/20220601171500-20220601172100?pd=search&fbclid=IwAR0IkpfT_-dL8bmutOLjb3UYzBN0xU9mNBClbB1slkfV5M0Qo5Bg_iHspVU

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate further discussion from established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There have been two SPAs participating, and four attempts by sockpuppets impersonating an admin to prematurely close. I'll see if there is another delete-sort category that makes sense. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Singapore. Netherzone (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sfar13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even discounting SPAs, there's some split input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have put together a source assesment table of every source in the article, showing that this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. The copyright infringement case is a very minor WP:ONEEVENT with no historical impact. If there were an article about Luxembourg copyright law, this may be of slight interest as maybe a single sentence there about the threshold for photographs to be covered, but there is not significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to support an entire article on this individual art student. Elspea756 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Elspea756
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.luxtimes.lu/yourluxembourg/luxembourgguide/grand-duchess-who-triggered-monarchy-vote-died-100-years-ago/7327218.html No A single sentence photo caption. ✘ No
https://www.zlv.lu/db/1/1453151325116 No Three sentences in an article about a student group show. ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=4qGtEAAAQBAJ&q=Dieschburg#v=snippet&q=Dieschburg&f=false No Less than a sentence. ✘ No
https://www.luxtimes.lu/culture/thought-provoking-art-stuns-at-strassen-exhibition/1338711.html No Two sentences in an article about a group show. ✘ No
https://www.saatchiart.com/art/Painting-Cherry-blossom-L-une-82/389236/4763659/view No Saatchi_Art is an "e-commerce platform and online art gallery" that anyone can post on. No No coverage at all. This page does not use the first or last names of this art student a single time. ✘ No
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/pitchmark/news/litigation-update-photographer-jingna-zhang-loses-plagiarism-case-against-luxembourg-student-artist-who-ripped-off-her-work-459131 No Three sentences about this art student. Majority of article is about whether a photograph was covered by Luxembourg copyright law. From Dec. 16, 2022, WP:ONEEVENT of copyright infringement case. ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCThNlVq-AI No Titled "Interview with art student ..." so this is not independent from the subject's own viewpoint. ? Interviews are generally not reliable sources ? June 21, 2022 video about WP:ONEEVENT of copyright infringement case. ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik2E4BvhbZM No Titled "Interview with art student ... and his lawyer" so this is not independent from the subject's own viewpoint. ? Interviews are generally not reliable sources ? June 7, 2022 video about WP:ONEEVENT of copyright infringement case. ✘ No
https://www.lessentiel.lu/de/story/jeff-dieschburg-kaempft-mit-anfeindungen-auf-social-media-175886478340 No Five sentences about the art student getting negative reactions on Twitter. From Dec. 14, 2022, WP:ONEEVENT of copyright infringement case. ✘ No
https://guykaiser.lu/ass-de-jeff-dieschburg-senges-liewens-net-mei-secher-himmelschreiend-sauerei-seet-de-gaston-vogel/ No An individual's self-published opinion blog. No editorial oversight. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete - Strongly appears to be a WP:ONEEVENT situation without sufficient general notability for an independent page, as supported by the table prepared by Elspea756 (talk · contribs) and a search for sources in the usual WP:BEFORE locations. There could be sources in Luxembourgish (which I don't speak), however I doubt they would meet the criteria of WP:ARTIST. Shazback (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. Thanks for the source assessment table. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per source assessment table. Okoslavia (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎ to allow time for sources to be found Star Mississippi 17:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 UAAP Women's Volleyball[edit]

2005 UAAP Women's Volleyball (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)

Draftify unsourced article previously deleted. No text, violation of WP:NOTDATABASE at WP:What Wikipedia is not. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is one of the Category:UAAP volleyball tournaments, probably the most notable volleyball championship in the Philippines, surpassing the professional one. With that being said, this, (and the similarly titled articles in this series) are nothing more than a stats dump. WP:NOTSTATS, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP either, so... Howard the Duck (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (all), Wikipedia is not a data repository. There needs to be drawn a line in the sand so that season "articles" are not made as statistic dumps lacking any kind of context. I would say delete, but there are a lot of similar entries. Geschichte (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this particular article is that it lacks sources and that notability hasn't been shown, but it's very likely to be able to be sourced based on other season articles if someone has access to 2005 Philippines media. I think draftifying is probably correct, but the topic is likely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Apple[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or find a good WP:ATD. Not on a major label, no significant success. Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nomination. Fails WP:BAND, and apart from the external links, there are no sources in the article whatsoever. I couldn't find any reliable sources that mention this band. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specialty Publications[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. Possibility of redirect to one of the magazines, but either might be chosen, and it is an ambiguous title. Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:09, 2 February 2024 (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 23:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Servare et Manere[edit]

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

There’s scant evidence of independent coverage. Over one-third of the sources are either on the organization’s own website, on the website of its Tree of Peace subsidiary, or written by its head, Marek Sobola (another article that exudes self-promotion). The rest is stuff like the CV of Sobola’s friend, a dead link leading to the page of a member of the long-defunct Iranian royal family, another dead link to the Mecklenburg-Strelitz dynasty (which was chased off the throne in, uh, 1918), a UN press release which says… nothing about this outfit, etc. Biruitorul Talk 19:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biruitorul,
I don't understand your reasons. The public resources about the organization are valid and there are many of them. I am fixing the website of the former Queen of Iran. The Mecklenburg-Strelitz dynasty website is probably under restoration. I also list other sources from French Polynesia. For example, local television, or the President's office.
I also looked at other sources from Romania. For example News Agency of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Defence Staff of the Romanian Armed Forces as well as the Romanian Royal Family. If one searched well and better, more resources would be found... Repairman745 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realize that long-defunct royal dynasties thrive on any shred of publicity, and that their websites are consequently not the most impartial news source, right? Press releases aren’t that great a source either. — Biruitorul Talk 06:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you realize that according to your subjective and personal criteria, about 60% of all articles on Wikipedia would have to be deleted? I don't know what makes you do this, but do you think you're helping wikipedia? Instead of improving the article, without further study and understanding, you simply propose to delete it with one "click"... I don't know, this certainly doesn't seem right and correct to me. And yes, I was looking at your profile, you have "powers" and "competencies" that I don't have. But it's an opinion to an opinion. And I do not claim that mine is the only and correct one. But even yours does not have "divine" superiority. Best wishes. Repairman745 (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HeritageOcean. — Biruitorul Talk 14:55, 8 February 2024 (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. Numerically, we obviously have no consensus.

In terms of arguments, the two sides are mostly talking past each other. The "keep" side insists that the topic is notable, and the "delete" side insists that the content is original research by synthesis and/or a POV fork. The problem is that all of this can be true at the same time.

That being the case, the "delete" arguments are prima facie stronger, because content that is OR or non-neutral violates core policies and therefore still merits deletion even if it is about a notable topic. However, in my view, the "delete" side have not convincingly demonstrated their case that the article's content is so problematic that deletion is the only reasonable option. With a few exceptions (e.g., Aquillion), they only assert that the content is policy-noncompliant, without making an actual argument (based on the article's contents and its sources) to show why it is policy-noncompliant.

Given the numerical split, arguments based mostly on mere assertions are, in my view, too tenuous a basis on which to find a rough consensus to delete. Sandstein 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the 7 October attacks[edit]

Denial of the 7 October attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not deal with a notable subject, merely instances of denial. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel contains no mention of this.Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • It does now. Mistamystery (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed your addition as based on a single low quality writeup by someone who is no expert in the Middle East[15] and, additionally, has displayed exceptional bias in her writings. We can't built an encylopaedia on this sort of crap. — kashmīrī TALK 18:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Wash Po is RS and it’s not an opinion piece. We don’t individually get to decide what is and isn’t a verifiable source or an “expert”. Washington Post does and the Wikipedia community has decided that it is an RS.
      2. Please strike your offensive language and revise with more neutral language or it will be reported to admins. Mistamystery (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Page appears to be a collation of anecdotal material alongside some polls, but it does not appear to represent a subject based on secondary analytical sources that seriously discuss it as a cohesive, established topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There's a body of secondary coverage in RS that seriously discuss it as a cohesive, established topic. These are those which discuss denial as a topic, in addition to many others that discuss instances. Many RS, including those cited in the article use "October 7 denial" to properly encompass the full scale of mendacious claims about what happened that day.
* Growing Oct. 7 ‘truther’ groups say Hamas massacre was a false flag
* Holocaust denial finds new life in Oct. 7 revisionism
* Are conspiracy theories about Oct. 7 a new form of Holocaust denial? Experts weigh in
* Denial of Hamas' October 7 Massacre Is Gaining Pace Online
* Levin vows to outlaw denial of Hamas atrocities
* Anger as Oakland residents defend Hamas and deny 7 October attack at council meeting
* Israel shows footage of Hamas killings ‘to counter denial of atrocities'
* Queens College president condemns Muslim student group’s denial of Hamas attacks
* For most Palestinians, October 7’s savagery is literally unbelievable. Blame the TV news?
* US Jewish groups found ‘The 10/7 Project’ to fight denial of Hamas atrocities
* '26 million people' view social media posts denying Hamas attack on Israel
User:Longhornsg
Without doing original research, which of the sources explicitly talk about the so-called "Denial of the 7 October attacks"? --Mhhossein talk 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is OR -- material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists -- here? Please read the RS, which explicitly cover the topic. If we look at Holocaust denial, to which scholars and researchers are comparing the phenomenon of October 7 denialism, Holocaust denial doesn't only include claims that "the Holocaust didn't happen", but also false claims related to size, culpable party, and method of extermination. A claim that only 300k people died in the Holocaust, would be labeled by scholars and RS as Holocaust denial? Nakba denial does not only explicitly include making the claim that "750k Palestinian Arabs were not uprooted from their homes", but per the WP article, a range of charges that are not denial that the Nakba occurred, including the "denial of a distinct Palestinian identity, the theory that Palestine was barren land, and the theory that Palestinian dispossession were part of mutual transfers between Arabs and Jews justified by war." I guess then only someone denying that the population displacement occurs would qualify? Denial of the 7 October attacks, as RS discuss the topic, includes false claims that the attack on Israel did not occur, it was a false flag operation by Israel, was exaggerated, etc. I'm using how RS discuss the topic, which is what we should go by. User:Longhornsg (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IF you think there are problems in other articles needing attention from editors, please convey your concerns to the associated talk pages. Then you can go ahead by quoting the portions where the denial is 'explicitly' covered in a reliable source. --Mhhossein talk 08:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? Between the sources cited here and those already in the article, the topic more than meets GNG Longhornsg (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how GNG established. The denial of 7 oct attacks should have "Significant coverage" among reliable sources, which is not the case now. Significant coverage is defined as the coverage "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Moreover, WP:VERIFY necessitates the inclusion of "an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material". It means that the insertion of sources which are tangentially related to the topic does not show the general notability. The article currently suffer from WP:SYNTH simply because time should pass so the title receives direct and in-depth coverage by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein talk 20:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG as shown by Longhornsg --Shrike (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly under the pretense of WP:STARTOVER, if not merge into a subsection of the October 7 attacks page and Holocaust denial. The initial article was essentially an essay citing opinion pieces as facts, and equated justification of the attacks as outright denial of them, along with arguably racist blanket generalizations of Palestinians regarding their support of the attacks. Even the second source in the article - the Times of Israel one - doesn't back up the definitions of denialism listed in the article. While there are some great sources/articles on denialism so far (esp. this WaPo one and this Times of Israel one), even many of the sources stated by Longhornsg mention Oct 7 denialism as the reason for an increase in Holocaust denial.
I don't see enough RS available at the moment to keep this page up at the moment. Maybe down the line, whenever the effects of denialism is better studied, sure, but right now the article is scraping the bottom of the barrel for scattered incidents of Oct 7 denial in the news, conflating justification of the attacks with denialism at various points, and every article mentioning large-scale denial of the attacks leads into how that denial is part of a rise in Holocaust denialism. Jebiguess (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jebiguess. If long term, more reputable sources become available discussing in depth denial of the attacks we can remake the page, but for now as said above and on the article talk page there isn't enough there, and the article is heavily breaching WP:NPOV with its comments on Palestinians especially. We can add a paragraph to the October 7 attacks page with the few good sources. CoconutOctopus talk 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, preferably using the sources found by Longhornsg. There's no need for it to have its own article at the time, but keep the option of a future WP:SIZESPLIT. As usual, I look forward to the pro-Israel SPAs desperately trying to keep this article around and the pro-Palestine SPAs desperately trying to get rid of it because neither of them are interested in building an encyclopedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as an WP:ATD per Thebiguglyalien. Yeah, all the SPAs are gonna be fun with this one. As for the article, I do think that the sources are good, but for its own article, the content spread feels weak. Conyo14 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Sources 1, 15 and to a lesser extent 8 are about this subject. Rest appear to stretch the truth to suit the narrative... Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not seeing that, 1 is an article from the tech editor about people on the internet linked to Holocaust denial, the second is disinfo about 40 beheaded babies and the third is about a Hamas propaganda document. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jebiguess and WP:TNT. Failing that, merge to a section in 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. As it stands, the article clearly breaches WP:NPOV, and, while I can understand why the article creator feels the way they do, they have form for ignoring that policy. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is in a quite different space than how the creator left it. NPOV concerns (please articulate what those currently are) are not a reason for deletion. Longhornsg (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a fan of TNT arguments anyways, but the "tipping point" for TNT is if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. Clearly this article does not meet TNT, and its topic meets GNG. Zanahary (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, per Longhornsg and Zanahary. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For now, views and counterviews should be integrated throughout the relevant articles. See e.g. Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism.
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marokwitz (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look closely at these sources in this list. It is a mishmash of:
These three articles would be clear and delinated subjects and thus useful articles. This current one that we are discussing is a mishmash, which by conflating these three topics creates a significant POV skew. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about historical negationism related to the October 7 attacks. This term comprises outright denial of the events and conspiracy theories aimed at denying or significantly minimizing the responsibility of the perpetrators. According to a survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), over 90 percent of Palestinians polled believe that "Hamas did not commit the atrocities seen in the videos" on October 7, which is why "Denial of the October 7 attacks" is a notable topic and the subject of intense discussion within reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz: Just because 70% of polled Americans once believed that Saddam Hussain was behind 9/11,[16] are you arguing that Wikipedia should automatically create an article titled Iraqi involvement in 9/11, focusing on random quotes? — kashmīrī TALK 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, an article about 9/11 denial is the correct analogy. That article scope is defined as "a set of overlapping conspiracy theories that dispute the general consensus of the September 11 attacks that a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists had hijacked four airliners and crashed them into the Pentagon and the original World Trade Center Twin Towers, which consequently collapsed. ". Marokwitz (talk) Marokwitz (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz: What would you make the equivalent summary scope of this article? Then we can decide whether (a) that specific scope is supported by WP:GNG, or (b) how significant would the amendments to the current article content need to be. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marokwitz: It's not a page about historical negationism, because no learned papers or history books yet cover the topic area, let alone historiographical works analysing such works for negationism. Your comment and its misuse of formal terms adds to the sense that what we are seeing here is an attempt to will a topic into existence under the given title when in fact there is no such established topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic definitely meets WP:GNG. Examples for this claim can be found in Marokwitz's comment. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable per reliable sources documented above. That users are disputing the well-documented atrocities even in this discussion is all the more reason why the article is relevant. Sig for original post - Drsmoo (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC), dispute element struck with sig -Drsmoo (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC) unstruck with sig -Drsmoo (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional More examples of notability:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/opinion/hamas-violence-women-israel.html - “But even as evidence mounted, so did disbelief. On social media, accounts often flood mentions of Hamas’s gendered violence with arguments that no such thing happened… Denials and deflections have come from people with vast reach. Some work at prominent magazines; others run popular podcasts, YouTube channels and websites. These denials have migrated into global leftist discourse and seem intended to sow doubt or prompt wholesale dismissal of the subject.”

