Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 18	March 20 >

Guide to deletion

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. Star Mississippi 15:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Front

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

Delete: Federal Front was an alliance proposed by K. Chandrasekhar Rao for 2019 Indian general election. But this proposed alliance was not materialized. ^[1] As the front was not formed, the article is not necessary and it has no importance to have a separate article. So items of information regarding it are already added in Third Front (India). The article falls under WP:SPECULATION. I hope the administrators will take proper decision based on policies. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the fact that the proposed alliance didn't materialize doesn't necessarily means the subject isn't notable. What matters here is that the proposed alliance was the subject of significant coverage and/or discussion in secondary and reliable media outlets. I've found these 3 pieces covering Federal Front in-depth (1, 2, and 3) and added them to the article. AmshitBalcon (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Federal Front is just is WP: Speculation and proposed alliances does not need wikipedia articles.Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Chennai Super Kings Lover: So if this article falls under the WP:Speculation, then according to this reasoning, this article covering the proposed Federalization of Yemen should be deleted too? AmshitBalcon (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @AmshitBalcon If we (or other editors) have done mistake there (according to you), we need not to replicate the mistake here also. XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @AmshitBalcon@Chennai Super Kings Lover Federalization of Yemen is far more notable than speculative Federal Front. XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Besides some items of information of Federal Front are already added in Third Front (India). XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @AmshitBalcon The subject of the article generally is not regarded as an indicator of its notability according to Wikipedia. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @XYZ 250706: It is true that the topic of an article is often not an indicator of its notability. Sources with significant coverage of that subject, however, are generally a good indicator of notability. Would you please comment on the three sources I've found and attached above? Would appreciate your take on those sources, it would enrich our discussion and clarify the matter. AmshitBalcon (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @AmshitBalcon All of the sources you gave do not say about federal front for 2019 election. Two of them were published in 2022 and one in 2012. XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @XYZ 250706: Some subjects take time to gain coverage, while others never attract media attention at any scale. Would you agree that the date of those sources do not matter as long as Federal Front is talked about? AmshitBalcon (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @AmshitBalcon Federal Front must not have a separate article. Some of items of information of this article are already merged in Third Front (India). Date matters as this federal front is for KCR's plan of forming regional party's alliance for 2019 election. All of the sources you gave are speculative in nature. Wikipedia should not have speculation in any way. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 17:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced article. Trying to erase memory of it in Wikipedia because it never happened seems odd. I find plenty of sourcing about the coalition. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources about speculative content is not good. Only talks for a federal front or something like that does not need separate article. There are many examples of unaccomplished alliance in all over world. We need not to have separate articles for it because there will be infinite articles for them. The memory is not erased because some of items of information of this article are already merged in Third Front (India). XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ 250706, please don't put half your words in bold face. It makes it very difficult to read what you say properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So we can keep it then? Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federal front has no importance to have a separate article. It is totally speculative. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Proposed political alliances that never come to anything are not encyclopedic subjects. WP:WWIN WP:NOTNEWS WP:LASTING WP:FUTUREEVENT "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ". // Timothy :: talk 21:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "proposing" an alliance on it's own isn't noteworthy WP:SPECULATION MetricMaster (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

References

^ "TRS weighing options over joining nat'l federal front". The Times of India. 15 August 2021. KCR had mooted the idea of a federal front before the general elections in 2019. He flew from one state to another to discuss the idea with regional satraps like MK Stalin of DMK, Banerjee, HD Deve Gowda of the JD(S) and Naveen Patnaik of the BJD. However, the proposed front could not take off.

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Olave

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

Doesn't meet the old WP:NFOOTY guidelines as doesn't appear to have played in a professional league. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Chile. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since NFOOTY has been deprecated, WP:GNG must be met. And this doesn't.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Zambrano

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

Doesn't meet even the old WP:NFOOTY guidelines as never played professional. So even less notable under WP:SPORTCRIT and can't pass WP:GNG — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, New Zealand, and Chile. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 23:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Economia is the only even slightly decent source out of the ones used and it's not enough on its own. Searches yielded squad list mentions like NZ Herald and Stuff which do not help either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single best source I could find is still short of providing WP:SIGCOV for WP:NOTABILITY purposes. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since NFOOTY has been deprecated, WP:GNG must be met. And this doesn't.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tornadoes of 2022#Costliest United States tornadoes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of costliest tornadoes in 2022

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

This is a database of the costliest tornadoes of each month. Many of these tornadoes lack any notability and this article seemingly fails WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:UNDUE due to the fact that non-notable tornadoes are mentioned here. The notability of the whole article is in question as well, and there is already a section for the top ten at Tornadoes of 2022#Costliest United_States tornadoes. The notability and reliability of these damage totals for individual tornadoes has been called into question by numerous users as well, which is why they've been largely removed from the monthly tornado pages. United States Man (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Redirect to Tornadoes_of_2022#Costliest_United_States_tornadoes, where the topic is already covered. I'm not seeing independent reliable source coverage of this topic as a group that would justify a stand-alone list (nor justify the WP:WEIGHT to include this amount of detail in the main article). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article really doesn't need to exist, as we have not created "List of costliest tornadoes" articles for the other years.

Poodle23 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of costliest tornadoes in 2021 was in progress, but if this is deleted, the draft will end up becoming stale and deleted as well. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rhododendrites, only a few of those tornadoes are actually notable. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 10:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I am honestly not in favor of the List of costliest tornadoes table to begin with since some tornadoes that obviously caused A LOT of damage don't even get damage figures in their final reports. Needless to say, I find an article for it to be TOTALLY unnecessary. I'll go with the redirect option that was previously suggested here. ChessEric 18:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tornadoes of 2022 or delete. There is no reason for this list to exist, as it stands it is wicked UNDUE. The sourcing being >95% from the National Centers for Environmental Information really says it all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Listcrufty, fragments forks content without good reason (basically to implement a sort function), content could easily be incorporated and improve the target. Just because a list can exist, doesn't mean it must exist or should exist. // Timothy :: talk 21:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. While deletion on WP:LISTCRUFT grounds would seem reasonable, I find that the information in the list is largely duplicated elsewhere. Specifically, after searching myself, I would propose Tornadoes of 2022 as the location where this information is already covered in a more succinct and encyclopedic fashion. As such, Tornadoes of 2022 is the appropriate redirect target. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus here that the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Editors are welcome to continue discussing the other issues that have been raised here in appropriate forums (e.g. the article's talk page). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclose.tv

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

I've done a breakdown of the bad sourcing currently used in this article on its talk page yesterday and created this account for AfD.

Almost all sources in the article come down to a short mention of the website's in a list of fake news / conspiracy website no further information or analysis, as well as predate September 2021 since when the website relaunched as a news aggregator; or shortly mention Disclose.tv as the secondary source of a screenshot or headline in their role as an aggregator.

There's two sources used in the article actually discussing Disclose.tv. The first is an article by Logically (company), which in parts acts as a primary source due to the author's own interaction with the staff of the website, and in large parts doesn't even discuss the website's content but their Telegram and (since defunct) Discord channels. The other coverage is an article by Deutsche Welle which in large parts quotes the Logically article author.

I can't find any other reliable sources discussing the website or coverage on its interaction with Logically. The closest thing is this article by Media_Bias/Fact_Check which discusses the Logically article and contradicts the current classification of Disclose.tv as fake news website, but isn't considered a reliable source.

What this comes down to is that the current iteration of the article basically is a rewrite of the Logically article with some WP:OR thrown in regarding the aforementioned other sources. I don't see how this is more notable than any of the website listed on List of fake news websites.

Also as pointed out by others on the talk page, it seems notable that the article was nominated and accepted for WP:DYK after only three days after creation and a single editor working on it. SenorCar (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Conspiracy theories, COVID-19, Websites, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Logically piece discusses the site's content in detail, including its pushing of anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown narratives, and the DW piece has additional info not in the Logically piece, such as interviews with German researchers about the website.

For reference: https://www.logically.ai/articles/disclose.tv-conspiracy-forum-turned-disinformation-factory, https://www.dw.com/en/disclosetv-english-disinformation-made-in-germany/a-60694332

Both Logically and DW are reliable sources. Logically has been certified by the International Fact-Checking Network.

There are plenty of other reliable sources cited, including Snopes, Health Feedback and PolitiFact, so there's no original research involved. Also, DYK allows recently-created articles to be nominated. Isi96 (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, there are more sources cited in the article, and the vast majority of them come down to the mention of the website alongside 20 other fake news websites and predate their relaunch. I've gone through the currently used sources on the article's talk page. That makes the website notable for List of fake news websites, but what warrants its own article? Right now almost all paragraphs of the article contain a variation of "Logically says that..." because there's no real other coverage besides them and the DW article. That's on top of Logically being the primary source cited for calling them a fake news website, which seems WP:UNDUE (e.g. AP calls Disclose.tv a media site and Snopes calls them "conspirational" while citing the MBFC article mentioned above).

I was actually about to generally question the reliability of Logically. The certification of their fact checking doesn't automatically make them a generally reliable source for content from their blog and investigations. Ironically enough, their website seems to have no list of authors writing for them and the link to the author's website profile in the Disclose.tv article leads to a 404 page, and seemingly has so since the article's publication. I can't find many publications beyond the DW article actually citing them either, and don't think their reliability has been discussed before. SenorCar (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logically has been cited by other reliable sources such as The Guardian [1], The New York Times [2], The Washington Post [3], NPR [4] and others. You could bring it to WP:RSN if you wish. Isi96 (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for your input, @Isi96. While it's true that the Logically and DW articles discuss Disclose.tv's content and present certain perspectives, it's essential to maintain a balanced and comprehensive view of the subject. It's important to remember that Disclose.tv has been cited by a variety of reputable news organizations [1][2][3][4], as acknowledged even by Logically AI and DW; its popularity [5][6]. In fact, Disclose.tv has a broader reach and is more popular than Logically, with its content being used as a primary source in numerous reliable and reputable media outlets as cited above. Let's imagine that this also allows Disclose.tv to pass WP:GNG

For reference: https://www.logically.ai/articles/disclose.tv-conspiracy-forum-turned-disinformation-factory

The overemphasis on the minority viewpoint from Logically in the current article does not accurately represent a reasonable balance between the majority opinion on Disclose.tv. By predominantly relying on Logically as a primary source, the article presents a skewed and non-neutral perspective that does not align with Wikipedia's commitment to balancing significant viewpoints as required by the Neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

While Logically and DW are sources, and Logically is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), it's worth noting that Wikipedia does not explicitly list Logically as a reliable source. Although an organization officially recognized by Wikipedia may certify Logically, this does not automatically extend their reliable and reputable status to organizations certified by the IFCN. Consequently, we must be cautious when relying on Logically as a primary source.

Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the author of the Logically article, W. F. Thomas, has a hyperlink that leads to a blank page with no bio, credentials, or information [7]. This lack of transparency and attribution goes against journalistic standards and ethics. Interestingly, Logically seems to be engaging in the same ghostwriting practices that they found Disclose.tv doing at the time of writing.

In addition, we must acknowledge concerns about Logically raised by investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker. Thacker reveals their complex connections to government intelligence, partnerships with social media giants, and questionable personnel choices. These persuasive arguments warrant further scrutiny of Logically as a reliable source, which should be considered when including their content in Wikipedia articles [8].

Additionally, although Snopes, Health Feedback, and PolitiFact are cited, the article's focus on controversies could still create a skewed representation of Disclose.tv.

Lastly, while WP:DYK does allow recently-created articles to be nominated, the nomination process is separate from assessing the article's neutrality, notability, and adherence to Wikipedia's content policies. In light of the severe bias and partisanship in the current article, it appears unlikely that it can be reasonably edited to align with Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutrality. As such, deletion may be the most appropriate course of action to uphold the quality standards of the encyclopedia and ensure that the content we present is reliable, balanced, and adheres to the highest standards. DiamondPuma (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @DiamondPuma seems to be a WP:SPA, with several of their edits being in relation to the Disclose.tv article, including vandalism, for which they previously received a warning from @Liz. Isi96 (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate your concern, @Isi96, and I'd like to clarify my editing pattern. While I do have a genuine interest in the Disclose.tv article, such as yourself, my intention is to contribute constructively and uphold Wikipedia's principles of accuracy and neutrality.