https://www.haaretz.com/0000018d-7370-dd6e-a98d-f7722dc00000 - “The denial of mass rapes, substantiated by reams of evidence including from Hamas, has become a consistent pattern at Bay Area public meetings.”

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/haaretz-today/2024-01-04/ty-article/.highlight/you-wont-free-palestine-by-denying-hamas-raped-israelis/0000018c-d582-ddba-abad-d7a3d6510000 - You Won't Free Palestine by Denying Hamas Raped Israelis

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-denials-of-hamas-oct-7-atrocities-spreading-like-a-disease/wcm/2fd96ba1-7568-4291-9874-9e02948daf2a/amp/ - “Denying the horrors of Oct. 7, that is. The sexual violence committed against Israeli women and girls, as well as the utter brutality of it all — the burnings, the beheadings, the torture, and the cold-blooded murders. That is the new denial.”

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-27/ty-article-opinion/exposing-max-blumenthals-deceptive-claim-israel-is-responsible-for-most-october-7-victims/0000018c-102f-d65f-a7dd-f0ff7b550000 - "Max Blumenthal, the editor of The Grayzone website, wrote a piece on October 27 that can only be described as a master class in manipulation. His article provided the basis for the now widespread conspiracy theory denying that Hamas murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-04/ty-article/.premium/how-media-outlets-like-haaretz-are-weaponized-in-the-fake-news-wars-over-israel-and-hamas/0000018c-3076-d15f-a7af-b27664390000 - "According to the BBC’s Sardarizadeh, the denialist narrative that “it was Israel that killed its own civilians on 7 October, not Hamas,” has become appallingly widespread online." Drsmoo (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://forward.com/news/570511/deborah-lipstadt-hamas-attack-denial/ - "While few people deny that any attack by Hamas took place, some have defended the perpetrators by falsely claiming they were primarily focused on military targets, such as Israeli soldiers. Some have also falsely claimed that the Israeli military itself perpetrated some of the worst massacres. Others have questioned the veracity of reports that some victims were raped or beheaded by Hamas fighters."