As for Liz's warning, I've taken it to heart, learning and adapting my approach to better align with Wikipedia's guidelines. I have spent much of my time reviewing the rules and better understanding Wiki Policy. I see you too have made errors and received warnings, but that should not discredit the value of our contributions.

It is natural for editors to have a specific area of interest or expertise, and my focus on certain topics does not necessarily imply bias or a hidden agenda.

Please, feel free to reply to any of my points raised so we can both work together towards our common goal of enhancing this invaluable resource. Thanks! :) DiamondPuma (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Substack post in question is a self-published source, so it isn't reliable. It was also shared by none other than Disclose.tv, which makes it even more suspect. Isi96 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, @Isi96. While concerns about self-published sources are valid, let's remember that Paul D. Thacker's Substack post is backed by his reputation as an award-winning investigative journalist and established subject-matter expert.

We should evaluate content based on its merits rather than simply dismissing it due to its origin or who else has shared it. Ad hominem attacks are misleading and disingenuous. Our goal is accuracy and neutrality. Remember: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND

Furthermore, Ad hominem attacks on my credibility and Thacker's work are unfortunate and may violate Wikipedia's "No Personal Attacks" policy (WP:NPA). Putting this aside, let's focus on content and arguments and engage in constructive dialogue to address raised issues.

Thacker's expertise and publication history in reliable sources make his post worth considering, despite potential contentions. His works have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Huffington Post Investigations, the Los Angeles Times, and BMJ to name a few. He is also cited by his peers from Harvard University Law and countless other peer reviewed journals. The sources for which you may find at the bottom of his Wikipedia page. Meaning, that Paul Thacker’s self-published content overwhelmingly passes the WP:GNG litmus test.

However, this is moot. The main issues with the Disclose.tv article are bias and undue weight on certain viewpoints, which violate Wikipedia's policies (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE). Although there are concerns and glaring issues in the topic of sourcing from Logically and others, I’m sure you agree that the self-evident bias and lack of neutrality is what’s most gravely concerning. The article cannot be reasonably rewritten considering its skewed characterization.

To more concisely address these problematic concerns, below I will restore my concise and articulate AfD advocacy, which you deleted as a "wall of text," which does not constitute a wall of text under the Wikipedia:Wall of text essay (it doesn't meet criteria for excessive length, disruptive content, or irrelevance). I am reasonably allowed to comment several times, as long as my opinion remains consistent which it has in accordance with HELP:AFD. In the future, please consider replying or tagging before deleting. You may also consider using my Talk page. I will restore and reformat my advocacy to better align with established formatting and be more focused.

Given the article's bias and partisanship, combined with ad hominem attacks, it seems unlikely we can edit it to align with Wikipedia's policies. Deletion might be the best course to ensure reliable, balanced content meeting high standards. DiamondPuma (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, Ad hominem attacks on my credibility and Thacker's work are unfortunate and may violate Wikipedia's "No Personal Attacks" policy (WP:NPA)." That's interesting, I never mentioned your credibility in my reply, just that Disclose.tv shared the Substack post in question. It seems like you have a conflict of interest with regards to Disclose.tv. Isi96 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the claim that my account is an SPA, it's crucial to focus on the substance of the points raised rather than making unsupported assumptions about my intentions. I have contributed to a wide variety of articles across different subjects. I have been actively involved in Wikipedia discussions and have collaborated with other editors. With proper due-diligence, this is self-evident.

As you mentioned, "@DiamondPuma seems to be a WP:SPA, with several of their edits being in relation to the Disclose.tv article, including vandalism, for which they previously received a warning from @Liz. Isi96 03:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)" I have provided a detailed reply to the above statement and claims in the COI dispute you initiated.

Now, it would be constructive to address the more pressing concerns that have been raised. Can we commit to engaging in a meaningful and solution-oriented dialogue? DiamondPuma (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That argument doesn’t apply to both the WaPo and Times of Israel references he provided, though. SenorCar (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but those references just include tweets from Disclose.tv, and don't mention the site otherwise. Isi96 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reputable and accredited organizations that also find Disclose.tv equally as reliable and reputable, to be able to use them as a source in their articles, bears direct evidence to the need of a more neutral article. For which, the current article self-evidently is not. It disproportionately gives weight to a minority opinion on the topic. DiamondPuma (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Reputable and accredited organizations that also find Disclose.tv equally as reliable and reputable" The sources you mentioned don't comment on Disclose's reliability. Also, not everything Disclose publishes is disinformation, as mentioned in the DW and Logically articles cited. It pushes a mix of conspiracy content and real news.

"It disproportionately gives weight to a minority opinion on the topic." How? You have not cited any sources that state Disclose is a reliable source, and most of the sources I was able to find identified Disclose as a purveyor of disinformation. Do you have sources that say otherwise? Isi96 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Logically is a reliable source, per my comments above. It is supported by the DW reference as well, and there are plenty of other reliable sources cited in the article. Isi96 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a site is a reliable source is a completely different question than whether it is ~~a reliable source~~ notable. None of the links above establish notability. A source could be cited scores, even hundreds of times, as "reliable" but if there is not substantive, independent, secondary coverage of the site itself, it is not notable. Banks Irk (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether a site is a reliable source is a completely different question than whether it is a reliable source." What do you mean here? Isi96 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Fixed it. It's not intuitive, but a source might be reliable without being notable. A lot of the discussion here has focused on whether it is a reliable source, not whether the article fits the requirements of GNG. There is virtually no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Simply being cited is not significant coverage, no matter how many times it happens. Banks Irk (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites at least a dozen RS. The in-depth Deutsche Welle article and Logically article were both from 2022, after the relaunch. Questions about how the article should describe incidents before the 2021 relaunch could be addressed at the article page or on noticeboards. Llll5032 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the article is way too reliant on Logically, I think there's plenty of sourcing to make this notable: keep. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG per sources listed by Isi96. // Timothy :: talk 21:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in Deutsche Welle quoting WP:PRIMARY is the very definition of WP:SECONDARY so don't see why it should be discredited MetricMaster (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Delete: I hope this message finds everyone well. As we join forces to uphold the integrity of our valued encyclopedia, I would like to kindly share my perspective on the Disclose.tv article and respectfully present a compelling case for its deletion. This course of action is in harmony with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, falling under the Five Pillars and the "Wikipedia is Not" (WP:NOT) policies.

WP:5P2 Neutrality (WP:NPOV) & Inability to Address Severe Issues (WP:AfD & WP:PROD): Upon closer examination, the article appears to disproportionately emphasize the criticisms and controversies surrounding Disclose.tv. While reporting on such aspects is essential, we all recognize the importance of a balanced representation to ensure adherence to the principles of neutrality. Given the limited availability of reliable sources and the article's skewed focus on controversies, it becomes evident that the article cannot be reasonably edited to align with Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutrality. In such circumstances, deletion emerges as the most appropriate solution.

Undue Weight (WP:UNDUE): Scrutinizing the article's strong dependence on Logically and Deutsche Welle articles, we can see that this leads to disproportionate emphasis on their viewpoints. The fact that most of the content originates from these two sources, particularly the Logically piece, distorts the representation of Disclose.tv and obstructs a balanced perspective. We can all appreciate the necessity of incorporating diverse sources and presenting information in proportion to its significance.

WP:5P3 Collaborative editing environment (WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND): We all treasure a harmonious and collaborative editing process here on Wikipedia. Regrettably, the actions of user Isi96 such as Ad hominem attacks both on editors and sources, have created a hostile editing environment that hinders cooperation and obstructs the development of a balanced and neutral article. This situation is incompatible with the collaborative spirit that we cherish, and it goes against the WP:NOT policy, which clearly states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or battleground.

In summary: envisioning the points mentioned above, including neutrality, inability to address severe issues, undue weight, and the collaborative editing environment, as well as the principles outlined in the "Wikipedia is Not" policy, I warmly invite you to consider supporting the deletion of the Disclose.tv article. By embracing this course of action, we can preserve the integrity of Wikipedia and ensure that the content we present is reliable, balanced, and adheres to the highest standards. DiamondPuma (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make some interesting observations above, but you don't state your sources. Is the above based on just rumor or do you have first hand knowledge of the situation? We need to understand how you can make the above assessment. // Timothy :: talk 22:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These issues are possible to be fixed. Please see WP:DINC. Roost ^T_C(ping me!) 12:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage is enought to keep the article, besides, the way they have been quoted prior to the DW piece is telling in itself: "… conspiracy website Disclose.tv …" – Daily Times, 2017 "Die Ufo-Website Disclose.tv … (The UFO-Website Disclose.tv)" – NTV, 2015, "… Disclose.tv, a well-established disinformation site …" – medrxiv.org, April 2021, "… Disclose.tv, a site described as involved in disinformation …" –National Library of Medicine, November 2012. OrestesLebt (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for your input, @OrestesLebtt. While the sources you've mentioned do highlight past controversies, it's vital to consider the broader context of Disclose.tv's evolution. Disclose.tv has transformed from a forum and content creator exclusively to a curator and aggregator of news from reputable sources on various subject matter.

I would suggest the creation of a history section that discusses past controversies which could indeed provide valuable context. However, the entire article being focused on controversy violates Wikipedia's undue weight (WP:UNDUE) and neutrality (WP:NPOV) policies. Characterizing Disclose.tv as a fake news website is no longer accurate, as they now aggregate content from reliable sources [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. It appears that they do still cover some topics within popular culture as well, which has an appeal in it's own right [13][14][15][16][17][18].

Given the significant policy violations and the extent to which the article's focus is skewed, I maintain that deletion is the most appropriate course of action. The current state of the article is not reflective of Disclose.tv's present contributions to the dissemination of news, and a fresh start is necessary to create a balanced and neutral representation of the platform. DiamondPuma (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling plagiarism aggregating is bold, and the history is already in the article. I have to say it seems odd to me that you went from clumsily trying to have the article deleted to expert on rules and abbreviations. You present long walls of text for a single argument that has been rejected over and over. Your account is clearly a SPA to get rid of this article. Do you have a COI? OrestesLebt (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding this user. Isi96 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call plagiarism aggregating. I'd like to clarify that news aggregation is not the same as plagiarism. Disclose.tv has acknowledged past issues with plagiarized content but now focuses on news aggregation, crediting original sources as demonstrated in the links provided earlier. It appears that they no longer create original content. News aggregation is a well-established practice, with Google News, Yahoo News, and Bing News as examples. Claiming that Disclose.tv plagiarizes content today is either misinformed or intentionally misleading. I strongly suggest exploring the website and familiarizing yourself with its content if you intend to contribute meaningfully to the article.

Regarding the ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments, I encourage engagement with the points raised, rooted in Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I have no COI and have been transparent about my intentions in previous messages. When my words are misrepresented or my character called into question, I am inclined to reply. That seems to be happening more in this discussion than anywhere else. My responses aim for thoroughness in addressing the discussion's aspects. It's essential to revisit critical points when necessary. My account's goal is to uphold Wikipedia's standards and contribute fairly, not solely focusing on this article. Once-more, let's focus on maintaining Wikipedia's integrity and fostering a productive conversation. DiamondPuma (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I just wrote on the article’s discussion page, the article may be updated once a reliable source confirms your claims. Be patient. Who knows, maybe soon the whole article will have to be put in the past tense anyway, and then it will be just a footnote in the history of misinformation. I am sorry that I hurt your feelings when I referred to your account as SPA and asked if you had a COI. I accept your statements, and encourage you to make Wikipedia better by editing rather than going after articles and editors you don’t like. OrestesLebt (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"News aggregation is a well-established practice, with Google News, Yahoo News, and Bing News as examples." True, but actual news aggregators don't push conspiracy theories and heavily slanted or misleading stories as fact.