Drsmoo (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where, exactly, in this discussion are users disputing the well-documented atrocities? Be specific, with diffs. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drsmoo, it's been over 24 hours now, and you still have not provided diffs to justify your accusation that users are disputing the well-documented atrocities even in this discussion. Would you care to strike that personal attack? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s a personal attack then I’ll strike it, I just don’t see how? How is it derogatory? And if it is derogatory, wouldn’t it only be a personal attack If I directed it towards a person by linking to their diffs? Drsmoo (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have accused editors of this page of "disputing well-documented atrocities." Nobody actually did that, but you've literally accused people of being denialists of a terrorist attack. Of course that's a personal attack! No, it wouldn't be a personal attack if, and only if, you'd supplied diffs. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic and widespread sexual violence/rape is well attested in highly reliable sources. Multiple users posting in this article’s talk page have not only disputed whether this occurred, they’ve called the reliable sources that investigated it “propaganda”. Drsmoo (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you need to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". How the sources are called by others is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted or no. That was a comment on other editors --Mhhossein talk 21:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again - provide the diffs. Otherwise, your comment is a general attack on all editors who have argued for a deletion or a merge. You've made a general accusation about people in this discussion, and are refusing to back it up. Do so; or apologise and strike your comment. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EOT. Drsmoo (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun I've now unstruck my comment as the baseless denial of well-established atrocities in this discussion has become explicit. Drsmoo (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo: please point us to all of the specific editors and edits against whom your claim is made. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just posted an article from a biased source based on blogs and a deprecated source falsely alleging that there was no systemic rape by Hamas. There in fact was, as is well documented. Your comments, particularly the ones directed at “mainstream Israelis” are unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide your evidence that that award-winning journalist Jeremy Scahill is biased.
And please explain what is unacceptable about suggesting that Channel 13 News hosts mainstream Israeli journalists and politicians?
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Intercept is classified as a biased source on Wikipedia. Claiming that the "mainstream" Israelis, who personally experienced the atrocities, dispute them, is absurd. If you're specifically referring to the news, it is also absurd. Even Physicians for Human Rights Israel, who support BDS, report that the widespread rapes occurred. That you found a single biased source and are now going around claiming well documented atrocities didn't occur is offensive. Drsmoo (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every source displays some sort of bias, perspective, or leaning. Nothing wrong with that. What matters for Wikipedia is whether a source is WP:RELIABLE – and The Intercept is considered reliable here.
We also don't really care whether a reader finds encyclopaedic content offensive as long as it's correctly sourced and due. — kashmīrī TALK 23:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, two days ago on this article, you removed the Washington Post, which is not considered biased, by claiming the author was biased. Drsmoo (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify as WP:SYNTH. In its current form, this article is essentially a collection of press clippings about instances when various people questioned parts or all of the 7/10 attack. The article synthesises these individual views to create an impression that "7/10 denial" is an actual concept or phenomenon, separate from (1) the normal denial of uncomfortable facts, and (2) standard political narrative (no political leader ever says, "we deliberately kill civilians").
An encyclopaedic article about denial of something should focus on a well-defined phenomenon, its causes, psychological/sociological mechanisms, explanations, frequency, and so on, based on quality social and psychological studies. Sensational press clippings don't really cut it. For me, the current writeup can only be TNT'ed or, at best, draftified. — kashmīrī TALK 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As above. Denial is mentioned in the lede of nearly every article on related topics. Drsruli (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Denial is mentioned in the lede, but not in the actual basis. Most sources refer to Oct 7 denial as a rationale for Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (regular, not weak or strong). Let's start with the undisputed fact that 7 October denial is a thing. Next, based on the impressive amount of sources it should be concluded that is also a notable thing under the GNG. That much is important but still insufficient for a keep. Examing this article in the context of similar articles, it should be concluded that the denial article is a legitimate spinoff of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war#"False flag" conspiracy theories. The section and article should be better integrated. I have added a link that will be a first step. As a notable, legitimate, and necessary SPINOFF, this article should be kept. gidonb (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn’t notices that Misinformation article. Having read it there I feel even more strongly about my delete vote:
I'm glad I could introduce you to new information! It's very important to understand information in context.
Your question if the name of the article should change relates to my comment The section and article should be better integrated. I was thinking perhaps a rename of the "False flag" conspiracy theories section to "Denial of the 7 October attacks" but hadn't thought this through yet. There are other options. For example, conspiracy theories on both ends. That's common and could be more NPOV. Yet it seems that people just deny these atrocities ever happened, also without conspiracy or false flag theories. That would speak in favor of denial again. In the end, this is an editorial decision that could be debated here or on a talk page.
Regarding the rationale or need for having this SPINOFF, it should have been implied above but I'm happy to make it more explicit. Thank you for this opportunity! Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war deals with a wide range of issues that do tie together. These 7 October consparicies/denial are one small topic therein. Since so much has been written on this topic, it is notable under the GNG. Yet who says that it cannot be contained in the parent article? We often merge notable content! People, who know me from other AfDs, know I'm big on that. It's exactly what I meant here: That much is important but still insufficient for a keep. Well, since Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war deals with such a broad range of issues and so much has been written in sources and at WP about these conspiracy theories/denial, we must have a spinoff. The reason is simple: if we would merge the content of Denial of the 7 October attacks into the Misinformation article, WAY TOO MUCH of the content of the misinformation article would be about one type of misinformation and that article would no longer be balanced over the entire range of issues that it covers. Briefly put, we would knock it entirely out of whack!
Let me know if I missed anything and if my position now is clear to you. I had read your opinion and saw that you think that the article is a povfork. That would be a concern, however, you did not explain a povfork of what. Maybe something you can elaborate upon (or reconsider) under your own position, so to strengthen your own argument. As explained, I view the article as a SPINOFF, not as a povfork, and a legitimate and even necessary SPINOFF at that. gidonb (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: in summary your three paragraphs say simply "[a merger would mean that] WAY TOO MUCH of the content of the misinformation article would be about [denial]". Let's check that in numbers:
So if we were to put this entire denial article into the misinformation article we would be at c.5000 words, of which about 1000 words would be from the denial article (20%).
I think 20% is entirely appropriate.
By the way, perhaps the best illustration of the real problem with this article is its sentence By January 2024, there was a small, but growing group that denied basic facts of the attacks and spread falsehoods and misleading narratives... An NPOV version of that sentence would instead be ...small groups on both sides either denied basic facts or invented and exaggerated facts regarding the attacks and spread falsehoods and misleading narratives... I.e., as is well documented, there are two sides to the propaganda. This NPOV version fits well into a misinformation article, and is much more consistent with the intentions of Wikipedia as a project.
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So for the second part, AFDISNOTCLEANUP but that was only your BTW. Let me get back to you on the merge! gidonb (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So a fifth of the texts just on October 7 denial would be way too much text on this topic, relative to the other misinformation topics and (my actual main line) knock [the article] entirely out of whack!. Please take into account that the misinformation topics still have huge growth poptential and take into account that folks would say that the article isn't balanced between misinformation on the different side of this war. Furthermore, the 7 October denial article will still grow a lot because last Sunday a law passed the Knesset making 7 October denial and support illegal. There is no doubt that this law will pass the Knesset again after committee work. So merge, while I always consider, is not a good option. gidonb (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is not a theory. It's an opinion. Since your response confuses my opinion for a theory, then adds adjectives, then nothing, it's not something that can be answered on the merits. As I always try. Next time, please try to make a point (any) even if you "must" (although it's better not) also share your negative emotions. gidonb (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to the theory that this is a spinoff from the Misinformation article. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's my opinion about where this information fits, yes. Now if I go back to the intro, you compared this information directly to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and ignored the fact that we have a whole range of articles with more detailed information. Very important, as information could have needed to merge there. In fact I did your due dilligence as nominator for you. I checked if there is a place where this should be merged (or redirected) even though there was no serious discussion of such options in the intro. gidonb (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the closer kindly take note that this editor has removed a properly placed notability tag at the article with the edit summary "being debated" (which i.s of course why the tag was placed to begin with) Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. My edit has been undone. It's a principled position regardless of whether I want to keep or delete. People slack way too many warnings on articles, usually when they want to delete. When I nominate, I remove excessive warnings so there is a good chance for the opposite position to be adopted. The nominator should convince in the opining. There I count just 12 words and a few more in a comment that was later added below. You will not convince by making the debate unpleasant for those who agree to share their thoughts. gidonb (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For something that is not a thing, not many words are necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for one correct statement: For something that is not a thing, not many words are necessary. Yet the sources prove that 7 October denial is definitely a thing so then you would already need more words. Arguing that it isn't a notable thing is already a huge stretch. Then again, so are some other debates without merit.
More importantly, the combination of your correct statement and your AfD to remove 7 October denial as nonexistent, not nonnotable, indicates that this AfD is an exercise in "7 October denial denial". Someone suggested before that this debate includes 7 October denail. If true, I would call that out. I haven't seen it yet. 7 October denial denial is definately happening here! gidonb (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the sources prove that 7 October denial is definitely a thing Er no, they don't, they just show that this one and that one (eg Palestinians, Hamas) deny this and that, big deal. Random people disputing stuff does not add up to a real subject, not even close. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strengthens my conclusion that this entire AfD is an excercise in denial denial. gidonb (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Note, I write the article). The topic is widely covered and is based on diverse and reliable sources. As usual, I invite those who think the article is not good enough to improve it.Eladkarmel (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge in to the main article if anything is salvageable. This is a WP:POVFORK of the main article that relies on a comparative tiny handful of sources to perform WP:SYNTHESIS. Of the sources in the article, only three sources (the Washington Post, ynet, and the Times of Israel) use the word "denial"; the ynet coverage is just a brief note that the Washington Post coverage exists.) Two of these sources are WP:BIASED ones; we cannot base an entire article on just that. Likewise, the sources listed above cover a wide variety of views that can't be easily combined into a single article without synthesis, including conspiracy theories about the attack as a whole; people who deny, downplay, or dispute specific atrocities, which in turn can range from denial of things that clearly took place to disputes over aspects where the truth or magnitude remains unclear; and broader coverage of propaganda on the topic. Few of the sources actually combine this into a singular topic - the lists of sources above reads like a news source for every usage of the word "denial", which isn't a useful base for a Wikipedia article. "Denial" and "denialism" are also extremely strong terms that we'd want high-quality sourcing to back up, with special care to avoid over-reliance on a mixture of sources that leans towards any one bias; right now, most of the sources are recent news articles, many of which are from WP:BIASED sources. When we make sweeping accusations of historical negationism in the article voice or title like this, encompassing a wildly disparate and far-ranging array of totally distinct claims, we want to be absolutely sure we know precisely what the academic consensus is and which views the academic consensus supports describing that way, which in turn requires being extremely specific about what views we're focusing on. None of that is present here, at least not yet. EDIT: Additionally, it's important to point out that while many of the sources presented for this are WP:BIASED, other sources cover disputes over accusations of atrocities and war crimes related to this conflict in a very different way, with roughly equal weight given to accusations and denials by each side. See [17][18][19][20] Similarly, coverage of conspiracy theories related to the war are not one-sided; see [21][22][23][24] This supports the idea that this is a WP:POVFORK, titled and written in a way that disproportionately reflects only one side of the coverage of a complex and still-developing topic. --Aquillion (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully agree, and well-worded. Jebiguess (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. asking for deletion with the reason of "merely instances" is not seeing the wood for the trees. TaBaZzz (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article was about the wood, we wouldn't be here. — kashmīrī TALK 12:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    of course you wouldn't TaBaZzz (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as discussed by LonghornSG, Zanahary and others, but there are some legitimate concerns about quality which should be addressed appropriately. FortunateSons (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Extremely important topic as per Longhornsg, Marokwitz, Gidonb, Eladkarmel and others. Denying this dramatic event or minimizing the horrendous atrocities committed by Hamas - raping and committing other sexual and gender based crimes, beheading, torturing, burning people alive, mutilating bodies and indiscriminately killing more that 1000 civilians - is similar to denying the Holocaust. Quality is a different issue. GidiD (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We know what Holocaust denial is, we just don't know what 7 October denial is, just something made up. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GidiD: Before you asserting a position on what is and isn't denial, perhaps you should first get your basic facts straight. The current count of civilians killed in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel is 766 – and if you're inaccurate on that lone item of presented quantitative information, I wonder what we should make of your more qualitative assertions. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @iskander323 - indeed 695 Israeli citizens + 71 foreign nationals ( + civil policemen killed, counted as security forces).
    But what is your main point? Even a "mere" 766 unarmed people, butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated etc - is not something that should be denied or dwarfed. GidiD (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GidiD: My point is that precision and accuracy matter, nowhere more than here. It's the difference between material that is encyclopedic or not. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right. Statements suggesting that ALL or even most of those killed were butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated etc are exactly the type of rhetoric that has allowed for the killing of 30,000+ others. The level of certainty and precision required on these matters is as high as it could possibly be. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onceinawhile and Iskandar323 - By all reliable accounts - it was a cold blooded massacre! And I would really want to see your count of the number of assassinated citizens but not killed either in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded or savagely mutilated... Please be specific if you are so well informed. GidiD (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I defer to WP:SOAPBOX. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GidiD: if you show me your count of citizens definitely "killed either in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded or savagely mutilated", then I will answer your question. I bet you can’t get to even 5% of the total. Politicians and propagandist media encourage us to extrapolate. We must be much more disciplined when others’ lives are at stake. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a single reliable source supports the baseless claims of "propaganda" in the face of Hamas' well-documented atrocities. Propagandist media would be something like The Grayzone, which should never be regurgitated onto wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The debate here shows exactly why WP needs this article: even some well informed editors attempt to dwarf the attocities commited on 7 October; to claim that the indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians in cold blood was a negligible phenomenon; to deny the usage of sexual crimes as weapon of war. All, in spite of the reliable evidence cited e.g. by Longhornsg and Markowitz and in related articles Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel and 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. GidiD (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To Drsmoo's question, see the Jeremy Scahill article quoted and linked below.
    To GidiD's comment, no-one has claimed that "the indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians in cold blood was a negligible phenomenon". This discussion began with GidiD claiming that "[all] 766 unarmed people [were] butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated etc". GidiD was challenged to verify this and did not do so. Instead in the above comment "butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated" has been turned into "killing of unarmed civilians in cold blood" and "please confirm that it was all 766 civilians" has been turned into "claiming that it was a negligible phenomenon".
    Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main reason for the article's deletion isn't because anyone here is outright denying the attacks, it is because the article has extremely shoddy sourcing and can't seem to define how or what denialism is. Not to mention, most links attribute October 7 denial not as a separate entity, but instead as a rationale for an increase in Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Denying any horrible event can be outrageous. But we are an encyclopaedia, not a Sunday sermon. — kashmīrī TALK 19:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Going through these comments here, I think we should start an article titled Denial of the Gaza genocide. Then, in case someone takes it to AfD, we'll be able to repeat some of the same arguments to keep it. — kashmīrī TALK 19:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the same at all, since claiming the October 7 attacks didn't happen or were a false flag operation is a fringe view not held by any reliable source, while the question of whether a genocide occurred in Gaza is an active debate. Marokwitz (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the current article is not the subject of an active debate if that's what you mean. Selfstudier (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy you agree. This is not a debate between reliable sources, as there is clear consensus that atrocities took place, and there is no serious dispute that this was a surprise attack and not a false flag operation. Marokwitz (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant. My point was that a lot of arguments are not based on factual analyses or the existence of the subject, but instead can be summarised as "it's so outrageous that we must keep it". — kashmīrī TALK 00:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned there may be some shifting of the goalposts here. Just to be clear, you're now stating that the sole topic of the article would be claiming the October 7 attacks didn't happen or were a false flag operation, and that, therefore, disputes over whether specific atrocities took place (in a context where there is no dispute over whether the attacks took place and no conspiracy-theories about false flags) would not fall under its scope, and that sources characterizing that as "denial" could not be used? Most of the sources suggested above, including (at a glance) some you put forwards yourself, are on the latter topic, discussing disputes over specific atrocities rather than the more outright conspiracy theories you mentioned. Would you strike the sources you presented that only talk about "denial of Hamas atrocities" and add a note saying that they're off-topic, would not be used in a hypothetical article, and were presented by accident, then? See my comment above for why this is a particular point of concern - every WP:RS agrees that the attacks took place, and the idea that they are a false flag is certainly a conspiracy theory, but I'm not sure there's enough coverage of those two things for an article. There is certainly not a historical consensus on every individual atrocity allegation, though, as you seem to implicitly acknowledge by shifting your position here to focus solely on two topics of an outright denial that the attacks took place or conspiracy theories that present them as a false flag. I don't think we have enough sources for an article about that, and I don't think it makes sense to combine those two into one article, but I do think that a more tight focus on those two specific things and a hard rule against moving on to more hazy "atrocity denial" until / unless we have overwhelming WP:RS from neutral sources to establish an unambiguous academic consensus would go a long way to assuaging people's concerns about WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and would make it more clear how much sourcing exists for the article's actual two topics as opposed to WP:BIASED sources that may throw around the word "denial" or the concept of historical negationism more glibly than we can in the title or article voice. As an example of why this is a problem, see eg. the claims that Hamas beheaded babies, which most sources treat as unverified [25][26][27] - certainly many Israeli sources (including one of the ones presented above!) would describe people denying that as denialism, but that just shows why we can't rely solely on WP:BIASED sources for things of that nature and why it's important to wait to put claims of historical negationism in the article voice or title until the dust settles and we have actually high-quality sources capable of giving a sense of what the historical consensus actually is. --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it's undeniable that the October 7th attacks occurred and they are presented in Wikivoice everywhere on Enwiki, while the so-called "Gaza genocide" is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that is not presented in Wikivoice anywhere on Enwiki. JM (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? So it must have been a shock for you when the top UN court decided that that "fringe theory" is plausible.[28] — kashmīrī TALK 00:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To compare with another contentious subect: Clay Shaw was tried in a court of law assassinating Kennedy and the HSCA concluded that there were two shooters, but both of those theories are still WP:FRINGE. Also, the UN's bias against Israel is detailed in multiple sections of multiple Wikipedia articles: 1, 2, 3, 4. Now that that's out of the way, back to the actual nomination. JM (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You call a murder of 30,000 civilians in 100 days, "fringe"? Seriously? — kashmīrī TALK 21:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's refrain from populism. What is "fringe", that is to say, lacking widespread acceptance, is the assertion that this constitutes a genocide. In order for an action to be classified as genocide, a hundred casualties might suffice; the debate centers on the matter of intent. The October 7th attacks are, as JM stated, undeniable. The allegation of a Gaza genocide, at least according to mainstream sources, is what it is - an allegation, until proven otherwise. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Oct 7 attacks are undeniable, which is why denial of the Oct 7 attacks is not a thing. The mass killings of 30,000 Palestinians is equally undeniable.
The press, still stuck in the crossfire of mass propaganda efforts, is confusing denial-of-the-undeniable with denial (or more accurately, dispute) of unproven claims. We need to be very careful in this area, particularly when this type of information is still being used to justify terrible things.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile Which reliable sources "dispute" or claim as "unproven" Hamas' mass atrocities including widespread sexual violence? Drsmoo (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the Jeremy Scahill article linked and quoted below. In its c.9,000 words it carried out a detailed assessment of the many debunked or unverifiable claims made by the Israeli government. Your comment below about Electronic Intifada is misleading, as the Scahill article does not rely on any blogs or similar for any of his main conclusions - only reliable sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s incorrect, he repeatedly sources alleged discrepancies to blogs, he also cites deprecated sources like Electronic Intifada. The Intercept’s non news articles require attribution due to their bias. In comparison, the NYTimes article he attacks was written by a Pulitzer Prize winner. The shoddy and biased article does not negate in any way the well established facts. Nor does it give you leeway to falsely claim that the evidence of widespread rape and torture is fake. Drsmoo (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy Scahill is a widely-respected award-winning journalist. His article is the most detailed I have seen on this topic, and it is thoroughly sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge Though the only substantive mergeable content appears to be the very fringe belief that the event didn't occur or was a 'false flag'. This is a WP:POVFORK of the main article that relies on a comparative tiny handful of sources to perform WP:SYNTHESIS per Aquillion, and the article title and content appears designed to suggest that the facts as presented by Israel regarding October 7 are beyond dispute, per Onceinawhile. It's about something that cannot yet even be defined, let alone been analysed to any degree. Too many details are still unknown to tell what is 'denialism' and what proper scepticism.Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    really? I think no well informed man disputes a) most of the dead in the 7 October attack on Israel were civilians; 2) part of Hamas plan was attacking civilian communities in the kibbutzim - so murdering civilians was premeditated, not a colateral; 3) rape and gender based crimes were used as a weapon of war. Denying or dwarfing these known, well documented facts, is denialism. GidiD (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GidiD: Confirming both (2) and (3) would rely on knowledge of the intentions of the Hamas leadership. Please point us to solid proof of this?
    In the same way, many commentators have stated that Israel has intentionally killed 20,000 women and children as a weapon of war to create a deterrent. They base this on the genocidal statements made by senior members of the Israeli government cited by South Africa in the ICJ case. But I am sure you will agree in that situation that such circumstantial evidence is not the same as direct proof that the IDF were ordered to intentionally massacre innocents?
    We must be consistent in the way we process information about both sides of this awful situation.
    Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.thenation.com/article/world/feminists-hamas-rapes/ - "On October 7, Hamas fighters raped Israeli women and girls. Whatever may have been unknown in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the rapes are by now as substantiated as anything ever can be in an ongoing war. There is eyewitness testimony. There are reports from doctors and others who saw bodies of women who had been sexually abused. There are photographs. You have to be a conspiracist or rape denialist to dismiss all that as fabricated. And yet, social media is crammed with dismissals of the evidence as Israeli propaganda'.