"I encourage engagement with the points raised, rooted in Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV." Sure, do you have reliable sources discussing Disclose at length and saying that it isn't a purveyor of disinformation and conspiracy theories? If so, those can be added to the article as well.

As a side note, it's interesting that the Disclose editorial doesn't actually deny the findings of the Logically report, instead choosing to frame it as a conspiracy on their part. Also, they targeted the wrong reporter; Ernie Piper merely reached out to them regarding the report's findings, while the actual research was done by W. F. Thomas. Isi96 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meets WP:NEXIST even if somehow every source currently cited was removed. As that is not happening, it meets WP:GNG and the stricter WP:NCORP. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Slywriter (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deletion is not clean-up. I am sufficiently convinced by the DW and Logically sources in particular that this is a topic with significant coverage; it's always difficult to search Google for sources on media organizations, but a superficial search indicates there may also be German-language sources providing significant coverage as well. Curbon7 (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't have to like something for it to meet the GNG. Miniapolis 23:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep:
- - The article appears to have a combination of reliable and unreliable sources. The nominators are stressing their claim that a few of the sources are unreliable. With 28 sources, some of which are being attacked, even if those that are attacked are rejected as unreliable, it is probable that three of the sources will be found to be reliable, independent, and significant. I will change this to a Weak Delete if the nominators provide an analysis of the sources showing a lack of coverage, although an analysis of sources is not required.
  - The intensity of the deletion discussion makes me wonder if some of the participants in the AFD are trying to right great wrongs, such as the lies being publicized by the subject web site.
  - If the subject organization is facilitating Great Wrongs, Wikipedia, which is written from a neutral point of view can better advance justice by neutrally documenting verifiable information than by deleting the article
  - I will not be surprised to see the close of this AFD discussion, regardless of what the close is, taken to Deletion Review. Unfortunately, this looks like the sort of deletion discussion that ends with an appeal to DRV, and an endorsement of the close.
  - This may be an organization that is partly famous for being famous, or known for being controversial. When in doubt as to whether a controversial organization is notable, Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusivity.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus of uninvolved edtors is Keep As I wrote above, I don't think the subject is notable, but is clear to me that the weight and consensus of uninvolved editors above is to keep. I'm fine with that. I am also mystified and dismayed at the tone and contentiousness of this discussion by the involved editors, including the completely unnecessary and inappropriate spillover into other dramaboards. Somebody with sufficient stripes on their sleeve should close this now and put the drama to an end. Banks Irk (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ultimately, the sourcing does satisfy WP:NOTABILITY requirements. If it wasn’t for this, I would say delete. However, the subject has demonstrable notability as demonstrated by SIGCOV in independent RS. What this ultimately comes down to is whether or not the subject is notable, such that if the subject isn’t notable then the article should be deleted, whereas if the subject is notable then the article should be kept. What I see in the article and looking into the background on my own, is that the subject is indeed notable. The most important question to answer is whether or not the sources establish notability. There is a clear case to be made that the sources do establish notability. As such, the appropriate outcome is to keep the article. Shawn Teller (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Aoidh (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rawandiz massacre

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rawandiz massacre

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

Article uses unreliable sources, does not accurately describe the actual event, and uses references written by a genocidal denier Samuel Weems in which I removed, it should be deleted. I spent time researching the references and none could actually directly confirm the events in which are to said to happen on the article.Nocturnal781 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Nocturnal781 (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Nocturnal781 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Weak Delete See conversation below for justification for change to weak delete. The sourcing in this article is an absolute mess, but I am not yet confident this event did not occur and is not notable. It needs more sourcing and unfortunately it’s not easy sourcing.

Apparently Kenneth Mason covered it in a 1919 piece:

https://ia800708.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/28/items/crossref-pre-1923-scholarly-works/10.2307%252F1779073.zip&file=10.2307%252F1779409.pdf

A footnote in this book addresses Mason’s says it didn’t happen, page 337, but appears to base that on the Russian ambassador’s “trust me bro” to a degree I’m not comfortable with. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Kurdish_National_Movement.html?id=FCbspX-dGPYC

Apparently, the Cambridge History of the Kurds mentions it, but I could only see a clip of the texthttps://books.google.com/books/about/The_Cambridge_History_of_the_Kurds.html?id=IXgnEAAAQBAJ

I was also able to find various bits confirming the Noel mentioning in the one article cite was in that area during those years.

Absent a better source review, I’m just not confident enough to support deletion yet. I’m going to keep looking into it tad, but I hope those sources help others do so as well.

Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, History, Iraq, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we cannot prove this was an actual a massacre it does not warrant an article. It needs reliable sources by reliable people like a historian. I've searched far and wide and found 0 information indicating a massacre occurred by a reliable source. But if you find any please let me know.Nocturnal781 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first link I provided is by Kenneth Mason (geographer). While he is not a true historian, at that time there was a lot of overlap. In the work I linked, he wrote:

“On 23 August 1916 the Russian general, Chernozubov, defeated the 4th Turkish division at Lalgan on the Persian side of the frontier, and drove the Turks back on Rowanduz. Two Turkish regiments were captured, and about two-thirds of the town population fled. The Armenian troops with the Russians massacred about five thousand Kurds, men, women, and children, by driving them over the cliffs of the Rowanduz gorge at the point of the bayonet. Even the Armenian can be a bit of a tiger when he has a defenceless prey.

Russia now overran the country. Some of the tribes were glad to be freed from Turkish misrule; others were not. Unfortunately the Russian is no administrator in countries such as these. He had no political officers with his troops and no method of liaison with the inhabitants. Friction followed licence and the Kurds turned on the Russians. Individual tribes harried and harassed the Russian communications and cut up small parties. They could not operate together, and suffered in various degrees in con- sequence. When Russia later on evacuated the district, for their own safety they took the precaution of wiping out almost every village on their line of retreat. Not one village remains intact between Rowanduz and the Garaushinke pass, and many are so completely obliterated as to remind one of the raids of Hulakhu Khan, who used to make his prisoners plough up the land over the villages and towns he destroyed.”

I am still looking into it to see if a more recent historian may have written on it.

Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found this article speaking on this also, “Kutley seems to have used an essay by the well-known historian Dr. Kemal Mazhar Ahmed published in 1975 by the Kurdish Academy in Baghdad. “The city was taken on May 13. The Armenians fedayeens wanted to take vengeance and as a result they shed a lot of blood. According to some sources, at the end of the massacre 5000 Kurdish women, children, and men were killed. Many of them had not been shot but had been thrust into the Rawanduz gorge.” Ahmed’s work states. In a footnote, he refers to a book by K. Mason, an English officer at the time. It dealt with the question of the Turkish-Iraqi border and the role of the League of Nations. It is curious that in his footnote remarks K.M. Ahmad himself doubts that in Rawanduz 5000 Kurds had been killed: “This figure seems to be exaggerated. Neither M.H. Zeki, who reports on the destructions of the war, nor Hüseyn H. Mukriyani, who lived in Rawanduz after World War I and wrote about it, cite such a figure. Among the people it was said that many Kurdish women had thrown themselves into the gorge to save their honor.” Thus, not only is the number 5000 murdered Kurds questionable, but also whether or not such a mass murder took place at all in Rawanduz. Naci Kutlay seems either not to have read this important remark by K.M. Ahmed or to have deliberately concealed it. ” Basically a well known Historian doubting what Mason said is true.[5] Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a further follow up, a footnote in The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development by Wadie Jwaideh, footnote 14 on page 337 mentions Mason’s assertion but says it is refuted by the account of Russian consul Nikitine and cites as proof Nikitine’s “La systeme routier du Kurdistan”, in La Geographre 03, nos. 56 May-lune 1935:363-85.

There’s an account remarkably similar to Mason’s in this semi-contemporaneous source arguing in support of a treaty: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Treaty_with_Turkey.html?id=3AVQAQAAMAAJ

And this book, Beyond Isis, page 114 mentions a Russian massacre of Kurds in 1916 af Rawandiz https://books.google.com/books/about/Beyond_ISIS_History_and_Future_of_Religi.html?id=XIeXDwAAQBAJ

The Cambridge History of the Kurds link gave a useful cite, noting:

“At the same time, in some cases the Kurds were the objects of violence: in 1916 Russian forces allied with Armenian volunteers seized the town of Rawanduz, engaging in massacre and pillage (Hay, 2008: 137–8).”

That appears to be Hay, R. (2008). Iraq and Rupert Hay's Two Years in Kurdistan. Plymouth: Lexington. Which turns out is actually Rupert Hay’s account of his time in Kurdistan, not a secondary source, just edited and compiled by Paul Rich.

So, it looks like there’s two sets of narratives, one is that it occurred and one is that it didn’t occur or was a smaller event than some sources suggest. While the available evidence for the event happening is more credible in a vacuum, as it doesn’t ultimately come from a source with a potential motive for disguising the events (Nikitine), I’m concerned that I do see some mention of the Armenian genocide in at least one of the contemporary sources, and so I’m concerned there’s some taint of anti-Armenia bias to at least two of those sources (the one about the treaty and Mason’s comment about defenseless prey), which starts pushing things above where I’m comfortable trying to suss out motives in sources just for an AfD.

While I still conclude there are substantial sources, I do not think this article can be written without original research at this point, due to the considerable unresolved historical question in those sources. Even the secondary historical/geographical sources are conflicted into two primary viewpoints that are diametrically opposed. I am therefore now at weak delete, unless somebody can find a more recent work that persuasively documents the event and explains away the contrary reporting. Jo7hs2 (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor follow up comment, I did a little more digging in Wikipedia Library under both spellings of Rawandiz I’ve seen used and found nothing remarkable beyond what we already found. I think we pretty much dug everything up. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I appreciate when people take the time to do this. Nocturnal781 (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jo7hs2 has done a good investigation of sources and I agree with their conclusions. // Timothy :: talk 21:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

António Lino de Sousa Horta Osório

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

Doesn't meet notability. Son is notable, but this guy is a lawyer who won some regional table tennis tournaments. Nswix (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. N is not inherited, BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 21:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Fails GNG and BIO. I honestly don't see any reason for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LanguageWire

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

This has a bunch of cites, but none of them meet WP:CORPDEPTH - just the usual press release churnalism and funding announcements. It should also be noted that this article is the product of COI editors. This ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG and CORP. Nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
Database record	"LANGUAGEWIRE A/S i Frederiksberg - CVR API". cvrapi.dk (in Danish). Retrieved 2020-06-10.
Appears promotional	Elstrup, Morten (2017-05-04). "Skabte sprogfirma ved et tilfælde: Nu bliver far og søn forgyldt". borsen.dk. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
List mention	"The Largest Language Service Providers: 2019". csa-research.com. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
Routine news, no SIGCOV	"PE Fund Buys LanguageWire as Deal Fever Grips Denmark". Slator. 2017-05-05. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
Routine news, no SIGCOV	"LanguageWire Selects CFO Justesen as New CEO". Slator. 2020-06-15. Retrieved 2020-06-17.
Primary	"WorldLanguageForum ApS Annual Report 2001" (PDF). CVR API.
Routine news, no SIGCOV	"PE Fund Buys LanguageWire as Deal Fever Grips Denmark". Slator. 2017-05-05. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
Routine news, no SIGCOV	"LanguageWire Buys Frontlab in Tuck-in Tech Acquisition". Slator. 2018-03-20. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
Routine news, no SIGCOV	"LanguageWire Acquires Xplanation As Consolidation in Europe Accelerates Rapidly". Slator. 2018-10-31. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
Routine news, no SIGCOV	"LanguageWire Selects CFO Justesen as New CEO". Slator. 2020-06-15. Retrieved 2020-06-17.