    @Onceinawhile The fact that Hamas committed widespread rape is not disputed by reliable sources. Yet, you've repeatedly claimed that these facts are uncertain, in the context of baseless WP:SOAPBOX proclamations of "propaganda".
    For example:

    "great to hear that you have been able to confirm these facts are 100% certain. Please could you provide the sources which:

    "the well-funded propaganda campaigns are still at their peak and we need to tread very carefully. In time we will know whether it is reasonable or not to "question" the events of October 7, but we are still some way away from that point." - Onceinawhile

    "if you show me your count of citizens definitely "killed either in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded or savagely mutilated", then I will answer your question. I bet you can’t get to even 5% of the total. Politicians and propagandist media encourage us to extrapolate." - Onceinawhile

    Unless you are able to produce a reliable source that disputes Hamas' documented sexual atrocities, the "uncertainty" and false claims of "propaganda" need to end. Drsmoo (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the Jeremy Scahill article below, published on 7 February: In light of Israel's well-documented campaign of lies and misinformation about other events on October 7, incendiary allegations, such as claims that Hamas engaged in a deliberate campaign of systematic rape, should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Longhornsg and Marokwitz. They have shown that there is extensive coverage of the denial, therefore it should have an article. JM (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of the extensive coverage merits a standalone article instead of a subsection of the 10/7 attacks page or the Misinformation during the Israel-Hamas war page? Jebiguess (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. May be notable based on other people, but at a quick glance, I don’t think that it is ready to have its own article. Also tagged for neutrality, so the article needs to be blown up. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we blew up every article and section that was ever tagged for neutrality we would have few if any articles in any CTOPs. JM (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to both people above. Conyo14 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Weak Keep I think the article is notable enough that it should get it's own page but right now it has some issues. Far too much of the article is about reactions and not enough about the denial phenomenon itself, if that makes sense. Swordman97 talk to me 04:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said I heavily oppose this article getting deleted. I don't see any POVFORK or SYNTH issues like the commenters above are saying. Swordman97 talk to me 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as SYNTH and a POVFORK largely per Onceinawhile. nableezy - 20:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to the article about the October 7 attacks. The sourcing isn't sufficient for a stand-alone. Sources talking about somebody somewhere denying something about the attacks do not constitute sources about "Denial of the 7 October attacks." It's not like Holocaust denial or even Nakba denial. It's probably way too soon to be talking about "October 7 denial" -- it's not even been six months yet. I'm not sure about merging -- maybe a close examination of sources would find some content worth including in the main article about the attacks. But whether it's deleted or merged, it shouldn't be a stand alone, not until there's cause to split it out from the main article. (Which would require a lot of sources.) Levivich (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as SYNTH and a POVFORKCrampcomes (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eladkarmel, plus there are anough sources attesting the subject is notable. The nature of such contemporary social phenomena is to be built in the research field for years, so the prominence of instances un the article is natural since 7 October occured 6 monthes ago and does not mean the subject isn't notable. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 23:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because sometime is to be built upon in the future does not mean it deserves an article at the moment. That's what this AfD is about; the majority of sources delineate Oct 7 denial as a rationale for an increase in Holocaust denial instead of it's own, standalone phenomenon. The primary denialist conspiracy, the false flag one, can easily be relegated to a section within the Oct 7 attacks page or the Misinfo during the Israel-Hamas war page. Also, MANY atrocities are denied online shortly after coming to light, like the Douma chemical attack, Mariupol theatre airstrike, and the denial of them is very widely sourced, although the denial is relegated to the article or larger misinformation articles themselves. I don't see how the October 7 is any different, especially considering how recent it is for a large number of sources about the denial to be available. Jebiguess (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marokwitz, GidiB, Eladkarmel and others. Notable phenomenon, well sourced by diverse multiple reliable sources, describing/reporting it with or without relation to Holocaust Denialism. Noon (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:SYNTH. --Mhhossein talk 21:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incidents of denial surrounding October 7th events (especially early on) are well covered by diverse RS. Equally so, there are a number of articles already written on October 7 denial specifically as a unique phenomena. The widespread early denial of incidents of violence (which were later confirmed by numerous independent observers), and the publicly covered consequences of said denial, is grounds enough for this article to exist. Mistamystery (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you source any articles that talk about 10/7 denial as a unique phenomenon and the early denial? This AfD regards that most of those articles only briefly mentioned 10/7 denial as a phenomenon as a whole, and almost always as the rationale for Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For starter, WP:SYNTHESIS issue is not a reason to delete an article. Instead, the article should be fixed through editing and discussion at the talk page. Most importantly, the article topic is notable and passes WP:GNG with the following sources talking specifically about denial: The Washington Post, Newsweek, Ynetnews, The Irish Times, Star Tribune, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Toronto Sun, and the Anti-Defamation League. Then, we also have news articles about Israel currently trying to criminalize the article subject: 1, 2.
Lastly, the general notability guideline does not actually require the RS to be unbiased in assessing the notability of any topic. EDIT at 9 February: more sources in Tagesspiegel, Il Foglio, Forward, Le Driot de Vivre, and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy --StellarHalo (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StellarHalo: - more than half of the sources you raised specifically talking about denial are questionable for GNG. Newsweek, Toronto Sun are opinion articles. Ynetnews article is just a rewrite of WaPo's article, should not be counted as separate. ADL's is a blog post. Irish Times has zero discussion of denial in the article beyond the quotes of the Israeli ambassador. starship.paint (RUN) 13:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline does not actually say that opinion articles cannot be counted as RS for assessing a topic's notability. StellarHalo (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does. You just said it: "RS". Opinion pieces aren't WP:RS, see WP:RSOPINION. Levivich (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh. No. The guideline does not actually say that. If what you said is actually the case, opinion pieces would not have been permitted for use at all. StellarHalo (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? ... Of course synthesis is a reason for a page not to exist - if the topic itself is the creation of original research. If the topic is not cohesively and substantively discussed in analytical, secondary sources then the topic can't be "fixed" because it doesn't exist on an encyclopedia-suitable level. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 source (the Intercept) that expressly mentions the denial comparisons leant on in this page as being propaganda strategy, so not just wayward of WP:NOTNEWS, but worse. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article consistently cites non-reliable/deprecated sources like blogs and electronic intifada. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - highlighting two independent issues. (1) a recent Arbitration motion regarding PIA Canvassing; (2) noticed that votes on this AfD by active Hebrew Wikipedia editors are currently 6-0 in favor of Keep (1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6), and if you add in sporadic he.wiki editors it is 8-1 in favour of Keep. (7 / 8 / 1 delete). May update numbers later on. starship.paint (RUN) 13:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the comment. It makes sense that Hebrew speakers were more exposed to the phenomenon of the denial.Eladkarmel (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew speakers denying stuff? Ah, that's why they need a law, right, got it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in taking part in a cynical conversation. Speak to me politely, and we will continue the conversation.Eladkarmel (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it "make sense that Hebrew speakers were more exposed to the phenomenon of the denial"? Do you mean because of Israeli reporting like this? It is fascinating to see how matter-of-fact these mainstream Israeli journalists and politicians are when discussing the topic. As if the mainstream in Israel knows full well that their government propagated a large number of significant lies. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is factually wrong and unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — kashmīrī TALK 23:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this is an important point to denote, but only because these users seem to assert "there are RS mentioning Oct 7 denial, and October 7 happened, ergo a denialism article is necessary." These users also seldom provide sources for their claims. Jebiguess (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the people advocating for delete ought to vote to merge as an WP:ATD. Deletion should be a last resort and clearly there is notability about the topic. I still believe the content spread is weak, or the article could have a different title as others have pointed out. Conyo14 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The keepers could do that, too? Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping is the first line of defense in an AfD. However, the ATD goes merge, redirect, or draftify. Therefore, if the keeps would rather have the article merge then it is up to them, but the deletes ought to reconsider, since none of that information would be retained. Conyo14 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per Aquillion, Jebiguess, etc. A lot of the linked sources by keep voters are about people "denying" whether certain events happened DURING the attacks. This is a completely different matter than the topic that the page title purports, and if the content belongs anywhere, it belongs on the Oct 7 article itself. A clear SYNTH problem. Also, if the closer is so inclined to care, you can count this as a !!!STRONG!!! delete, but I find using strong before keep and delete fairly gauche. Parabolist (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important source published yesterday: This article from Jeremy Scahill should help clarify some of the questions discussed above. There is far too much reasonable doubt about the Israeli narrative for a one-sided "denial" article to be justified. Scahill, Jeremy (2024-02-07). "Israel's Ruthless Propaganda Campaign to Dehumanize Palestinians". The Intercept. The Israeli government rapidly deployed a multipronged propaganda strategy to win unprecedented support from the U.S. and other Western governments for a sweeping war against the entire population of Gaza. To oppose Israel's war is antisemitic; to question its assertions about the events of October 7 is akin to Holocaust denial; to protest the mass killing of Palestinian civilians is to do the bidding of Hamas… At the center of Israel's information warfare campaign is a tactical mission to dehumanize Palestinians and to flood the public discourse with a stream of false, unsubstantiated, and unverifiable allegations… But there is a problem with the gut-wrenching narratives that have bolstered the underlying justification for the slaughter of Gaza: They are either complete fabrications or have not been substantiated with a shred of evidence. Many have been thoroughly disproven by major Israeli media outlets… There was no Holocaust survivor killed at Kibbutz Be'eri that day. There were no mass beheadings of babies, no group executions in a nursery, no children hung from clotheslines, and no infants placed in ovens. No pregnant woman had her stomach cut open and the fetus knifed in front of her and her other children. These stories are entirely fictional, a set of audacious lies weaponized to generate the type of collective rage used to justify the unjustifiable… There is no doubt that widespread atrocities and war crimes were committed during the Hamas-led attacks of October 7. It is also true that Israeli military, government, and rescue officials have engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign about the nature of many deaths that occurred that day…. Israel's hasbara campaign is reminiscent of the Bush administration's monthslong carnival of lies, sanitized and promoted by major media outlets, about alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Biden directly participated in President George W. Bush's campaign as well. In his October 2002 Senate floor speech endorsing war against Iraq, Biden declared that Saddam Hussein "possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons."… Israel has painted all actions on October 7 as being committed by Hamas and its fighters. That storyline obviously serves Israel's military and political objectives, but the truth is more complicated… In light of Israel's well-documented campaign of lies and misinformation about other events on October 7, incendiary allegations, such as claims that Hamas engaged in a deliberate campaign of systematic rape, should be viewed with extreme skepticism… As many U.S. media outlets and politicians have promoted and laundered Israel's claims, spreading them far and wide, there have been strong voices among the Israeli public and media that have exhibited skepticism… There is also evidence indicating that Israeli forces responding to the attacks at the Nova music festival, where 364 people died, may have killed Israeli civilians as they attacked Palestinian militants, including with munitions fired from Apache helicopters… The truth is that we do not know how many of their own people Israeli forces killed during the counteroffensive on October 7. Nor do we know what happened in the firefights when armed Israelis, including kibbutz private security and military personnel, sought to defend their settlements… How many Israelis — soldiers and civilians — were killed in the chaos and had their deaths recorded as killed or sadistically burned alive by Hamas? How many Israeli lives were sacrificed under Hannibal-style orders to prevent them from being taken hostage at all costs?… Cynical manipulation of the truth has been a hallmark of Netanyahu's career… The tactic is effective, particularly because the U.S. and other major allies have consistently laundered Israel's unverified allegations as evidence of the righteousness of the cause. Onceinawhile (talk)
That article repeatedly sources details of its skepticism to blogs and deprecated sources like Electronic Intifada. Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a single reference you alleged. Conversely, I could see a lot of references to reliable, mainstream sources, including Reuters, NPR, Haaretz, Times of Israel, AP News, France24, New York Times, etc. — kashmīrī TALK 22:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. For his reference re "valid concern" he sources to a blog. Regarding criticism of the NY Times story, he links to another blog. There are two items sourced to Electronic Intifada. It's interesting that you bring up those reliable sources above, NONE of whom have propagated denial of the atrocities, and in most cases have explicitly confirmed that the atrocities occurred. Haaretz have written two articles about how bad actors have distorted their reporting to promote denialism. Drsmoo (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is Scahill stating that he considers the concerns documented on social media about Shari Mendes' reliability to be valid. Mendes was widely quoted stating that she personally saw a baby cut out of a pregnant woman and both the baby and mother were beheaded, yet it was later confirmed in the Israeli government data that no pregnant woman or unborn baby was killed on October 7. Scahill's judgement thus appears entirely reasonable. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you have linked to, above, Drsmoo, are largely opinion pieces! Pot, kettle, black? Can I also ask you to follow talkpage guidelines and not go back and edit prior comments out of chronological order, as your comment inserting all of those unreliable sources (along with a couple of more reliable ones) did? At best, it's disingenuous. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: The guideline in question is WP:Notability which requires the presence of extensive secondary, independent and reliable reporting on the topic. So far the only source which has dealt with the topic directly is the Washington Post article but that is far from extensive reporting. Plus, this is a desperate attempt to force making the attacks on 7 October 2023 to be named commonly as the "7 October attacks" in order to connect it to 9/11. If this isn't delete, it should be renamed or merged at the very least. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources in discussion above clearly show this meets GNG. The quantity and quality of the provided sources show this has enough IRS sources for a stand alone article and these sources show that denial and distortion is an ongoing issue, and it is very clear there will be even more sources in the future. I think the delete votes are WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
With all the keep votes with sources, those advocating for a delete need to show why not even two of these sources above and in the article are IRS. The deleters should do a source evaluation table (as is common practice at AfD) listing the sources above and in the article and explaining why they do not meet SIGCOV. All I see is WP:IDONTLIKEIT walls of text.  // Timothy :: talk  19:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SYNTH and POVFORK does not mean there are no sources, it means that the sources dont treat this topic as a topic and that the presentation of this (as denialism) is a POVFORK from the articles that cover the issues and include all significant views on them. That may be all you see, but that is plainly not the basis of the delete votes. The Washington Post source, for example, merely says But Oct. 7 denial is spreading, but it doesnt really deal with the topic of denialism of the attacks beyond that. That source is cited 11 times for the record. This source, cited in the article, does not once mention denial or denialism. This source, again cited in the article, does not once mention denialism. The sources in the article do not in fact treat this topic as a topic, and several of them dont even mention the supposed topic at all, much less give it significant coverage. nableezy - 20:52, 9 February 2024 (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. Consensus for GNG from RS. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M-132 (Michigan highway)[edit]