// Timothy :: talk 22:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I mostly concur with Timothy's evaluation, while the second mentioned source, borsen.dk is generally thought to be reliable, it is unfortunately pay-walled, making it hard to consider it's coverage. askeuhd (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per TimothyBlue's ref assessment.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the available sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Shawn Teller (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus is not a vote, and a number of the keep arguments here are very weak and can be discounted. Even doing that, though, we still have reasonable disagreement about whether the sources are sufficient, and given the numerical split that means there's no consensus. (For the benefit of readers, this means that the article will be kept, at least for now.) I'm not relisting a second time given the heavy participation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Vlaardingerbroek

AfDs for this article:

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

While this isn't a G4, it does not appear that the factors raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Vlaardingerbroek have been resolved in this version. She has been in the news for her activism, but I am unable to find anything in depth. Star Mississippi 15:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Netherlands. Star Mississippi 15:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Note, Dr. B has requested not to be noticed of AfDs. Hence no note there. Don't want anyone to think I wasn't notifying them deliberately.) Star Mississippi 15:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I translated this from the Dutch version. I read Dutch articles am learning Dutch, so even if this is deleted again, I learned something from reading the sources. She has quite a few articles about her in mainstream Dutch news sources/magazines/online sites, and has made some notable TV appearances in the US and UK whether you agree with her opinions or not. Articles about her in the top Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf here, here, here but behind paywall. More full articles about her here in de Volkskrant, here in Trouw, here in RTL Nieuws, here in De Limburger and in Leidsch Dagblad here but behind paywalls. here, here and here in Het Parool, here in NOS (national broadcaster of Netherlands), and here in BNNVARA. This is in French, from the magazine Causeur, typical of the sort of coverage she has received. I am aware that she is a controversial figure, but she does have articles on her on five other Wikis and I thought it was inevitable that this article would have been recreated here at a later date. I think this can be further expanded by scouring the Dutch newspapers and notable online sites but most of them are behind paywalls... There is probably a valid reason why you can't find sources in the search engines. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has plenty of sources, and a search in Google News turns up many more. I disagree with her views on covid vaccination and feminism, and really do not believe that the Dutch government is conspiring with the World Economic Forum to grab farmland and use it to house immigrants in a supercity. But she is notable. Banning mention of subjects they dislike is what authoritarian governments do, not Wkiipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing authoritarian in deleting an article about an unnotable subject. Not even if the person in question herself says so. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. looks like a well sourced article. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources written about her in reliable Dutch sources to pass requirements, and dozens of further hits which could be used to expand this though most are behind a paywall. She has a big following on social media and to not have an article on here when she's on five other Wikipedias would look like we're trying to censor things. I think she would have a lot more coverage in big newspapers across Europe if her views and actions weren't the opposite of what their governments want to see. I think she's someone who'll become a bigger name over the next few years, whether you agree with her or not. I tried to add some criticism of her views on feminism for neutrality purposes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me as I add my comments< as I cannot see where one can write independently>

Anyhow, your comment seems to suggest that deleting Eva from Wikipedia, if that's what this is about, would be a rather retrograde step.

Her views would be welcome by many. Some may oppose them, but then if free discourse is to take place, censorship would be inadvisable. Censorship should only be used for violence, explicit (overt) content, incitement to illegality, etc. I would think that most people can discern for themselves, and those who might wish to censor other people, may not like the same done to them.

But it could be that many are open to either seeing another side, or they might be trying to formulate their own understanding. Deletion would stifle this.

Personally, I do have sympathy with Eva's stand , or stance. I refer to her by Christian name, as her surname is quite long and not easy to remember !

Eva is highly educated and very accomplished in her communication and formulation of her thoughts, and as this article says, she will go far.

Highly commendable. DREWF75 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— DREWF75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since the previous AfD, which was only four months ago, absolutely nothing has changed to make her more notable than she was then. Her claim to notability is entirely based on the fact that she was on a draft list of FVD candidates back in 2020 and subsequently was one of those who left after the party exploded. If this would really make her notable, she would at least have been mentioned in Forum for Democracy or Thierry Baudet, but neither is the case. All the rest are videos on YouTube and Instagram, an internship in Brussels for half a year, two jobs that didn't last longer than a few months, a speech, a few opinion articles, a few TV appearances, and a few love relationships.
I would strongly suggest participants in this discussion to actually read the sources instead of just counting them. Most of the links given are not about Eva Vlaardingerbroek in particular, but just mention her in the context of that event from 2020; the more recent ones are columns mentioning her as an example of the extreme right grotesquely trying to hijack farmers' protests. The last link is about her father and only mentions Eva as a regular spreader of fake news. In reality, there is hardly any non-trivial coverage about this lady. And being intelligent or having interesting views obviously does not in itself make a person notable. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 10:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the first AFD the sources written purely about her in reliable sources wasn't demonstrated as it has been here. All of the sources linked above are about her and demonstrate notability. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are as reliable as they were four months ago. Recreating an article that has recently been deleted for lack of notability requires at least that the subject is more notable now than it was then. Besides, my point is that the existence of a few reliable sources alone is no evidence of notability: they should at least make it clear WHY the subject is notable. Her role in the collapse of FVD was a minor one, which probably explains why she isn't even mentioned in Forum for Democracy. Making videos on Instagram and YouTube doesn't make a person notable. All that's left is a person with extreme right views appearing a couple of times in extreme right media for no other reason than being a person with extreme right views? I mean, it's not like everybody who has ever been on TV is automatically important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, is it? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - okay, I don't know the lady, just came across this article (I'm a little sensitive to second-time AfDs). A sourced quote in the article says she is known for her opinions, clearly evidence of notability even without having to go to the rest of it, if you ask me; but she appears to have taken part on several famous news shows; and, to put it simply, the article is well sourced and meets WP:GNG. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's on a delete list, she has been gaining ground voicing the worries and tribulations of the Dutch farmers that echo across nations and are at odds with most government agendas at this time. We should instead keep this page and pay attention to her work and have conversations, exchange of ideas in order to move forward and do the best for the individual and the world. 2603:8000:A801:DA9:145A:E54C:F6D6:7A60 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is still not notable in any way. I totally agree with IJzeren Jan. --ZemanZorg (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ZemanZorg was the original AFD nominator and doesn't appear to be very experienced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZemanZorg: are you saying that none of the sources listed above that discuss her actually discuss her? There were no interviews on Fox, no discussion on Politico? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came to wikipedia to learn more about her after hearing her interviewed on the news. She is already in the news and wiki ought to have a record of some sort. Her notoriety lead me to want to learn more. 76.191.33.2 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, hundreds of views each day [6] ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Farmer–Citizen Movement, which opposes government regulations to cut nitrogen emissions from fertilizers, just won over 20% in the provincial elections and will now have 15 seats in the Senate, making it the largest party. Vlaardingerbroek seems to share many of their views. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Vlaardingerbroek is not affiliated with the BBB, and her views are far from those of the BBB. But even if, how does sharing the views of a political party affect an individual's notability? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just that she seemed to be in the thick of things during the run-up to the elections, giving her rather conspiratorial views of the nitrogen emission regulations. She was talking at demos, appearing on talk shows and generally getting herself noticed. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per previous comments. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Within the past week she has appeared on Jordan Peterson interview on Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.43.132 (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anything associated with Tucker carlson is suspect. Nuff said. 2601:840:8081:BC60:81CB:D701:CF4E:5533 (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Not seeing any policy-based arguments in the keep !votes above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is a political commentator with an international presence. WP articles exist in several languages. The present article is well-researched. Ekem (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page. Important for current discussions — Preceding unsigned comment added by GvtQTPI (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC) — GvtQTPI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The motive for deletion seems to be a dislike of the opinions of the subject. That’s not a good motive. 85.94.240.254 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi I think had genuine issues with the sources. Though I would have withdrawn personally if I saw somebody showed over a dozen sources written about it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for moving the input @Dr. Blofeld. You know I absolutely respect your writing and research and there was no malice in the deletion. I'll be honest, I wasn't familiar with the subject. To avoid a 3rd AfD-which none of us want- I felt consensus better than an early withdrawal. Star Mississippi 12:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not being deleted because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'd rather get the opposite impression: that at least some of those who absolutely want this article to be preserved are motivated by sympathy for her views. Ultimately, none of that matters. Although I have nothing but respect for Dr. Blofeld's work (and I am a fan of Blofeld in the performance of Donald Pleasence!). This is just about notability. Dr. Blofeld, where did you find this dozen sources that are only about her? The only two articles that are really about her are the dienstmaagd article in the Telegraaf (notes 6 and 19) and the interview (note 3). Notes 20–22 are only her relationship with Thierry Baudet; notes 9–10 are only about her being one of a few people being employed and then fired by a lawyer; notes 1, 5 and 14 only mention her briefly but do not give any substantial information; notes 2, 7, 11, 15, 16 en 18 are primary sources; note 12 is just a picture; note 17 is about her father; notes 4, 8 and 13 are columns (at least at the Dutch Wikipedia columns are not considered reliable sources). But that's not even my point. I still haven't seen a satisfying answer to the question what exactly makes her notable. She never held any political office, she is neither a scientist nor a journalist nor a writer, and except for a few months at a law firm never even had a job. True, she has been interviewed a couple of times by far right media, but every day, ever hour even, thousands of people are being interviewed on radio or TV. Shouldn't a person at least have achieved something to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly more sources which are purely about her than that, Het Parool and Causeur for a start. And she is mentioned in the title on a few of the sources, which if she wasn't notable she wouldn't be highlighted. I think you'll find that there are more conservative publications across Europe which have articles on her. The "mainstream media" as the right like to call it, particularly those controlled or partly funded by the government are not exactly going to rave about an opponent who is criticizing them internationally in big western countries like the US and Britain anyway. I dislike seeing Wikipedia criticized in the media or on social media as being portrayed as some sort of Far-Left controlled outlet which tries to block, censor or attack conservative people or views. Similarly I disliked Ted Gioia's (non political) criticism of Wikipedia and the deletion of an article he was interested in. I ended up recreating it and setting the record straight that the system isn't being gamed as he had thought. I will defend us if I think we are being attacked for not being neutral regardless if the subject is on the right or left or it's not politically related and will recreate something if I think the decision was wrong and the sources are there. The Farmer's protests and activism I think is a very notable contemporary subject in the Netherlands as Aymatth pointed out. Millions of people know who she is from her interviews in the US and UK, whether or not she has had a career like Baudet, and each day hundreds of people visit us looking for information about her. They will naturally assume we are being censored when five other Wikipedias have articles on her, and it is inevitable that it would be recreated (in a much worse state than currently). There's many articles about Pokemon characters and Youtubers I'd gladly throw in the bin and don't think are notable, but she is notable to these people looking for information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, for taking the time to reply. But let me ask you: have you actually read these sources? Because if you have, you should have noticed that the text from Het Parool is a column, in other words: the opinion of one person. Same goes for the Causeur text. Both are even written in the first person! Besides, how can you claim the Causeur article is "purely about her", since all it says about her is that she is pretty, that she Julien Rochedy's girlfriend, and that she denounced feminism at an FVD meeting? That's my problem with all these sources except for the two I mentioned: either they just mention her in some broader context, or they are personal opinions. See also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. As for your other arguments:

You are quite right about Wikipedia being attacked by the far right for "censorship", but you are boogieing on thin ice if that's a reason for you to be extra lenient towards them. Don't you agree that would be succumbing to intimidation? Besides, there's nothing uncommon about the censorship card being drawn in deletion discussions about unnotable subjects, and the fact that the far right makes more noise about it doesn't change that.
The farmers' protest is indeed a very notable subject and it is already covered. But being there does not make an individual participant notable. (see: WP:INHERIT).
„Millions of people know who she is” – that's a bold statement that requires proof, but even if it's true: WP:BIG.
„hundreds of people visit us looking for information about her” – you don't know that. People may land on a page for various reasons, and statistics are easy to manipulate. But even then, it's not a notability criterion (see: WP:POPULARPAGE).
„five other Wikipedias have articles on her” – same thing (see: WP:OTHERLANGS).
„it is inevitable that it would be recreated” – not necessarily, it is always possible to put a lock on a title to prevent people from recreating a page about a non-notable subject.
„There's many articles about Pokemon characters and Youtubers” – again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid criterion.

And let me repeat: this is not about censorship of political views, but much as I appreciate your efforts, I simply don't see how the sources you quote provide genuine evidence of notability. Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of one person is still coverage and valid in encyclopedia articles. It's not about being "extra lenient" to anybody, it proves them wrong if anything as they thought there was a cabal of editors conspiring to censor her from here at all costs. If I thought we were right to delete it and that the sources weren't there I wouldn't touch it with bargepole. I'm surprised that there is an article on Dutch Wikipedia then if there are many like you who think she's not notable. Was there ever an AFD on Dutch Wikipedia? If it was kept, why was that? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page meets relevant criteria. Globesam (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Globesam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 14:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject has appeared in media to a degree sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV guidelines and warrant keeping the article under WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. The case for deletion would be stronger if these conditions weren’t met (i.e. if the subject didn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY under WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG). However, the degree to which the subject has appeared in media is sufficient to satisfy the relevant guidelines SIGCOV, RS, GNG, and NPERSON, and as such the argument for keeping is stronger on its merits than that for deletion. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 00:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onomondo

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

This has a bunch of cites, but none of them meet WP:CORPDEPTH - just the usual press release churnalism and funding announcements. It should also be noted that this article is the product of COI editors. This ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites Microsoft Pulse, Tech Crunch, Børsen, and Mobile Europe. @MrOllie does not seem to be a subject matter expert in the telecommunications industry or IoT. The question of deletion should be regarded by people who have read and understood the cited articles, which are not press releases or funding announcements. Mikeindenmark (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC) — Mikeindenmark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Sources appear largely promotional. Fails GNG and CORP.

My source eval:

Comments	Reference
Promotional	1. "Maersk and Onomondo: a partnership that's making all the right IoT connections". Microsoft Pulse. 2020-12-02. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
Public notice	2. ^ "ONOMONDO ApS ændrer ejerforhold". lasso.dk. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
Medium article	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Adrian, Philip (2021-03-16). "Breaking through borders: Our partnership with Onomondo". Medium. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
Promotional	4. ^ "Maersk and Onomondo: a partnership that's making all the right IoT connections". Microsoft Pulse. 2020-12-02. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
Promotional	5. ^ "Danske IT-iværksættere bag ny revolutionær telesoftware". Trendsonline.dk (in Danish). 2014-05-19. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
Promotional	6. ^ "Hello World Mobile becomes onomondo and secures € 1.2 M funding". Øresund Startups. 2014-11-21. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
Interview with promo commentary	7. ^ Ramsby, Julie Holst (2019-04-04). "Milliardærfamilie skyder millioner i ungt netværksfirma:". borsen.dk. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
Appears promotional, if not ROUTINE, Interview content	8. ^ Rossmeisl, Caroline (2021-07-28). "Dansk startup rejser millioninvestering fra Vækstfonden: Nu skal der sættes fut i global ekspansion". borsen.dk. Retrieved 2021-08-20.
Routine news, not SIGCOV	9. ^ "Onomondo secures cash to expand its network for IoT devices". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
Promotional	10. ^ Alleven, Monica (Nov 11, 2022). "Onomondo pitches SoftSIM to boost IoT innovation". Fierce Wireless. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Promotional	11. ^ "eSIM-Alternattive aus der Cloud". www.it-zoom.de (in German). Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Promotional	12. ^ Allen, Patricia (2022-11-14). "Launches, Partnerships & Expansions: Interesting startup milestones last week". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Promotional	13. ^ Booth, Nick (2023-03-01). "Onomondo and SIMCom lower the entry bar for IoT". Mobile Europe. Retrieved 2023-03-19.

// Timothy :: talk 22:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article and the sources appear to based on a handful of promotional outreach efforts/press release. I failed to find any additional sources that did not follow this pattern as well. Per Timothy. --askeuhd (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only cite that is true [WP:SECONDARY]] is the techcrunch one, and raising $21M isn't WP:SIGCOV enough on its own MetricMaster (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Democratic Alliance (Kerala)

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

Delete: This article does not contain any citation. The article can be regarded as WP:REDUNDANT FORK as article on NDA is already there and this article should be deleted and some items of information like member parties can be added to National Democratic Alliance. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2023

Delete or redirect to National Democratic Alliance. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough RS Alex-h (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom, FORK that serves no purpose but to fragment content and make readers chase links. If IS RS with encyclopedic content is found, it can be included in National Democratic Alliance, but I don't see any content here right now that would improve the target. // Timothy :: talk 22:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Njacko Backo

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO Plutonium27 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you got the template wrong, so just to save you the trouble, I notice the nomination. Thanks. CT55555(talk) 21:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He seems to be notable for more than just music, so I'm looking at WP:BASIC more than MUSICBIO. I think he just passes GNG (or maybe more clearly passes WP:BASIC due to:

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2013/03/29/from_there_to_here_musician_njacko_backo_shares_his_reasons_to_love_canada.html (reliant on primary sources)
This piece in The Morning Call https://www.mcall.com/1999/08/28/njacko-backo-brings-joy-back-to-volksplatz/
Kalimba his friend: Njacko Backo touches people musically: [Final Edition] Levesque, Roger. Edmonton Journal; Edmonton, Alta. [Edmonton, Alta]. 20 July 1999: C2. (Brief and does rely on a quote
https://www.bradfordtoday.ca/towninfo/african-voyages-a-virtual-performance-by-njacko-backo-5019774 (very short)
Toronto Star: Composer, singer and dancer njacko backo, whose group kalimba! kalimba! perform at the free festive earth spring fair this sunday at riverdale park east (broadview]: [1 edition]. (1999, Apr 28). Toronto Star Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/composer-singer-dancer-njacko-backo-whose-group/docview/437913507/se-2 (does rely on a quote)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/toronto-housing-plea-privacy-1.3597317 (reliant on primary sources)
Radio Canada Interview about award shortlist: https://ici.radio-canada.ca/ohdio/premiere/emissions/y-a-pas-deux-matins-pareils/segments/entrevue/141991/prix-johanna-metcalf-njacko-backo-michael-trent?fbclid=IwAR3-RfO3EwnpG9SyDNcVX-ZeJjsDAe-9WfpId5-rqiiaNzxVfdwfruZ5mZo
There is a profile (half a page) here: Williams, D. P. (2006). Who's who in Black Canada 2: Black Success and Black Excellence in Canada : a Contemporary Directory. Canada: D.P. Williams.
There is a photo and on paragraph here: Entrances. Performing Arts & Entertainment in Canada, [s. l.], v. 34, n. 1, p. 4, 2002. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=8684675&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 19 mar. 2023.
There is a paragraph here: TUTTY, P. From Saskatchewan. Canadian Folk Music, [s. l.], v. 35, n. 2, p. 22–23, 2001. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=59685440&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 19 mar. 2023.

In summary: there is lots of coverage, especially around 1999 2000 visible via ProQuest. The article includes a fair claim of notability as one of the few players of an instrument in the whole western world. His immigration and housing situation was making news more recently. I see him as notable.

CT55555(talk) 21:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Cameroon, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need improved sourcing, but he clearly passes NMUSIC, as he's got at least two nominations for major national music awards (the Canadian Folk Music Award and the Juno Award) under his belt; note that the Juno Awards are even explicitly named in NMUSIC #8 as one of the canonical examples of an award that passes it ("such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award"), making it absolutely impossible for anybody who had actually read NMUSIC to miss. And as noted above, better sourcing does exist out there to fix the current sourcing problems with. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC as explained above and has reliable sources coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject passes WP:NMUSIC as the relevant policy guideline, as demonstrated by significant coverage in independent secondary reliable source media for the purposes of showing notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while a poorly sourced article (and needs to be trimmed per WP:VERIFY if kept), the Juno award puts him over the GNG barrier.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 00:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gokul Ashram

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

Undoubtedly worthwhile, but alas ultimately non-notable organisation. The sources cited don't come even close to establishing notability, and a search finds nothing better. Has been draftified, but the creator insists on publishing it. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Maharashtra. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two WP:SEC cites, both from same source. Fails WP:ORGCRIT: "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." MetricMaster (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Could probably have been A7'd.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basantapur High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL as it meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. Searches in English and Bengali found no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources of this Basantapur High School (there is another in India). Worldbruce (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable school ImperialMajority (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom says, searching "বসন্তপুর উচ্চ বিদ্যালয়" yields no decent coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated for PROD, thus ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 00:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of David Ozora Latumahina

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

BLP1E. Fails GNG WP:SBST, WP:EVENTS, WP:CRIME (no "persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources") Does not meet any of the three conditions of WP:BLP1E. "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" // Timothy :: talk 18:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is some WP:RS but this is such a recent case, and there is no general notability shown. Agree that WP:BLP1E applies. Even though foreign language cites should be OK the complete lack of English cites could be a factor against notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Feel this is a case of WP:BIO1E. Can't see this having any lasting coverage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked into this on my own as well and come to the conclusion that the article subject fails WP:SBST, WP:EVENTS, and WP:CRIME. I’d also like to point out that as a separate issue, I found that the subject doesn’t meet WP:BLP 1E. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G5, creation by blocked user in defiance of block. The only contributors are blocked sockpuppets. I think the best outcome for the article is deletion, with the option for recreation by an editor in good standing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Ripa

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

Non notable film actress. All of sources are either interview masquerading-as-an-article or press release type. Didn't won any major/notable award. The person didn't played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was moved from draft space to article space by a sock. If it hadn't already been nominated for AfD, I probably would have moved it back per WP:BANREVERT. Perhaps it's best to evaluate whether it should exist in any space.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgenia Dudka

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

Fails GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. Article is a 1E BIO. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Sources in article are routine, and do not show notability beyond 1E. BEFORE showed nothing more. If anyone finds IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth showing this is not a 1E, ping me // Timothy :: talk 18:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly, just a soldier and a victim of war. Her rank is not a point of notability, nor is anything within the article indicative of such. There is a stark lack of establishing a notability throughout, and leaving the article open for improvements will never change this. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. ImperialMajority (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ImperialMajority, yes, this article should probably be deleted, but I have removed the first sentence of that statement. The WP:BLP policy applies everywhere, not just in articles, and that is a clear breach. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't like the comment at all and I thought it was WP:IDL, but she is not living, so I don't think BLP applies. CT55555(talk) 23:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased as well as the living. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that. Thanks for pointing that out. Apologies for my error. CT55555(talk) 21:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How User:TimothyBlue, doe she fail WP:ANYBIO, when she has a Order for Courage. That seems like a pass of criterion 1. CT55555(talk) 00:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: She received the third class of the award, which is a sixth level award from Hero of Ukraine. ANYBIO states "People are likely to be notable" if they have received; if this passes ANYBIO (I don't think it does), the subject is still only "likely" to be notable, ANYBIO does even use the word presumed. In this case the award is connected to 1E, there are no other sources showing notability and ANYBIO doesn't provide any exception from notability guidelines, it simply says they are "likely" to be notable.
No objection to a merge and redirect to an article about the event per 1E, if the article is created and has sources showing notability.