M-132 (Michigan highway) (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)

Largely procedural nomination. This was recently delisted as a GA, and there was a considerable amount of participants who argued that it failed WP:NOPAGE and should be a redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. If there’s a place to get definitive consensus, it'd be here; I personally have no opinion yet. QueenofHearts 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Schierbecker, Imzadi1979, Ritchie333, Szmenderowiecki, Serial Number 54129, Horse Eye's Back, AirshipJungleman29, JPxG, David Fuchs, Trainsandotherthings, and BilledMammal: ping everyone who opined in the GAR. QueenofHearts 19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan per ATD-R; insufficient reliable, independent sources to justify a standalone page. Redirection ensues the article's history is maintained for the WP:READER. ——Serial 20:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from a user who knows nothing about roads: does this pass WP:NROAD? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It passes GNG, so it doesn't matter, but it also passes NROAD. jp×g🗯️ 21:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it pass either GNG or NROAD? By my reading it passes neither. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as a state highway. In my reading, the crux of the redirect argument is not that it isn't notable, but that it fails WP:NOPAGE. QueenofHearts 22:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. If the argument against inclusion is that this is notable but we should throw in a vaguewave to NOPAGE to get rid of a good article that we don't like, then that's plainly ridiculous. Notwithstanding a major issue (of which, I do not see here), quality notable articles like this on decently-important topics – which both meet WP:GNG and the relevant WP:SNGs – should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BeanieFan11: how does it meet GNG and the relevant SNG without even a single piece of significant independent coverage? Both standards require it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NROAD mentions nothing of a requirement that GNG be met as far as I can tell? I do note that sources may be combined to demonstrate notability (WP:NBASIC); and roads aren't the most talked-about subject; we shouldn't be overly strict with our deletion enforcement on them, especially when their decent quality and pass the SNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NROAD says "typically notable" not automatically notable so we do actually need significant coverage in independent sources, it isn't a question of being overly strict... Its a question of being immense leniency to point of IAR. So which sources demonstrate notability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the point of NROAD stating "typically notable" if it means absolutely nothing, which is what you're suggesting? Additionally, there appears to be overall enough sources to build a decent-sized, policy-compliant article, which is the point of notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't mean absolutely nothing it means "typically notable" as in most are notable but some are not. We have requirements about those sources to count towards notability, for example that they be independent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    State highways don't get an automatic pass through NROAD, what are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will say here what I said there: sometimes a topic doesn't need to have 70 paragraphs written about it. I have driven on this road; it's pretty nice. But it's not that long. There's nothing wrong with the road, there's nothing wrong with the topic of the road, and there's nothing wrong with our article on the road: it cites reliable sources to inform readers about it. It's also got some detailed historical information that would otherwise be quite difficult to come across (like the fact that was in the original planned route for the highway that later became 94, or the fact that parcels in its right-of-way were deeded by Henry Ford in 1933). Lest somebody say "You're saying it's useful, which means you're wrong, and if it's useful that actually means it should be deleted", this is why I don't think it should be crammed into a list, there's too much content and too much information to be made a list entry without bloating out the list. I really don't see a reason to get rid of this other than not liking it or thinking it's stupid. Wikipedia is not a comedy forum where we make lists of things we think are dumb, it's an encylopedia, so if something is an encylopedia article it belongs here. jp×g🗯️ 21:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the argument is WP:IAR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the argument is the extremely large number of policies that govern notability and content on Wikipedia, all of which this article complies with. Do you have an explanation for how this doesn't meet GNG? Do you have a reason why the fifteen sources on the page are all bad? jp×g🗯️ 04:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, hence failing both the GNG and the SNG. None of the 15 sources on the page contain significant coverage in a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This isn't detailed enough for a GA, but there is just enough information in the history section to show the article can have insights and explanations that go beyond what can be glanced at from a map. (Note, I suggested a redirect in the GAR, but there are a few threads of potential, such as an explanation for the name changes, and its relevance for the Michigan State Spartans football). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't have any significant coverage in independent sources and in order to keep it under either GNG or NROAD we would need multiple. If there are sources beyond the ones on the page which contribute to notability can someone name them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Merging is not a realistic option when the target is a list that has to also cover 300 other highways in the state. The existing sources in the article are sufficient and don't run afoul of GNG nor our other policies on sourcing as it stands. SounderBruce 04:02, 5 February 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1891 Manhattan Athletic Club football team[edit]

1891 Manhattan Athletic Club football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS with a lack of significant coverage. Only sources are databases or short recaps. Let'srun (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1913 Christian Brothers football team[edit]

1913 Christian Brothers football team (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)

First, this is not a college football team. Second, the subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only current source is a database. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If I recall correctly, Christian Brothers was a college in the early 1900s and for a time was considered to be an elite level program. I will dig deeper later but didn't want the AfD to continue on the presumption that this was a high school football team. Cbl62 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haven't looked for sources yet, but that does seem to be the case - looking at the article, they beat Southeast Missouri State (a current Division I team) 97–6 and held undefeated Notre Dame to a two-score win! BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a couple sources and confirmed that this was "Christian Brothers College", not the high school. Pretty sure this is going to be an easy keep, but I don't have time to add more sources until later today. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Will withdraw then if you feel like you can find more/better sources than what I could find. Let'srun (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2024 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Sutherland District Council election[edit]

1977 Sutherland District Council election (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 election is not notable and is of negligible importance.

Simply does not pass WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. For example, the analysis of the results was in The Scotsman. Unfortunately, the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have any papers from Sutherland in the 1970s to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 152 district councils at 2023 United Kingdom local elections#District councils, all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Under the two tier local government structure in Scotland 1975-1996 district councils were one of two primary local authorities in Scotland (the other being the regional councils) and had significant responsibilities. However, the issue is it is going to be difficult to get coverage of elections to some of the smaller districts, particularly in rural areas where independents dominated and a lot of seats were uncontested. While I would lean towards Keep, I can see why it is going to be difficult to create an article that actually has much to say about the contest. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional sources, background information and ward results to try and help move this discussion forward. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Consensus in previous AfDs is that district council elections in the UK are deemed notable events. Number 57 13:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Dunarc. For cases where sourcing beyond simple reports of the results may not be readily available a merger to a summary article like 1977 local elections in Scotland might be more likely to achieve consensus than outright deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2024 (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 Minix. Star Mississippi 23:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minix-vmd[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N, or find a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a suitable redirect target - main Minix article (there is already an subsection about this topic). Pavlor (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MINIX, fails GNG, unneeded CFORK. I can find nothing, but if WP:THREE sources are added to the article that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, and show why this is not a unneeded fork ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  18:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 // Timothy :: talk  18:01, 9 February 2024 (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 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceline (band)[edit]

Spaceline (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2024 (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. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth and independence Star Mississippi 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Tennis Academy[edit]

SMK Tennis Academy (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)

Is this academy really notable? The sources contain passing mentions in relation to tournaments but there isn't enough coverage here for me to be convinced that topic passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The sources seem to scrape by requirements for RS, and it is important to cover The relatively uncelebrated world of women’s sports in the gulf states. Llajwa (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I went through the sources that this wiki article has, and it does have alot of coverage on the tournament but, there are certain amount of coverage which are written about this academy alone as well... most preferly why it was started, its significance etc . it is a women exclusive academy which is used to train women who are interested in tennis and is quite popular in the middle eastern region for its annual tournament where international women players also participate... other than that it has coverage in reliable source like vogue and gulf today and if we consider with respect to the size of a particular country or community in that place... i think it is notable. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Spam refbombed to pr pieces about a tournament, many using the same wording so clearly rehashes of the same press release. Lacks any depth of independent coverage about the academy. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 7 of the 10 refs are to same press-release in slightly different formats. The other three Arabic references, reference the organisation by folk involved e.g.Sheikha Sheikha bint Mohammed bin Khalid Al Nahyan, who is the founder of organisation, so not independent. The other two appear to be PR. They don't have bylines. Its seems to the founder of the organisation, "Sheikha Sheikha bint Mohammed bin Khalid Al Nahyan" doing some PR for the organisation on a successful completion on the 13th year and so are not independent source. They are very poor sources. scope_creepTalk 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in the article are mill news about events and promo, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (SMK Tennis Academy) directly and indepth. BEFORE found nothing that meets SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  17:45, 9 February 2024 (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 17:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Slack[edit]

Jade Slack (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 tragic event sure, but not a notable one. Not the first child to discover drugs and die from them, nor the last. While yes it got a bit of national coverage, it was a flash in the pan tragic news story with no long reaching consequences outside of the immediate family. Can't seem to find any section in WP:BIO that would explain a notability that this would pass. Additionally, was created by a prolific sock-puppeter thought that is secondary to the notability issue. Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For what it's worth, I'm from the area and unfortunately I doubt many would recognise this from the victim's name alone anymore. Beyond the issue of notability, how much of the article would even be suitable to keep? Only three of the five references are still online, leaving most of the content floating. 2A02:C7C:9838:5700:25D7:40CF:9A18:3671 (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Nassief[edit]

Adel Nassief (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)

Sending to AfD after a WP:DEPROD by Jfire.

Regarding the sources on the talk page posted by the WP:DEPRODer (translated from Arabic to English), I am not sure if any of those sources are reliable or significant enough to satisfy WP:NBIO. So, I still believe that this person may not meet NBIO. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that in spite of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of news sources we have this much coverage indicates that the subject is notable. Jfire (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per adequate sourcing, with thanks to Jfire for translations and explanations. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep references included and notability meets measure requirments. --Ghaly (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as mentioned above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2024 (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 Abbott and Costello in Hollywood as it's now mentioned there, rendering this a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Studios[edit]

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

An article that appears to be mostly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH about a topic that, as far as I can see, does not pass the WP:GNG to begin with. Essentially, someone noticed that several different pieces of fiction used the same generic name for a fake movie studio company. However, this is not a cohesive topic - none of the examples are actually related to one another. There are no reliable sources in the article, as the only sources included are a couple of the pieces of media themselves. Searches did not turn up anything showing that the phenomenon of the same fake name being used multiple times is a subject that has had significant coverage in reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:OR. I found some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS for a real Mammoth Studios, but only in the context of interviewing a staffer about the film industry. The rest is unrelated, based on observations and theories by Wikipedia editors. Articles need to be based on reliable third-party sources, and not original research of noticing the same word across a few film/television scenes. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Abbott_and_Costello_in_Hollywood (either #Plot or #Production or even ad hoc section with sources such as this one or this one, indicating it's the MGM.) One can also think a Disambiguation page is suitable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm fine with a redirect, if there was actually any content if the target - but there's not even a mention here. Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is mentioned now. I've added a different source, though, as the 2nd I had mentioned above was published at Lulu.com. But I've added it both in the plot and production sections. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Abbott_and_Costello_in_Hollywood because content is now there in a section, as user My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) indicated. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. Mentions are not enough to demonostrate notability a fictional name used for fictional companies in a few unrelated movies. I think the article itself reflects the lack of SIGCOV, it is OR and trivia mixed in with some SYNTH.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 9 February 2024 (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 17:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Pangeni[edit]

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

An autobiography. Meets neither general Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines, nor the specifics laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). None of the sources cited are both independent of the subject, and discussing him in the required depth. Source (1) is a standard brief university teaching staff bio. Source (2,4) is Written by the subject. Source (3) is a link to a page which makes no mention of him, and which wouldn't be independent if it did. The remaining sources (5-8) are papers authored by the subject. An online search finds nothing obvious to suggest that further sources could be found to meet our requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, and Nepal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put the new source for source (1). More independent sources will be provided to make sure the page meets Wikipedia guidelines. 2600:1700:1DCA:8080:9509:CAEA:F9DA:DBAC (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The new source does nothing further towards meeting our notability requirements. We need in depth independent coverage of the individual, not the individual himself discussing a project he is working on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a new user but I understand what editors such as AndyTheGrump means. I have edited the article massively on seeing that the page deserves being there looking at the research portfolio and community engagement of the subject but requires massive revisions. I have done quite a bit and needs more to be done. Fekudinesh (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am new for Wikipedia for creating contents. I have also done a bit of editing on this subject if it helps. Dinpandey (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't help. I would strongly advise new contributors to take the time to read Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in particular, along with Wikipedia:Reliable sources before tinkering around with the article. None of the edits made have done anything to address the issues raised. We aren't interested in citations to papers Pangeni has contributed to. We aren't interested in short bios from employers, or from organisations he has worked with. We aren't interested in articles about organisations he has worked for. The only material that is relevant when establishing notability per Wikipedia standards is going to come from published reliable sources unconnected to Pangeni, and discussing him in depth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, I am going to create a bunch of new accounts and vote to keep the article. I am sure no one has ever thought of it before, so Wikipedia won't know what hit 'em. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Fekudinesh and User:Dinpandey have been confirmed as sockpuppets of User:Rajendrapppangeni. None will be taking any further part in this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citations on GS far too low to pass WP:Prof in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete spam. Wikipedia is supposed to be the last place to report after you have achieved something notable, not the first place to tell the world what you plan to do. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think the citations are enough in this area to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, as X says above. Maybe there's in-depth coverage of him in Nepali for his thoughts of maybe returning someday but I don't see it in the coverage in the article, which includes one piece briefly mentioning him and one by him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too few citations, and far too early in his career for a page.Ldm1954 (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2024 (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 17:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Zidian[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Amy Zidian (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)