I have added the information and references from uk wikipedia to the article. // Timothy :: talk 00:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nothing noteworthy about her service. WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 "a well-known and significant award" is usually held to mean the nation's highest award. Order for Courage (3rd grade) is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: this leaves me confused about how to vote. Clearly you've bee doing this for a while so I trust your comment. And yet "the nation's highest" seems like a much higher bar than "well-known and significant". I'm now wondering what obligation there is on me to run with tradition or my own reading of the guidance. That said, I don't actually know how well known the award is, I just see it made the news. I think I'll watch how the conversation progresses and stay out until/unless I gain a better understanding. CT55555(talk) 01:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, an example of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. An additional take is that any claim to notability by satisfying WP:ANYBIO isn’t actually satisfied by the nature of the the award. Shawn Teller (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Bromby

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

BLP article fails GNG, ANYBIO, BASIC. Sources in article are two primary and one promotional. Essentially and unsourced BLP. BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 17:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Australia, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Unless someone can find evidence of winning a major award. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources are primary. Fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find much else on google // GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails notability per above. Alex-h (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cats and the Internet. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catloaf

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

This is just a term for a way cats sit that people on the Internet find particularly cute. The definition of catloaf as a term is dealt with at Wiktionary. The only sources in the article are not particularly reliable and hardly qualify as WP:SIGCOV. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cats and the Internet this would be the best for this article. Catfurball (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a merge is the final outcome, Cats and the Internet might be a better target. Joyous! Noise! 19:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cats and the Internet or potentially Cat behaviour, the content is sound but doesn't necessarily warrent it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInsatiableOne (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Cat behaviour and Cats and the Internet per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Here are sources I found about the subject.
1. Paoletta, Rae (2017-11-22). "Why Do Cats Look Like Loaves of Bread Sometimes? We Asked a Scientist". Inverse. Archived from the original on 2023-03-22. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  The article notes: "Cat owners have many names for an adorable phenomenon none of us quite understand. For the sake of conversation, we’ll call it “loafing” — it’s when a cat tucks in his or her paws and looks exactly like a loaf of bread. While it’s damn near impossible to understand what’s going on with cats 99 percent of the time, a scientist who studies cats tells Inverse there’s actually a reasonable explanation for this. It’s also pretty cute, to boot. ... “Generally speaking, a cat who is lying with their paws tucked underneath them is considered relaxed,” cat researcher Mikel Delgado, a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis, tells Inverse. “They aren’t preparing to defend themselves or run away.”"
2. Mellor, Cameron (2022-08-13). "From the lap curl to the Superman: What your cat's sleeping position really means". Derby Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-03-22. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  The article notes: "The loaf is another very popular position for cats to sleep in - sitting upright with her front paws tucked in under her body, making her look just like a loaf of bread. ... It’s often accompanied by closed eyes, as a sign of complete contentment, but she’s unlikely to be in a deep sleep. This is far more of a quick catnap pose and chances are she’ll remain fairly alert. Regardless, this is a very relaxed cat sleeping position that lets her enjoy some rest while keeping watch over her kitty kingdom."
3. Rosenberg, Kathryn (2022-01-18). "6 cat sleep positions: What they tell you about your kitty". PetsRadar. Future US. Archived from the original on 2023-03-22. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  The article notes: "When your cat tucks their paws underneath their body and curls their tail around, while keeping their head in an upright position and their eyes closed, they have assumed the ‘loaf’ position. So named due to it resembling a loaf of bread, this demonstrates a laid-back but attentive attitude, and indicates that your cat is ready either for sleep or a surprise attack. Aware of their surroundings, the loaf allows your kitty to remain alert, while at the same time allowing them to snooze without slipping into too much of a deep sleep. If you see your cat in this position, it’s a sign that they’re feeling content. You may notice them adopting this pose more frequently in the cooler months, as it’s a more efficient way of retaining body heat."
4. Lyons, Gene (2019-03-12). "How to speak cat". Arkansas Times. Archived from the original on 2023-03-22. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  The article notes: "Author Sarah Zhang assures us, however, that “anyone who has looked into the curiously blank face of a catloaf knows exactly what that means.” I had to look it up: a “catloaf,” so-called, is a housecat sitting with all four feet tucked underneath, hence resembling a loaf of bread. A cat expressing, in other words, comfort, contentment and trust. An uneasy cat would never adopt so defenseless a position — unsuitable for fight or flight."
5. Bhattarai, Abha (2016-01-29). "My crowdfunding campaign: Pun-ny animal stickers". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2016-02-17. Retrieved 2023-03-22.
  The article notes: "What: Vinyl stickers and pins featuring animal puns, such as “round robin” and “cat loaf” (pictured above), a term for when a cat sits with all four paws tucked underneath, making it look like a loaf of bread."
6. Loadenthal, Michael; Hausserman, Samantha; Thierry, Matthew (2022). "Accelerating Hate: Atomwaffen Division, Contemporary Digital Fascism, and Insurrectionary Accelerationism". In Bacigalupo, James; Valeri, Robin Maria; Borgeson, Kevin (eds.). Cyberhate: The Far Right in the Digital Age. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-79360-698-3. Retrieved 2023-03-22 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In one example, attempts were made to turn a seemingly innocuous image of a cat sitting with paws and tail tucked underneath the body ("a cat in the loaf position") into a hate symbol to troll the ADL's Hate Symbol Database inclusion of other memes like the "Ok hand symbol" ... One user, Catloaf, "started a meme where all the channels and groups change their names and [profile pictures] in reference of Catloaf" (The Watering Hole, n.d.a). Another explained: "We got 20 channels to change into a spawn of catloaf in 12 hours, this is the power of Nat Soc and Siege community, ... " Users had difficulty finding their own channels because the catloaf meme, and its many violent iterations, had been made into the visual icon for so many. Users in turn shared pictures, changed them, and made new ones, helping to map the flow system of "Terrorgram," renamed "Kittygram" (Catloaf News, 2020)."
Cunard (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cats and the Internet, seems like a suitable place for it to go.

Lewcm (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parkruns in Australia

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

Fails NLIST, there are not IS RS sources showing this has been discussed as a group. Article references ONE primary source 900+times. Wikipedia is not a mirror directory of parkrun events. // Timothy :: talk 17:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominating this article for insufficient sources six hours after its first creation, with about 70% of the individual entries incomplete, is inappropriate. WP:BEFORE C1 reads "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD". An assertion that article cannot be fixed with normal editing is far fetched. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and so far as I can see, that can't be fixed with some routine editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN. I can't see any notable parkruns on there, all this list services is a giant linkfarm. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No links to any articles about them. List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom, List of Parkruns in the United States of America, List of Parkruns in France seem to have the same problem, some linking to locations not these events, or linking to external websites about them. Dream Focus 20:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could be referenced in the same way the other List of Parkruns in Country abc have been. WP:ListN doesn't give any specific advice and we decide on a case by case basis. This AFD is premature. Desertarun (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What encyclopaedic merit does this topic have and how does it not fall under WP:NOTDIR? The USA, UK and France ones have their issues too so their existence does not automatically mean that the Australia one must be kept. There is no consensus (yet) that a list of Parkruns for a country is notable by default. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If people want to know where all the Parkruns are, they should use the Parkrun website, not except it to be found on an encyclopedia. Worth noting that all the other country's articles look to have been deleted now, and I see no evidence why this one should be any different. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR is policy and this very clearly is a directory of non-notable Parkrun events, which has no place in an encyclopaedia. Furthermore, there seems to be a complete lack of independent sources documenting this according to my searches. The best I could find was Parkrun blog but this clearly is not an independent source, is a blog and also doesn't completely list all Parkrun events in Australia, instead it lists just one for each letter of the alphabet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with much Speed. This is just a massive link farm for parkrun. Wikipedia is not here to help promote this organisation and is not a free web host for them. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems a lot of time has been spent on this article but unfortunately WP:NOTDIRECTORY. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIR. Also a list of entirely non notable entries. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIR (maybe OP should publish the list on another website!) MetricMaster (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambling Audio Books

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

Defunct audiobook distributor that never met NCORP guidelines, not sigcov, limited userbase LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn’t find any sources that rose above "it existed". It meets neither NCORP or GNG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any notable coverage, the cites listed are mostly WP:PRIMARY, fails WP:NCORP MetricMaster (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
Delete - simply does does not meet WP:GNG or wP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Partofthemachine (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff Sr.

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person who adopted an absurdly long name purely as a publicity stunt. This is clearly not a natural surname anybody would have, its just the plot of Battlestar Galactica poorly translated into German. The Guinness Book of World Records is the primary source the article relies on, and is not considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia.

EDIT: I am sorry I poorly formatted the AfD, I'm a new editor and made some mistakes. Valethske (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever his motivations, he did become notable for his name. Whether it was eccentricity, publicity, a way to annoy the authorities or whatever doesn't matter. The sources are sufficient to show notability and sustain a short biography. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD seems to be pretty messed up. The article is called Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff Sr. not Wolfe+585, Senior, which is a redirect. The AfD is called "4th" when it is the third AfD on this article and the article title is missing. I am not sure how easy (or worthwhile) this would be to fix. I'm not going to risk making an even bigger mess by trying. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the mess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – opinions on the subject's intentions are far from an actual deletion rationale. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination claims the person is non-notable. While you may disagree, I see enough of a reason for deletion to avoid a speedy keep. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keepnatural born name, no reason for deletion of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 05:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorf is legit, but the nonsense about spaceships and colonisation of other planets was clearly bolted on afterwards simply to guarantee a place in the Guinness Book of World Records. Valethske (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don’t delete the article on Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff. It answered a question I had this morning and I found it very interesting. Please reconsider. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:5240:9293:C954:F15E:2A14:B1C1 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and SNOW close Per above. Proponents of deletion have not provided sufficient argument against the subject's notability, for which the article has good cause to cover. Aeromachinator (talk to me here) 09:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources there is no consensus that Guinness World Records is a reliable source. There are very few references to this gentleman unconnected to his appearance in the Guinness Book of World Records and basically no irrefutable proofs that the science fiction short story version of his name even existed before he attempted to gain publicity. Guinness World Records eventually removed him from subsequent editions, probably because they worked out it was a hoax. Valethske (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody is in the Guinness World Records then that is not notability in itself but if a person becomes notable for a reason tied to their being in the Guinness World Records, i.e. Reliable Sources recognise that person for it and cover them, then that is notability. People can become genuinely notable, even become major celebrities, for all sorts of strange and/or silly reasons and this is very far from being the worst of them. As I said before, this guy is notable. He's not top-tier notable, and I wouldn't want to see the article become extravagant, but he is notable enough for a short biography. DanielRigal (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed all manner of unusual Guinness World Record holders notable enough to have Wikipedia articles (examples I can think of off the top of my head are Michel Lotito and Lucky Diamond Rich), but some readily verifiable and notable (yet unusual) record holders do not have Wikipedia articles, such as Ram Singh, a Bollywood actor who is the owner of the world's longest moustache. I would argue Singh is far more notable than Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff because he is more verifiable and has actually had a documented career worthy of inclusion (for example he appeared in Octopussy and many Indian films). All three of the record holders I've mentioned have been entertainers with unusual acts or attributes, whereas Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff was just an otherwise non-notable man with an unusual penchant for continually adding words to his surname until it was a mini space opera. Valethske (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are reasonably sufficient to show notability, even if nonsensically acquired. I would not oppose moving to Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff and refactoring into an article on the surname for which the nameholder is a detail. BD2412 T 12:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is to be retained at all (which I'm not convinced of) the absurdly long versions should at least be presented with a degree of skepticism due to the fact that they all tell a short science fiction story about ancient astronauts. The article currently does not even remark on the nature of the name. 92.12.140.5 (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am unsure about some of this, but it seems to be overall well sourced, just a bit silly. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My main issue is that it seems to uncritically accept the man's claims that the hundreds of characters long science fiction version of his name is his "real" name, despite only the 35 character appearing anywhere remotely official. Almost all of the sources go right back to either himself, people who knew him or the Guinness Book of World Records. I wouldn't be nearly so skeptical if there was any solid evidence of any sort that anything longer than the 35-character name existed before the 1960s. 92.12.140.5 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the place to discuss this, this is about notability, not verifiability. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment: I support deleting this article because the subject genuinely does not appear to be notable except as a piece of trivia. As I mentioned earlier, many unusual Guinness World Record holders are notable for reasons other than appearing in Guinness World Records, whereas this man appears not to be particularly notable other than using (whether by birth or adoption) an unusual name. Valethske (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly why it would make sense to move this to Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff, and make the article about the surname. BD2412 T 21:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with that.

That's a point, is there any evidence at all that anybody except Wolfe Sr. ever used the very long science fiction variant? If neither his son nor his father did then it would be strong evidence that the exceedingly long and poorly attested version originated and died with this single individual.

Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff is unusually long, but it does appear to be a legitimate and grammatically correct German compound and does not contain strange references to spacecraft or extraterrestrials. Valethske (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. James ^{(T • C)} • 12:00 • 02:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing sufficient coverage that I’m comfortable there’s in depth and continuing coverage. Yeah, it’s a strange thing to be notable for, but I see enough here to justify it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Residential colleges of Rice University#Wiess College. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Decadence

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is not notable, I push for deletion. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Residential colleges of Rice University#Wiess College. This is an old article (dating back to 2004), when notability standards were much lower. This event fails WP:GEOSCOPE and does not appear to have a WP:LASTING impact or otherwise enduring historical significance. However, I think that covering it with a few sentences in the section where we cover Weiss College, the residential college of Rice that puts this event on, would be more than appropriate. The reason I say "selectively" is that much of the content appears to be OR, explicitly written in contradiction to the local reporting about this event (i.e. The Houston Press suggested the college began adopting a theme for each year's party in 1976. However, it is wrong), and we need to be careful so as to reflect the RS coverage on this topic when we merge it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The subject is sufficiently notable and garners enough WP:SIGCOV by reliable independent media sources to warrant an article. A diligent WP:BEFORE would have made this abundantly clear. In regards to the proposition of merging, notability and depth of coverage of this event is more than enough to justify a stand-alone article. Relegating the event to a “few sentences” in Wiess College, for an event on the scale of Night of Decadence, would be akin to merging Mardi Gras into passing mention within New Orleans. I’m frankly surprised this was even nominated. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that it fails WP:NEVENT, since it is of extremely limited geographical scope and is not a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Routine kinds of news events (i.e. "college kids throw their annual themed party") are categorically excluded under WP:NEVENT. My point in merging is that, regardless of sourcing, this is something better covered within the context of the residential college.

With respect to Mardi Gras, that is an international festivity that spans cultures across several European countries in addition to the United States. There is a large difference between that event (which has international scope and importance) to that of a run-of-the-mill annual themed college party, and the analogy comparing the two is deeply flawed in light of WP:NEVENT. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was a hard one. I see and respect the comments about it being of extremely limited geographical scope and is not a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. That said, I also see that it’s an event with a fairly significant attendance and that it’s fairly notorious, having resulted in sufficient hospitalizations at times to merit national press coverage (see for example: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/10/29/11-hospitalized-after-Rice-drinking-party/25991351537114/). And when I do my own cursory search, I’m seeing articles that are in-depth (https://www.ricethresher.org/article/2022/10/campus-reacts-to-first-eoe-nod-in-three-years ; https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Rice-party-puts-focus-on-campus-alcohol-policy-3991652.php), diversity of sources including local and national press along with a culture page, student newspapers, an advocacy site (https://www.hercampus.com/school/rice/night-decadence-empowering-or-objectifying/), and some sources put it in context of things like sexual consent and social behavior (even triggering an also heavily attended counter event, https://www.ricethresher.org/article/2022/10/campus-reacts-to-first-eoe-nod-in-three-years), I think there’s enough to push it over the line. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSSM notes that student media (such as the Rice Thresher and various HerCampus pages) tends not to contribute towards notability. Notability aside, from a WP:NOPAGE perspective, I don't see why we would need an article on this party separate from one on the dorm, where the subject could be covered in a broader context. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your RSSM comment, but I saw enough coverage in state and national media that I was not particularly concerned some of the additional sourcing for greater context being from student publications. I see several state and national sources (UPI, Houston Chronicle, several other state print/TV sources) that are in sufficient depth for me. I mentioned those publications for social context and diversity of sourcing purposes Jo7hs2 (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge VERY SELECTIVELY, at most a sentence or two, to Residential colleges of Rice University#Wiess College. There doesn't come anywhere near enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary sources to meet notability. Yes, the school paper talks about it. Primary. The HerCampus.com piece is nice, but it's not a reliable source, and was written by a Rice student.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Onel5969 and Red-tailed hawk. Sources are entirely local (within a hundred miles or so). This fails every aspect of WP:EVENTCRITERIA, there's nothing approaching DURATION, GEOSCOPE, PERSISTENCE, INDEPTH, or DIVERSE. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

God's House of Hip Hop Radio

AfDs for this article:

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

Spammy article about a non-notable station, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rational reason for deletion, this station is the #1 station in the world for christian rap, latin christian rap and gospel hip hop music and has partnered with Dash Radio. The station has won of the most iconic award in Gospel called a Stellar Award for radio and was the first Gospel Hip Hop station in the history of this awards to do so, as well as 15 The Spin Awards for Gospel radio so to say this station is non-notable is a flat out lie, especially when it's curated by a Multi-Platinum Producer that is also a Billboard chart topper. The references are in place for everyone to see. IMusicFacts (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a lot of promotional referencing including press releases that does not help to establish notability. Music is not my field, so I can't say if a Stellar confers notability. This just seems too promotional to count, too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Putting aside unprovable statements such as "#1 station in the world", association with Emcee N.I.C.E. provides some level of notability, but that listing itself has just been tagged WP:COPYVIO. Suggest move to draft, collapsing God's House of Hip Hop 20/20 Summer Fest into this article, cleanup of spaminess MNewnham (talk)
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by IMusicFacts in previous discussion. They're reliable enough, with some in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific discussion of whether there is or is not a substantial quantity of reliable, independent source material available about this subject would be much more helpful toward determining consensus than discussion of awards, affiliations, current promotional tone of the article, or the like.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Echoing Seraphimblade's remark at the previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because someone is not familiar with the genre of music doesn't make this less credible, the Stellar Awards is Gospel Music's Most notable award and has been in existence for more than 35 years and winning an award in radio for a hip hop station was historic. All of the other references there to help those who do not know the genre, the references are directly from either the award sources, the news outlets, Dash radio itself and or the station itself. However to say this station is irrelevant and or not note worthy is inaccurate, especially when Dash radio lists the station curator as one of its top tier personalities & curators with Snoop Dogg, Ice Cube, Lil Wayne & DJ Skee in which I am sure names you know.

IMusicFacts (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The !votes are all based in policy; in borderline cases there can be genuine disagreement about whether a specific source counts toward GNG, and that seems to be the case here. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Hacmon

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see any way this passes WP:NBASIC. Almost all the coverage is trivial or based on his association with legitimately notable subjects. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Israel. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half of the sources listed, though reliable, are about his fiancée. A standard Google search only references him in articles about her. Justwatchmee (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should get some more input first
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for his photography. Has an article in Wired, and several other sources, for his work. BogLogs (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. My searches only found tabloid coverage, mostly about his partner. CT55555(talk) 01:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ weak keep in depth coverage by Wired (magazine) is sufficient in addition to field-specific journals/magazines demonstrating multiple independent RS. There is enough coverage independent of his wife. --hroest 04:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannes Röst: Care to explain how one single article from Wired qualifies as "multiple"? Because none of the other sources contain significant coverage. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I count three that seem to be mainly about him with the Wired one the in-depth article: [7], [8], [9]. It is clear that Wired is independent and reputable and Designboom is independent and apparently The online magazine was named one of the top 100 design influencers in the world by Time magazine, (per WP) while VoyageLA seems more like a local city guide but still independent and has an in-depth interview. I think that he just passes WP:GNG but probably not WP:ARTIST according to the criteria laid out there (unless this water art can be considered such a novel concept -- while novel indeed it does not seem to garner much take up or critical reception). In light of this have changed my vote to weak keep. --hroest 15:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs revision since it relies too heavily on articles about his fiancé, but I see sufficient in-depth coverage of his work (https://www.wired.com/2013/08/these-stunning-portraits-show-water-like-youve-never-seen-it-before/) and (https://www.designboom.com/art/hotographic-captures-of-water-in-motion-by-moses-hacmon/) plus a detailed interview (http://voyagela.com/interview/meet-moses-hacmon-faces-water-inglewood/) and plenty of lower level coverage of his art (https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4yjpe/nanoparticle-film-captures-movement-of-water), https://www.vice.com/en/article/z4yjpe/nanoparticle-film-captures-movement-of-water), etc etc. I’m not persuaded he’s not a notable artist under WP policy. Article needs revision, not deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a BLP with no significant independent reliable sourcing covering the subject. It may be reasonably argued the technique has received some coverage, but I agree with the nominator this article is sourced entirely with trivia and tabloid coverage which does not significantly cover this BLP. VoyageLA is an interview, and so doesn't count as independent sigcov per BLP. Notability isn't inherited from notable associates. I don't think anybody's mentioned this article was created by a SPA User:Anotheraccount who coincidentally uploaded the image too. IMHO this appears to be an autobiography maintenanced by IPs. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance F.C.

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

Fails GNG, NSPORTS, ORGCRIT. References in article are to stats, match results, ROUTINE sports reporting. BEFORE showed the same. Nothing that meets IS RS providing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 16:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Normally I would suggest redirecting to the club's league as an WP:ATD, but the league ("DSC Champions League") does not appear to have an article. Frank Anchor 14:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Aoidh (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fugro

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

Company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as almost all coverage is WP:ROUTINE and/or not independent, e.g. press releases. Issue tags as WP:PROMOTION and self published have been in place for quite some time. Endercase (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Endercase (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large public multinational corporation; entry in International Directory of Company Histories clearly establishes notability per WP:NCORP. Jfire (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The complany is notable, however, the advert (May-2021) and self-published (June 2022) tags didn't do the trick. Suitskvarts (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify What Suitskvarts said. There's clearly some embellishment going on, but it's still a multinational MNewnham (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've made a few revisions to help the tone and there is plenty of material to support notability of the firm (both general and corporate). I don't see this as so egregiously badly written that it needs to go to Draft space. Here is the diff between my revisions and the version that was nominated for deletion; more work is needed, certainly, and I've not removed the hatnotes yet—I leave that to someone who is not editing the content but rather reviewing the article from an independent point of view. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its prominance in the geotechnical (offshore oil and gas exploration) and surveying industries. The company operates in over 60 countries and employs over 10k people. Rodgers V (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourcing has been located. ~~Delete~~ This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements or PR or are mentions-in-passing. The book is self-published as the publisher is listed as Furgo. I'd ask the Keep !voters above to point to the precise section/paragraph within whichever sources that they believe meets the criteria for establishing notability - the reasons provided to date such as being included in a directory, or that it is a multinational or that it has achieved some prominence or operates in 60 countries or has over 10K employees do not form part of the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entry in International Directory of Company Histories is unambiguously a significant and independent source. Any company that's listed in this series meets WP:NCORP. Jfire (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-WP:ORGDEPTH Appears to fall under examples of trivial coverage. Unfortunately meer inclusion in the massive volumized collection that has such a broad scope and fairly indiscriminate inclusion criteria isn't enough. Coverage such as of the list of companies in the International Directory of Company Histories isn't by itself evidence of notability. From a brief look at that particular citation it appears to be, given the massive size of the volumized list and the style, routine publicly traded company coverage almost like a slightly more in-depth phonebook OR directory entry. ~ Endercase (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant? No, it is a directory of hundreds of companies which says "The authors and editors of this work have added value to the underlying factual material herein through one of more of the following: unique and original selection, coordination, expression, arrangement and classification of the information." There is no "Independent Content" by way of original/independent analysis/investigation/fact checking/opinion so it fails WP:ORGIND as a source. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I've done some work on removing and adding content; see this diff since my !vote above. One of the issues is the Fugro is composed of many subsidiaries and mentions of the Fugro Group as such are sparse; most mentions relate to the subsidiaries as primary focus of a citable work, often with mention but little detail about the umbrella corporation. I think this is the downfall of many multinational conglomerate articles which function more as holding companies for their many subsidiaries rather than functioning as a unified conglomerate. Question is whether there is space between the bars of the rules to support this type of company or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional revisions done, see diff since last post above. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the issue here is that the sourcing fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I'll focus just on the additional sources you've added. I'll also point to my previous !vote which outlines the requirements in terms of in-depth information and "Independent Content". You've added a reference from The Daily Review but it relies entirely on an interview with Furgo Geoservices Party Manager Gene Benoit, fails ORGIND. Another from the Daily News-Journal in relation to the award of a mapping contract which is essentially a copy of this company announcement along with quotes from the related parties, fails ORGIND. The next from beurs.nl (from the Dow Jones Newswires) is 5 sentences, fails CORPDEPTH. Another from The Daily Advertiser about an employee getting an (internal) award for innovation is PR, fails ORGIND. The next from the same paper about Fugro Chance winning an (internal) award is also PR, fails ORGIND. The final one, also from The Daily Advertiser, is another announcement, fails ORGIND. Perhaps The Daily Advertiser (clue in the name) isn't the best source for Independent Content? In summary, none of the new references are any better than the previous and the sources still fail GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add the beurs.nl piece; I fixed the citation for the URL which was there. In the other cases, I think you are assuming that there is no editorial input on any of those pieces, that they are just "let us smooth the feathers of a preening crow" types of pieces, correct? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refer back to what I said above. We need content that is *both* WP:CORPDEPTH in-depth and meets WP:ORGIND's "Independent Content" which says original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I cannot see anything of the sort in those new references. Can you point to a particular paragraph/section in a specific source where your believe the content meets this criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)/[reply]