Already deleted 3(!) times at AfD, and nothing new happened since the last 2 AfDs. Fram (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Jansa[edit]

Alfred Jansa (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)

Although I could find some mentions, I couldn't find enough to show he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. I am puzzled by this nomination, as this is not really an obscure figure and a quick search should give several interesting hits. In English we have this short entry from the House of Austrian History [de] on the "Jansa Plan", Austria's pre-Anschluss defensive strategy in case of a German invasion. Also focused on defense against Germany we have this MA thesis from McGill University, which also devotes a lot of space to Jansa. Minor coverage of Jansa's postwar role can be found here. Unfortunately my knowledge of German (or the lack of it, to be more precise) does not allow me to dig too deep, but there definitely are sources available in that language. These are his memoirs, preceded by a 16 page introduction by the editor, Peter Broucek [de], which definitely counts and should be useful. A doctoral dissertation about him was written in 1990 at the University of Vienna: Johann Hafner, "Feldmarschalleutnant Alfred Jansa Edler von Tannenau". There's also a short bio by Ludwig Jedlicka [de]: "Alfred Jansa 1884-1963", in Neue Österreichische Biographie, volume XIX, 1976, pp. 77-87. A section of this history of the Austrian general staff is also devoted to Jansa. Here is an article on the Jansa Plan in Die Presse. I am sure someone who is fluent in German can come up with a lot more. Ostalgia (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Neue Österreichische Biographie, among others, is a very promising source. Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Bureau[edit]

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

Not meeting WPNCORP, only 3 sources with routine coverage of stolen money case. Not in-depth, not reliable independent. Ne (00) olli (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-event-based company. Unfortunately no NCORP and no RS. --BoraVoro (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The three sources used in the article are all RS. I also found coverage from outside Japan, [29], [30] and elsewhere in Asia [31], showing a more global view of the company. All articles are about the theft, but I think we have enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the sources mentioned don't meet Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Independent_sources especially when applying WP:SIRS guideline. 2A01:E0A:375:3810:B82B:91C2:DC5C:A05F (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources meet our GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 13:03, 4 February 2024 (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 LVMH. Star Mississippi 17:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh (company)[edit]

Fresh (company) (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 didn't find reliable sources per WPNCORP. Crunchbase and moslty similar websites only. Ne (00) olli (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to LVMH (its parent company) – there are a few sources on Fresh itself, but mostly passing mentions or very short pieces [32] or fluff pieces [33]. Tserton (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The existing article, though lacking extensive references, provides a foundational framework for future expansion. Also, while "reliable" sources might be scarce due to the company's newness, online sources like news articles, social media trends, and industry analyses demonstrate Fresh's rapid rise to prominence. Ignoring the most recent changes and additional citations, as the company matures and traditional sources emerge, the article can be enriched and substantiated, becoming a valuable resource for researchers and the general public. Deleting the Fresh page would be premature and detrimental to Wikipedia's comprehensiveness.ToranL7231 (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the company isn't exactly new, it's been around since 1991. Tserton (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key part of your !vote is the admittance of "lacking extensive references" and "reliable sources". Have you read your guidelines for notability of companies? HighKing++ 13:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject fairly fails to meet guidelines for organization's notability. Redirect is also a good way here. --2804:868:D051:AABE:4176:F3CE:AEFF:61A (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect to LVMH. I am surprised by the keep claim that this enterprise has not battrached enough to establish notability because it is new; it was founded over thirty years ago.TheLongTone (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LVMH as per ATD, there's nothing I can find that meets GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. In addition, their services are still very advertised. --Well I dont (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of signifcance and fails WP:NCORP. Redirect is possibility as well. scope_creepTalk 15:21, 7 February 2024 (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. and no objection to a speedy renom at a time when folks think there might be more participation. Star Mississippi 17:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her Royal Harness[edit]

Her Royal Harness (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. Could not find significant coverage in English language sources and I doubt any exists in Norwegian ones either. Keivan.fTalk 09:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any "significant" coverage in sources though? Maybe even the Norwegian ones? Because if none exists then it does not meet the notability criteria. Keivan.fTalk 22:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Among the 6 hits, only 4 of them were reviews, but they were somewhat significant, so it may scrape by together with the sources that are already in the article. Geschichte (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart Beats[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or find a good WP:ATD. It metions Happening 68, a show they apparently won, but the link is a redirect elsewhere, it isn't a notable show. Very promotional article too. Boleyn (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2024 (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 17:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cazals (band)[edit]

Cazals (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)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A band doesn't have to be good to be notable Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough, but if it is neither good, nor well-known, nor influential, the fact that it received dismissive reviews does not seem to establish notability. Llajwa (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to have been somewhat well-known at the time, although it did not last for very long. Geschichte (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For what it's worth, I can reiterate my belief that Llajwa's claims do not hold up in the slightest. What do others think of the multiple independent reviews? I'm not inclined to add them to the article if there's a chance of it getting deleted. Geschichte (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Geschichte that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 17:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liana Aghajanian[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:BIO; no reliable independent coverage in news BoraVoro (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep: Some coverage unrelated to her employer/where she's written an article: [39], [40], [41]. Probably the SF Chronicle is the best of them, but I think we have enough for an article, but this needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Iran, Armenia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve- per above suggestion/sources. Archives908 (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have some independent sources. IMO this firm requirement is already met for this subject, if perhaps at what I'd prefer to think of as a minimal level for a BLP. (I believe that Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and I believe that I personally hold somewhat higher standards for creating BLPs than the rest of the community.) In a potentially borderline case, I think Wikipedia should err just slightly on the side of inclusion when the subject is a source (including journalists, newspapers, magazines, academic journals, reference books, and all similar cases). We may someday need to know who this person is to figure out whether something she wrote is itself a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2024 (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 Navico. History remains should consensus for a merge come about. Star Mississippi 17:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowrance Electronics[edit]

Lowrance Electronics (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)

Merge into Navico as an unjustified SPINOFF and for a probable miss of NCORP. Both articles are short. Can be included in totality (something always drops) without creating a situation of undue. Using AfD rather than Merge into so it will be debated alongside Simrad Yachting, another Navico subsidiary. gidonb (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Door[edit]

Beautiful Door (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)

Unclear of the notability here, though I think I'm leaning not (and merge/redirect to the artist, of course). The article only has an AllMusic review, valid but not enough on its own, and the other coverage I could find was this blurb from Express and a few paragraphs in Thornton's autobiography. I don't know if Express is reliable, though it was a publication of The Washington Post so I wouldn't see why not, and though the piece is short, it's not entirely insubstantial. As for the autobiography, I have no idea what that does in regards to notability given I'm pretty sure it's entirely a primary source. This really doesn't seem like much all told, but perhaps it's just me being less favorable than most to a bare minimum pass as often seems to be the case. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't understand why this page should be deleted.
If we need to be sure that this album actually exists, I bought it and I can share a picture of... well, everything.
It's part of Thornton's story and work, why should we delete it?
Please read my contribution not as a critic, but as a real "desire" to undestand and, if needed, to rewrite this page/part of this page in a better way. 151.67.113.137 (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a concern of notability, not just whether it exists. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is everything that the nominator indicates, which may have been considered enough. + this (The Oklahoman).+this +this and this or this (and that's just a one-click search......) I'm inviting the nominator to kindly withdraw this. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It didn't get much mass media notice, which is a bit of a surprise for a famous actor with a side career in music, but the reviews found by the previous voter are enough to build a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's talked about here [42], but I don't think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can't deny how much Mushy Yank has improved this one. Even if the lack of recognizable sources which have been added makes me slightly hesitant, I was also hesitant to launch this AfD in the first place because it was an edge case, and I can't deny it's been massively improved since then. If anyone else, such as Oaktree, still don't see it, then they can relaunch a new AfD whenever it's appropriate, but for now I am withdrawing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philippa Hall[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, or find a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing in the article, listed in the AfD, or that I could find with standard searches constitutes independent, reliable coverage that would count toward meeting the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hattiesburg Black Sox[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hattiesburg Black Sox (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)

Although it has some minor coverage, and so was kept at 2008 AfD, I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N, or find a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete in agreement with previous comment - the Negro League era team sounds historically significant but is not discussed. The vicissitudes of a contemporary regional team seem less notable. No sources are cited. Llajwa (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — The article provided by SportingFlyer mentions them as nothing more than a local semi-pro team in a NN league and establishes no notability for the team. The source brought up in the previous AFDs (yet never added to the article) calls them nothing more than a "local [Mississippi] black team of varying skill level" while listing a 1/2 dozen other NN teams. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article (external links) are all primary, and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. The above [[49]] is a single source, multiple reliable secondary sources are needed, If this is found, ping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 17:16, 09 February 2024 UTC (UTC)
  • Delete There is nothing in the article itself too that could indicate any relevance. Killarnee (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HMF Engineering[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, or find a good WP:ATD. Previous AfD was withdrawn just because there was an issue with so many open AfD discussions and the system being a bit overloaded; it is no reflection either way on the notability of this article. Boleyn (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 2 February 2024 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonora Chiavarelli[edit]

Eleonora Chiavarelli (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)

Cannot inherit notability from her husband, Aldo Moro, and lacks independent achievements. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Telegraph obituary, which states she became a schoolteacher and president of the Montessori Association in Rome, not enough IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2024 (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de France 2013: 100 Edition[edit]

Tour de France 2013: 100 Edition (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 page with no citations. No reviews I can find. Publisher has a horde of non-notable games, including dozens of indistinguishable Tour de France titles. WP:ATD seems inappropriate here as there's not really anything to merge with the developer's page. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 13:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott D. Anthony[edit]

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

The person did not "received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" nor has "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" BoraVoro (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also the author's name is Innovatewiki that firmly overalps with Scott D. Anthony's interests in "innovation" field: He is also the author of The Little Black Book of Innovation, Anthony has written extensively about a number of innovation topics including disruptive innovation and business transformation, etc. BoraVoro (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Barr[edit]

Robert B. Barr (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 reliable sources, fails WP:BIO BoraVoro (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Reads like a personal résumé. And somewhat lacking in substance even in that. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An executive profile and a few mentions in PR items aren't useful for notability. I can't find mentions of this person in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have semi'ed this discussion for a week to stop the !vote falsification from the IP. Anyone who isn't autoconfirmed is welcome to constructively use the Talk page. Star Mississippi 13:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to failing WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS. TarnishedPathtalk 01:03, 4 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 12:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randa Ayoubi[edit]

Randa Ayoubi (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 reliable sources or superficial mentions of the person; notability highly questioned BoraVoro (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2024 (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 Memphis Area Transit Authority#Bus. The exact amount of information moved to the merge target can be discussed on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 12:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MATA Bus Routes[edit]

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

Not a travel guide. This is simply a list of routes and links to timetables. Routes are run of the mill and nothing notable about them individually or as a group. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There aren't many systems big enough for the route list to be long enough and notable enough for a separate article, and this just isn't one of them. A list of just the numbers/names at Memphis Area Transit Authority#Bus would be sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main MATA article.
StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2024 (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 and the M49 telescope page changed to a redirect. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M49 Spotting Scope[edit]

M49 Spotting Scope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is alredy a page called M49 telescope about the same topic Changeworld1984 (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Sutherland District Council election[edit]

1984 Sutherland District Council election (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 election is not notable and is of negligible importance.

Simply does not pass WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. For example, the analysis of the results was in The Scotsman. Unfortunately, the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have any papers from Sutherland in the 1980s to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 152 district councils at 2023 United Kingdom local elections#District councils, all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional sources, background information and ward results to try and help move this discussion forward. 20:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Consensus in previous AfDs is that district council elections in the UK are deemed notable events. Number 57 13:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. On the one hand there are a lot of these local election articles on Wikipedia (though there are also lots of red links on the annual summary pages for the 1980's) and there should be a enough sources in newspaper archives based on my experience with current coverage of comparable UK elections. On the other hand, the kind of news or analysis sources that would establish notability via the GNG are currently completely lacking in the article which is just a detailed breakdown of the election results with no sourced commentary or analysis. So keep as improvable and useful, but with the understanding that from a notability perspective these articles are really only necessary/appropriate if there is something _more_ to say than just listing the results. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Donkey Kong characters#King K. Rool. Owen× ☎ 12:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King K. Rool[edit]

King K. Rool (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 suffers from the same problem as so many of the other Smash Bros. focused character articles: all the reception is just lists, or barely saying anything. A before didn't turn up much either, other than some bits of dev info about his name post-Smash Bros. release. The most there is is stuff like this Smash Bros. profile on Shacknews, but they did these for every character and there's not any commentary to take from it.

All in all, he doesn't hold weight. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Skynxnex I'm down with using Valnet editorials when they say something useful, but those three are either just mentioning a trivia bit or fan theory, and not offering any discussion on the character. The destructoid article actually says something, but even then it's a small sentence at most you can take from it. As for where to put it if merged, there's List of Donkey Kong characters#King K. Rool already in place.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Donkey Kong character list per above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2024 (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 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Client's day[edit]

International Client's day (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)

Spam. Previously deleted. Fails WP:N, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lithuania, and Russia. Owen× ☎ 00:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure promotional spam. Renata•3 02:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t see how this is spam exactly, since it doesn’t seem to be promoting a specific business, but rather a concept that a bunch of businesses are trying to turn into a thing. If it actually is a thing in Lithuania, it’s weird that it is not on Lithuanian or Russian Wikipedia. the article implies that it failed to be officially approved by the government. I would be inclined to delete it, but I can’t evaluate the Russian language references. Llajwa (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania recognized the specified day as an "unofficial holiday" (documents are available at the links: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/0b62f320d78011e8820ea019e5d9ad04?jfwid=176mwooltn, https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAK/6f46c46317e111e9bd28d9a28a9e9ad9). The celebration of International Client's Day is described in sources from different countries and in various languages: https://news.am/arm/news/566815.html?fbclid=IwAR0A8GZWETrm_KfOeBFeC3rSTewY5VLAphG2KChKIX9-srK7ZGwlqOj8CI4, https://www.ucreative.com/offbeat/customers-or-clients-some-thoughts-on-clients-day/?fbclid=IwAR2HSsWn8BtRV4ps8kkgQhj0zv4Bi51QJU7j_K46UtK8ll3WQIwX_oz3WsU, https://klaipeda.diena.lt/dienrastis/ivairenybes/klaipedietis-siekia-iteisinti-tarptautine-kliento-diena-268087/www-2sim-lt/komentarai#.UtT1As-IqM8, https://webplus.info/index.php?page=340&holiday=1286&fbclid=IwAR04nuRofMJS9j_PQAS8JNH9aj8kR4a-kvg3SLuK4AqTKp6agg52I-9yV4I, https://www.freepressjournal.in/business/international-clients-day-the-importance-of-appreciating-and-reassuring-clients-amidst-economic-headwinds. These sources adhere to Wikipedia’s rules, as they are independent, the published information is reviewed, and the subject of the articles is described without promotion, providing sufficient information from a neutral standpoint. The request in response to this comment is to provide arguments for why and based on which points the argumentation is considered sufficient or insufficient for recognizing International Client’s Day as significant according to Wikipedia rules. Profis (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandrs Kublinskis[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Latvia. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can probably close one of these, appears to have been duplicate AfDs submitted Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as this and this. Also, the Latvian wikipedia article here states that he received two notable awards The Latvian Music Record of the Year Award and an honorary knighthood from the Latvian government. It also indicates he has an entry in the Latvian National Encyclopaedia although the link doesn't work, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, on top of those sources above a quick search for Александр Кублинский shows there is decent coverage in Russian as well. Ostalgia (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2024 (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. Consensus is clear that it's lacking in sufficient independent sourcing to establish notability. Star Mississippi 16:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cena–Orton rivalry[edit]

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

The content is a merge of some parts of both men's wrestling storylines. There is no official ending or beginning, so the the "aftermath" does not make sense and it is not coherent. Most of recognition are primary sources (WWE promotion), unremarkable web writers and fans. The rivalry have no proper recognition from reliable sources and not even the usual well-established awards like WON, PWI etc. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons I laid out at the first nomination. In short, no indication of notability and largely just a plot summary. Incidentally at the last discussion I suggested how the article could be redeemed, but no action has been taken since. — Czello (music) 20:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge - I would endorse this comment by TTN from the last round in 2022:
Is there a list of WWE storylines, major events, or some such? The coverage of the topic seems to be limited to trivial pop culture articles at a first glance, but being merged to a list would make sense.
That would be a useful article. The current detailed article is in-universe and unencyclopedic. Llajwa (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is for constructively, if readers have no objection whats the point of deleting, we can just improve the areas but the article is Ok, its not entirely in universe it explains a little details of the feud like any wrestling article but elaborates the decade long backstage news, reception and other encyclopedic contents. Also I might add talk joining just last month and already nominating many established articles for deletion is kinda suspicious, just look at his contribution history. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well sourced and covers a significant long term rivalry in WWE history that ran for a decade and as per numerous WP:RS acknowledged as one of the mostWP:Notable mand popular rivalry ever, not a supporter of other stuff exist argument but I don't get how clean Persona and reception of Roman Reigns don't and Cena-Orton rivalry is wrestling's Federer–Nadal rivalry and is a clean article supported by Wp:RS, Wp:Notable and almost all Wikipedia guidelines. WWE, Pinkvilla, 411Mania and many sources called it one of the greatest rivalry ever, who cares about kayfabe PWI there are way better sources, there are numerous WP:RS that supports this rivalry's popularity. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources largely talk about matches and storylines but fail to actually establish notability. WWE as a source isn't valid as it's a primary source and largely a marketing piece. I'm glad you mentioned the Federer-Nadal article as last time we had this discussion I pointed out that was a model for how this article should be, but isn't. That is an actual rivalry with sources that show how it's notable, while this is a storyline whose sources are just recaps. — Czello (music) 15:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can improve it rather than outright deleting a good article, note you are the old nominator so your opinion may be slightly biased, and beside WWE themselves there are many non primary WP:RS that acknowledges this as a WP:Notable feud, and just like any WP:PW article like say Triple H it contains elements of scripted competition which is already explained in the article, thats the same with any pro wrestling article and match description like say WrestleMania 39 for e.g., its properly explained there how it is. Also the3 nominator this time is hihghly suspicious, he joined just in December and already nominated so many articles for deletion. Instead of improving a good article you want to ruin it and no wonder the WP:PW community had the WP:GS against them, youn have 0 respect for wrestling and don't want good articles like in football, tennis, etc, you just want to delete stuff based on personal views. Anyway this has [{WP:RS]], meets WP:Notab;le I will accept whatever decision consensus reaches like last time. Anyway no hard feelings, imo this is a good article and rather than lazily deleting it it is better to improve it. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are casting aspersions by questioning OP based in that manner – not to mention doing the same to me in the same comment. Me being the previous nominator is irrelevant; I made clear who I am above by reiterating my original concerns and stating nothing has been done to improve the quality of the article since then. You were warned about personal attacks in the last discussion, also. WP:AGF.
You seem to be working backwards in saying that it's notable and instead of deleting we should find sources to prove it – yet in the 18 months since the last AFD, none have been found. There's ultimately only one source in the article that is useful, and all that does is say it was "arguably" one of the best feuds. Great – but that doesn't establish notability. — Czello (music) 09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czello there are many other sources that supports its notability and acknowledges this feud, some in the article and some outside, you are solely talking about the reception one, like I said you can improve it but no all you care is deleting and its not PA to express suspicion about the OP, tho I do apologies that I brought out you were the old nominator. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources in the article do you feel establish notability? And yes, casting aspersions is considered a personal attack, see WP:ASPERSIONS. — Czello (music) 09:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned before, the article is just a summarize of a TV Plot. Besides the RAW, PPVs results, there is no analysis about the feud. No sources point why the "rivalry" is notable. Only two sources used for legacy, one of them a WWE.com article from the company itself. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not even near to Nadal-Fereder rivalry. First, it was a real rivalry, this is just a TV scripted plot. If we talk about pro wrestling rivalries, try with Russo - Cornette or Flair - Douglas, people who have real life rivalry. Second, there is no analysis besides the TV Plot. The Reigns article includes real life analysis about his character and persona. That's the probelm with the article and many other, it's to focused on the TV characters, but the focus should be the real life performers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a good article, and a significant decade long rivalry as a Wikipedia reader and Wrestling fan I wish this article stays and has the potential for improvement. 81.21.4.10 (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it good, exactly? This doesn't address the concerns around notability. It was given the chance for improvement since the last AFD, but no action was taken. — Czello (music) 13:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two Ips with no contributions and no arguments... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idk one of them said he/she is a reader, but nice to see both want keep, btw Czello primary sources liek WWE can be used sometimes, they may be forbidden in some areas but when necessary there are guidlines to include some primary sources and now that WWE is owned by TKO its less likely to be a primary source, and its use was Ok, you should have kept in intact while the nomination was on going and let neutral party judge, I ain't editing the article atm due to the nomination tho but if it survives I might add even better sources, searching about this rivalry yields many great WP:RS talking about its notability. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also take a look at these for instance, all these highlights its notability. [52] Dilbaggg (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is 100% a primary source - I'm not sure why you think being owned by TKO would change that.
Primary sources can be used in some instances, but not to establish notability as it's effectively a marketing piece.
I'd suggest that if you want to add sources to improve it you do so now - editing isn’t prohibited during an AfD (and it's encouraged if it can prove notability) and given that it likely won't survive this will be your last opportunity — Czello (music) 06:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kirk (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There was a recent requested move discussion at Talk:Stephen Kirk, which closed as moved on the basis that only two notable individuals with this name exist. The intention of the RM nomination was that the dab page would be replaced by a pair of hatnotes on the Stephen Kirk and Steve Kirk articles, each linking to the other and making this dabpage unnecessary. With the hatnotes in place, the dab page is not actually linked from anywhere. Since the RM closed, User:Boleyn has added two new entries to the dab page, "Stephen Kirk (songwriter) on Pray (Jessie Murph song)" and "Steve Kirk (illustrator) who worked with Cathy Camper". These are non-notable individuals who would not ever qualify for their own redirect or page and I see no need for us to retain a disambiguation page listing them. WP:DABMENTION instructs us to do this only if "a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader", something, which is not the case for these individuals. Additionally there are links to Geoffrey Stephen Kirk, Kirk Stephens and Kirk Stevens, but again these are not plausible candidates for the "Stephen Kirk" name.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for an entry on a dab page to be valid, it needs a 'Stephen Kirk' who has an article, who meets MOS:DABRL, or meets MOS:DABMENTION. This page has several, plus in the 'see also' section names that could be mistaken for 'Stephen Kirk'. Dabs are essentially indexes to WP, and show where a reader can find informaiton on a person. Therefore this page shows where you can find information on different people named Stephen Kirk. It is a valid dab page per the guidelines and the hatnotes to the dab have been restored - they would of course be deleted if the page was. I don't see anything policy-based in the argument for deletion, nothing referring to disambiguation guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Boleyn: Thanks for the comment. However, are the individuals mentioned on the page notable? If they aren't, then they don't qualify for WP:DABRL or WP:DABMENTION per my comments above. There's no value to a reader in forcing them to make an extra click to get from the handball player to the basketball player and vice versa, just to stare at the names of people who don't meet WP:GNG. The recent RM was conducted on the basis that there only two notable Stephen Kirks. If you think that isn't the case, then I'd be intrested to see the evidence, and maybe we should redlink them on the dab page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neither non-notable Kirk is discussed in their linked articles, only name-dropped. We don't need a DAB for every single shared name ever appearing on WP.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Both Stephen Kirk (songwriter) and Steve Kirk (illustrator) have worked on more than a Jessie Murph song and Cathy Camper book, respectively, so those are not appropriate redirects. Moreover, DABMENTION requires that they be discussed in those articles, and they are merely mentioned there, not discussed. Finally, I don't think either of them meets DABRL because neither are notable as of now (although Stephen Kirk (songwriter) might become notable, given that he's worked with some high profile acts, like BTS). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DABMENTION states "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article". The two entries Boleyn added are mentioned in passing, not discussed. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Voorts and Clarityfiend. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kishan Devani[edit]

Kishan Devani (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 wannabe politician. TheLongTone (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Does not pass NPOL, either not winning or simply doing "office work" for the party. Non-notable as an academic. Says the person's an activist, but no sourcing to prove that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Oaktree b. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2024 (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 we all accept the fact that it is more difficult to find sources for third-world articles, it does not relieve us from the need to source such articles, especially for BLP. The Keep views did not adequately refute the P&G-based arguments of the Delete views. And unlike RfCs and policy discussions, a past AfD does not generally set a binding precedent. Owen× ☎ 12:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Tondi[edit]

Ibrahim Tondi (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)

Disputed redirect. Fails WP:NOLY, WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Athlete who ran several seconds behind the world elite, but still competed in the Olympics on a quota. Found no coverage of his two top-8th placements in regional competitions either, which would have been his only achievements. (Although he finished almost 4 seconds behind the winner there as well) Geschichte (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, those are only passing mentions or statistical databases including literal result pages, also "reinforced" with articles that don't mention Tondi at all, such as "Dakar meeting marks start of 2004 AAC track circuit | NEWS | World Athletics". Also, 22.78 seconds for 200 m is not an international standard of athletics, it is on par with the results achieved by thousands of apt 16-17 year old boys every year. The article doesn't contain a single WP:SIGCOV source and I couldn't find any either. Geschichte (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte, thank you for your nomination because it helps us improve the article.
    It's incorrect to apply a global standard of achievement to athletes from non-first world countries, that isn't how notability works – for example, the Indian record-holder in the 100 metres Amiya Kumar Mallick only has a personal best of 10.26 seconds, not even fast enough to qualify for most high-level athletics meetings and a time that many American high school boys have beaten, yet he is still famous as the fastest from his home country and notable for an article.
    I thought about this for a while, even before making my improvements, and have concluded that Wikipedia policies lean in favor of keeping the Tondi article. Tondi meets WP:NATH as a national record holder and presumed national champion (as he was the only male Nigerien selected). Understanding that, we know that, "Significant coverage is likely to exist". WP:BASIC says that as long as significant coverage exists – which we know is true due to NATH – Tondi is presumed notable, and passes the Wikipedia guidelines check. Just because we don't have the significant coverage or "the good stuff" right now linked in the article, doesn't mean that the article should be deleted, as simply knowing that sources exist can be sufficient for keeping an article. This overrides WP:SPORTCRIT prong five, as a more general guideline can apply even in the case where more specific guidelines may conflict.
    In this case, we know the sources exist as several articles about races Tondi was in and placed in are paywalled, and we haven't even begun to search the Nigerien newspaper archives which surely covered Tondi as the sole male representative from their nation in the marquee sport at the 2008 Olympic Games. --Habst (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on my discussion above. --Habst (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources in the article are passing mentions in routine event recaps and pure stats, not SIGCOV. 1, 5-9, 11, 12 (Tilastopaja) are all primary, trivial stats reports Red XN. 2, 3, & 10 (Worldathletics) are more stats/results pages from a non-independent body Red XN. 4 (L'Express/AllAfrica) seems to be a routine event recap with at most a passing mention of Tondi Red XN. My own search on Proquest, archive.org, and Newspaper Archive yielded a single result, which was his name in a results list.
We do not apply different standards of achievement to subjects from developing countries, mostly because that is not how GNG notability works anyway but also because that would be demeaning.
We had a recent global RfC that found strong consensus in requiring all sportsperson articles contain a citation to IRS SIGCOV. This has been upheld in hundreds of AfDs by now. The presumption that SIGCOV is "likely to exist" is explicitly different from the presumptions that SIGCOV does exist or that the subject is inherently notable; this was determined by the same RfC. The claim that a "likelihood" of coverage existing afforded by meeting an NSPORT sport-specific criterion (which the subject here does not) is equivalent to "SIGCOV exists", and therefore satisfies BASIC, is absurd and completely unsupported by P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your response.
We had a recent global RfC that found strong consensus in requiring all sportsperson articles contain a citation to IRS SIGCOV – I don't think that's an accurate way to describe WP:NSPORTS2022 – it certainly does not describe the current landscape as this extended content box shows. If you look at the first thread of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#What do we do when..., you can see that the "key change" of NSPORTS2022 was the removal of participation-based criteria (which does not apply to this subject as he did more than participate). The other changes were either changes of wording that don't affect this specific case, or changes that are inconsequential because the subject fulfills the broader policy of WP:BASIC.
The presumption that SIGCOV is "likely to exist" is explicitly different from the presumptions that SIGCOV does exist or that the subject is inherently notable – I understand that the wording was changed from "presumed notable" to "significant coverage is likely to exist", but I think that these statements are effectively a distinction without a difference, as explained in the above-linked talk. The wording may be different, but the policy implications are the same – if we can know that significant coverage exists, by any process, then that fulfills the criteria of WP:BASIC which determines notability. This is plainly stated by Wikipedia policies.
The argument that a subject can pass a broader guideline like WP:BASIC but fail a topic-specific supplemental guideline like WP:SPORTBASIC and thus be deleted, was tested in Clive Sands, with the result of the discussion being Keep. So clearly, broader guidelines still apply even in cases where there are also topic-specific rules – e.g. imagine if the Alan Turing article was deleted on the basis that he was not a fast enough marathon runner. --Habst (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely the correct description of that RfC, as has been explained to you by numerous editors including the drafter admin @Cbl62. There are hundreds of thousands of articles on sportspeople, many of which are poorly sourced or don't meet NSPORT. It's pure OSE to claim the fact that any of those haven't yet been deleted is evidence SPORTCRIT #5 isn't observed. I could link far more that have been deleted, anyway. The talk at NSPORT is just more of your misconceptions about notability guidelines and Wikipedia in general, which multiple other editors have since rebutted. No one else seems to have trouble comprehending what downgrading "presumed notable" to "SIGCOV is likely to exist" means. If you you've read the RfC and the dozens of talk page discussions and still don't get it then that's your problem.
Clive Sands was definitely not kept because of BASIC and the outcome most certainly does not imply that meeting BASIC overrides failing SPORTCRIT. Alvaldi's comment was rebutting the clueless claim that failing a sport-specific criterion overrode meeting GNG, which is explicitly addressed at N. That is not comparable to BASIC vs SPORTCRIT. And your Alan Turing comparison just raises CIR concerns. JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your response. Wikipedia policy is both decided and enforced by consensus – this means that any one person doesn't decide how policy is enforced, even though I greatly respect @Cbl62 and agree with them more often than not. It also means that case studies looking at the actual decisions made by editors can sometimes be more helpful than proscriptive analysis.
I think that the key change of WP:NSPORTS2022 was to remove participation-only criteria, which was reiterated by other editors in the linked discussion – the other changes don't affect WP:BASIC anyways, and the intention of the proposal was never to override that broader guideline.
My point in linking the Clive Sands case was to show that supplemental guidelines do not override broader guidelines, so if we can prove that WP:BASIC is met, then WP:SPORTCRIT is not necessary. Clive Sands was decided in part based on that principle.
I'd like to finish by reiterating that I greatly respect your work on Wikipedia, and I would much rather discuss the article or its sources than the behavior of other editors. --Habst (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the people who actually participated in the RfC, the RfC text itself, and the thousands of AfDs that have resulted in deletes as a consequence of the RfC and SPORTCRIT #5 specifically. You are also ignoring the multiple successful mass-draftification RfCs that draftified Lugnuts stubs primarily on the basis of their failing SPORTCRIT #5 (those alone account for around 2000 athlete bios that have been removed from mainspace for this reason). There is overwhelming practical consensus against you.
Clive Sands was kept based entirely on editors deciding he met GNG and the fact that at no point has failing NSPORT sport-specific criteria but demonstrably meeting GNG meant a subject was not notable. There were zero aspects of it that support your idiosyncratic interpretation that BASIC automatically overrules a site-wide consensus, and certainly nothing that suggests BASIC can be met by the mere presumption that SIGCOV is likely to exist.
Respect other editors' time, recognize what it means to have a 56% AfD match rate, and stop bludgeoning these discussions with anti-consensus, anti-P&G arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your response because I appreciate your contributions even when we don't agree all the time.
Deletion discussions on Wikipedia are just that – discussions – where we can discuss and debate Wikipedia polices and how they apply to articles. Many Wikipedia policies are subjective, and just as there have been many AfDs that have resulted in deletes, there have also been many AfDs not resulting in deletes similar to the subject we're discussing now, such as Kyohei Ushio or Abdou Manzo.
WP:BASIC is a Wikipedia accepted guideline since at least 2007, and if an article can be demonstrated to have met the basic notability guidelines for people, I think that the subject can be determined to be notable – this is regardless of any topic-specific supplementary guidelines. Though of course not exactly the same, my point in linking the Sands case was to show that broader guidelines can override topic specific guidelines if circumstances allow for it.
To me, it is the greatest sign of respect to engage respectfully with editors who you disagree with. I didn't know that there was a tool to count AfD match rates, but when I did a web search for it this essay was the first result: Wikipedia:AfD stats don't measure what you think. I don't think any editor should be asked to not participate in discussions simply because their opinions do not align with the majority most (or in this case, some) of the time, and I would much rather discuss the subject's notability than concerns about editor behavior. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't see extensive coverage of the person from sources used in the article and I don't find much either we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficiently well-crafted and well-sourced. Carrite (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carrite can you tell me which sources contain SIGCOV? Every single one that has been discussed so far has been a namedrop in a stats list or in a routine recap. JoelleJay (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2024 (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. G5 (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 15:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tendence (company)[edit]

Tendence (company) (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 tone is obviously promotional, but even if that were resolved I am skeptical that this company could meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Most of the citations are to the company's own website, which are obviously not independent. Another (repeated 3x) are to Lenta.ru, which is blacklisted. Another (repeated 2x) are to Vz.ru, a generally unreliable source. The strongest sources appear to not be focused on this company (e.g. this page about the founder's prior project [53]) or appear to be regurgitated press releases (e.g. [54]). I'm putting this up as AfD rather than CSD because I don't have enough ability to search in Russian for additional reliable sources; it's possible that it could be saved if there are unused independent thorough sources. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College Access Now[edit]

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

Only 1 article links to this. The article currently has a lot of primary sources. I failed to find indepth coverage, especially something outside Seattle as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Gutierrez[edit]

Ernest Gutierrez (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 unnotable mayor holding an unnotable position. No sources found that would indicate notability. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, which was closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. El Monte CA is nowhere close to large enough that its mayors would receive an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors — the notability test at the local level of office hinges not on minimally verifying that the person exists, but on maximally sourcing substantial content about their political impact: specific things they did as mayor, specific projects they spearheaded as mayor, significant effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and the article is extremely overdependent on junk sourcing rather than evidence that he has enough media coverage to pass NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2024 (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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W43BR[edit]

W43BR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding SIGCOV of any type for this page. This dispute is the only non-database information I could find on the subject, and one FCC filing is not helpful for WP:N purposes. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:00, 2 February 2024 (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. ✗plicit 05:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dasht Shuleeg[edit]

Dasht Shuleeg (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)

Unreferenced. Appears to fail WP:GNG, couldn’t find any sources except social media. Also seems to fail WP:GEOLAND; no evidence that the village is legally recognized. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 03:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Monteiro Jardim[edit]

Maria Monteiro Jardim (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. First source is primary, 2nd is a 1 line mention. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasur Alijanov[edit]

Jasur Alijanov (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 boxer/coach. Fails WP:NBOX, WP:ANYBIO. Can't see any RS on the page, and it would seem non are likely to exist: WP:ROTM. Cabrils (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voncarie Owens[edit]

Voncarie Owens (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 football player. Never actually played in the NFL, can't find anything in newspapers.com outside of basic game recaps, does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Wizardman 01:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Wizardman 01:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: low-level football player, all I find is this profile on ESPN [56]. Delete for lack of any sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mississippi and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Coverage exists at [[57]], but besides that all I can see is some mentions in game recaps. Leaning delete now, but will wait to see if others can find more/better coverage. Let'srun (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search of Newspapers.com doen't turn up much of real depth. And he has very little in the way of on-field success -- his best season was 2005 with only 225 rushing yards and two touchdowns at the FCS-level. See here. I found this profile from his time as a high school player, but a local paper reporting on the local player of the week isn't enough per WP:YOUNGATH. The best item I found was this item from his junior-college days; it's SIGCOV IMO but not enough to pass the GNG bar. Most of the hits are just passing mentions in game coverage from his days at Ohio University. E.g. this and this. I have an open mind if more SIGCOV is uncovered, especially from his time in Division I. Cbl62 (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per above rationale. Not enough WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Please ping me if any additional coverage is found. Let'srun (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable person based on only routine reports and non-significant coverage on this person. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (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 Oz books#Alternate Oz books. ✗plicit 00:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lion of Oz and the Badge of Courage[edit]

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

I'm not finding any sources for this book, but it was turned into a movie, Lion of Oz. The sources for that are slim too, though. Newspapers.com turned up movie listings, but no reviews for the movie or the book. asilvering (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivy (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Western Liberals[edit]

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

Not fully referenced and poor list of "former Western liberals". Does not have a clear inclusion criteria. Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE Very little of this is sourced. Is anybody surprised to know that Ivanka Trump claimed to be a Republican the day her Republican father handed her a White House position? Or how about how the liberal President Franklin Roosevelt had one or more advisors who thought like he did? Most of this is not sourced, and likely only interesting to the person who compiled the list. — Maile (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poor sourcing of an article can be fixed, but the title implies hopelessly vague criteria: what exactly is a "liberal", and how do we judge when someone is a "former" one? Is someone a "liberal" if they support fiscal liberalism, but not social liberalism? Is Gladstonian liberalism included, or is it just "liberal" in the currently pejorative sense used in the US? Should the list include Thomas Piketty, who has publicly moved from liberalism to socialism?
Article creator includes George Orwell, who remained a democratic socialist to the end of his life. Orwell was a stern critic of Stalinism, Trotskyism and many far-left parties, but how does that make him a "former liberal"? Article creator has twice included as the reference for Orwell: <ref>"See Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?"</ref> [59].
The basis of the list is too vague to fix. People's political positions are often hybrid and complex, not easily boxed into binary categories. I'd recommend deletion on that basis. Wikishovel (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. All the users have laid the reasons out sufficiently. Geschichte (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems too difficult to establish clear inclusion criteria, as some of these people were not prominent or their political views were not well-known at the time they were liberals. Besides, the political views that a liberal would hold in, say, 1924 are not necessarily those that a liberal would hold in 1974 or 2024, thus making the understanding of the word "liberal" elusive in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An WP:ESSAY formatted as a list, and full of guesses at political persuasions, not confirmed positions. The additional 'western' notation is derogatory rather than informative. Nate • (chatter) 15:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Western American liberals? We have liberals here in Canada from the west of the country. Non-sensical list. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Expected to see former Liberal Western Australian premiers on here, honestly. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a political editorial. It is not a list with verifiable criteria defined by reliable sources. Some entries even explain the original research that merits their inclusion. Wikipedia is not the correct venue to publish something like this. Rjjiii (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per mostly all of the above. A list of people judged by their political views is clearly not appropriate to be on Wikipedia. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Arbitrary list with no criteria of what constitutes a "liberal" or a "former liberal" — as if these things are binary in any event. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per mostly all of the above too. What is there to gain from this. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2024 (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/2024_February_2

Leave a Reply