Question. Is it sensible to conclude by a cursory evaluation of its content that this 69-page report, marketed by Research & Data (produced by GlobalData)[10], can be counted as one of the significant, independent, indepth and reliable sources required for notability here? ~~If not, why not?~~ Rupples (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC) (edited to keep discussion open) Rupples (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, this is a great source, meets NCORP. I've changed my !vote to Keep. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My initial reaction to this AfD nomination was one of surprise considering the company's size, stock market listing and longevity. However, the sourcing was reviewed and found wanting in terms of establishing notability. Company news releases generally do not confer notability due to lack of independence and analysis.

The following sources, together with the research report above, I believe help to establish notability:

Wall Street Journal item on involvement of Fugro in search for missing Malaysian Aiirlines flight 370. Limited, but highlights company's involvement in a major news story.[11] Although on a trade publication website, this is written in a neutral tone.[12] The Daily Advertiser article on the company's 50 year history, although containing a couple of company quotes, in the main seems independent.[13] Analysis by ratings agency Fitch. Technical in part and possibly routine, but provides independent commentary on the company's business model and impact on its issued debt securities.[14] News of possible takeover and directors sharedealings.[15] Independent report on 'controversial' business practices in Africa.[16]

As regards the draftify recommendations posted earlier, some of the promotional speak has since been removed. I'm unsure of the internal awards paragraph in the History section. Possibly unnecessary and promotional? I don't think it necessary to put the article into draft to edit out what promotional content/wording remains. Rupples (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -The new sources brought up in the last few !votes need to be integrated into the article. These sources do change the dynamic somewhat. With adding a controversy section and with these other substantial changes in sourcing this has/will become more balanced article overall. I'll help integrate these new sources if needed and I step back my nomination. The article still needs improvement but thanks to the hard work and research of a number of editors I no longer believe it should be removed. Endercase (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per good work above to find several in-depth WP:RS. ResonantDis_tortion 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY. I definitely understand the nomination, but the article has been improved.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 00:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna Sirivadhanabhakdi

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

Fails to meet WP:NBASIC, have minor coverage due to her recent death, otherwise not significant due to her position as a stand-alone article, not sufficiently in-depth coverage in reliable sources, notability is not inherited. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Thailand. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Detailed obituaries from major news sources should still count towards notability, and there are several in the Thai press. However, I'm reluctant to say keep, as they really don't say much about her as an individual and might not overcome the NOTINHERITED concerns. Apart from the recent obituaries, there's this award citation[17] from Mae Jo University, which gave her an honorary degree in 1996. In any case, I've been thinking that there's place for an article on the Sirivadhanabhakdi family, and the subject can be adequately covered there if it is created. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing enough in-depth coverage for them to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Dream Properties

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

Not notable; zero significant coverage. Article appears to be primarily for promotion. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also could not find much on this aside from the few sources in this article. Fails WP:NCORP. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Registered at Companies House in March 2005. Wound up November 2011. External links section looks like a dumping ground for property advertisers. One trade award does not a notable business make. On my watchlist in case something turns up but as things stand, non-notable, so . . . delete. Rupples (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP applies. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is a dreadful mess of a discussion, in which consensus has not emerged and is unlikely to emerge. As such I'm closing it before it gets further out of hand. The arguments to delete are, as follows: that this article is redundant to others; that it's entirely original research; and that there is no scientifically demonstrated link between fasting and longevity, and we should therefore not have an article. These are largely all poor arguments. Redundancy is best solved by merging, not deletion. An article that is entirely original research would be deletable, but there is obviously some properly sourced content here. Finally, the veracity of a popularly held belief has very little to do with its notability: nobody has put forward evidence that there is a demonstrated link between fasting and longevity, but we can still have an article documenting the myth that that belief appears to be. Conversely, the arguments to keep are also weak; when there are concerns about multiple articles covering the same material, the existence of sources isn't enough; the need for a standalone article needs to be demonstrated. I strongly recommend, though nobody is bound to follow this recommendation, that attempts be made to organize the material with the entire set of articles in mind, rather than just one page. It is likely that AfD isn't the best venue for this. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fasting and longevity

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

There has been some issues from this article right from the very start (see talk-page). It has now been expanded but the problems remain. Firstly most of the sources on the article are primary sources so they are not in accord to Wikipedia medical guidelines (they go against WP:MEDRS), secondly the books cited are self-published. For example, AuthorHouse and Blue Rose Publishers (references 5 and 6) are self-publishing companies.

I would also point out that 2 of the sources are primary papers written Valter Longo, he has a lot of fringe views about intermittent fasting that are not supported by the scientific community. Another issue is original research. Reference 8 is a paper on caloric restriction. Caloric restriction and fasting are not the same. We now have an article discussing fasting, caloric restriction and intermittent fasting. It is a mess mixing several different topics. I believe the article should be deleted and/or redirected to fasting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Health and fitness. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above assessment stating that "We now have an article discussing fasting, calorie restriction and intermittent fasting... - a mess mixing several different topics", with no WP:MEDRS reviews, government advisories, or clinical guidelines used in the stub (because none exist). The calorie restriction article has this section covering all that can be said about longevity with sufficient review sources - a redirect of the stub to this section is reasonable. There is no clinical evidence to support having a unique article on fasting and longevity. On the talk page, particularly under the "Stub" subhead, I provided applicable critiques remaining unresolved due to the absence of adequate sources. Zefr (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Calorie_restriction#Life_extension. It is our obligation to seek WP:ATD since it is an actual policy. This is a notable topic with SIGCOV available but the article has been edit warred/erased by editors who seem to WP:OWN the MED topics, (see article talk page). I have been shocked by the insults which were directed at me for daring to write an article about this subject. When SSIGCOV exists (like it does for this topic) I see an encyclopedia article. I offered to redirect as a compromise on the talk page but it was rejected. I do not watchlist anything, so this AfD is a surprise to me - I was not notified on my talk page. Bruxton (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of the article [18] was citing entirely primary sources and studies done on mice. We require stronger medical sources as Zefr has explained to you. I apologize for not notifying you about the afd. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is the wrong place for the discussion. This clearly isn't a deletion dispute about a single article, it's a concern that there are multiple overlapping articles, and some editors are trying to put information into articles on an obviously notable topic, that other editors don't agree should be there (i.e. it's a content dispute, not a deletion dispute). It should be dealt with via a request for comment, and if that fails, dispute resolution. Then, when everyone's agreed what we want to say, we can choose which article titles to use to say it, and turn the rest into redirects. Elemimele (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a valid deletion discussion. There is no point in keeping the article in my opinion. It is currently a stub, we already have an article on fasting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Diet and longevity, and make into a subsection of a more substantial article. There is no question that there is notable coverage of suspected links between diet and longevity (and numerous articles on diets claimed to increase longevity, e.g., Okinawa diet, CRON-diet, The Longevity Diet, Hunza diet). Fasting is just one form of diet. BD2412 T 13:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: "Diet and longevity" has 44,100,000 results on google. So that might be a good suggestion. Bruxton (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By comparison, searching "Earth is flat" produces nearly one billion results on Google, so what can we say about that vs. "diet and longevity"? Public curiosity and misinformation should not be the basis of a Wikipedia article on fasting for human health and aging – a MEDRS-based topic. None of the above "diet and longevity" articles has sources strong enough to meet WP:MEDASSESS, indicating there would be few good-quality sources in such an article, and no sources worthy of a systematic review or meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (which do not exist). The Flanagan source concludes with a 2019 NIH plan to begin studying the effects of long-term (5 years) calorie restriction (CR) on people during aging, stating "CR will not be ready to be prescribed as a long-term nutritional intervention for healthy individuals, particularly the elderly." The US National Institute on Aging (NIA) makes no suggestion that fasting can lead to longevity. This is the only NIA assessment of CR or fasting on aging, stating "There are no data in humans on the relationship between calorie restriction and longevity ." Conclusion: what would an article on "diet and longevity" say? Zefr (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: An article on diet and longevity would say exactly that. There are numerous diets traditionally claimed to affect longevity to various degrees, and a paucity of evidence in support of these claims. If sources document that the claims are made we can report that the claims are made without needing proof that the claims are true (just as we can have an article on the Loch Ness Monster without proving that such a monster actually exists). BD2412 T 15:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The three parameters proposed for possible linking to longevity in an article or subhead title are fasting, calorie restriction, and diet. Fasting and diet should be excluded due to inadequate sources outside of MEDRS, whereas calorie restriction is a valid research topic. A WP:MERGE of the current content and redirect to Calorie_restriction#Life_extension may be a reasonable compromise. Zefr (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article was clearly created to get onto the wikipedia front page, via a DYK hook, without regard for the merits of the topic. Very poor article full of WP:OR. Very cynical manipulation of good faith editors. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy the dog (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF Roxy the dog. I start articles on a variety of topics when I find Sigcov. Google "fasting and longevity" and you get 10,400,000 results. About DYK, I nominate virtually every article for DYK and I am very active there. I spent time studying this topic and I also wrote an article for Valter Longo's book The Longevity Diet. I write articles about what I am interested in. We have to see this project as collaborative effort and not one where a small group of determined editors can control every article in their area of interest. Bruxton (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per notable topic and WP:SIGCOV. Poor rationale for deletion RV (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Zefr, Psychologist Guy, BD2412, and Bruxton: The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not solely to promote a positive image of a topic. Even if a topic has negative aspects, it may still be considered important to maintain an article on it. Thanks RV (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve the article is it true or a slogan only?

Moved from User talk:RAJIVVASUDEV

Related content: Zefr issued a warning to RV (article related)

March 2023

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Fasting and longevity, you may be blocked from editing. Zefr (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can. WP:ATD If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. And I am trying to do that only. RV (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This topic will never be a "great" Wikipedia article, as it has no WP:MEDRS sources, nor will it within the next decade or longer. Please stop trying to make more of a poorly-researched, poorly-sourced topic by synthesizing your own interpretation. Zefr (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that this topic will never evolve, especially when nobody wants it to. You are stopping the fixing of it and reverting edits [like this]. Please enlighten us as to how this particular edit is poor, off-topic, self-interpreted, and synthesized when there is a source. The information provided by the source is what it is, and your personal dislike of it does not hold any significance WP:Verifiability RV (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the text in source reads: "The hope of dramatically extending our lifespan has captivated humanity for millennia. Over the last two decades, the biology of aging has matured as a field of study and led to greater engagement and investment in aging as a biological problem that can be understood at the molecular level." And when the article says For thousands of years, mankind has been fascinated by the aspiration of prolonging human lifespan. In recent years, significant advancements in the study of aging biology have led to increased investment in comprehending the molecular mechanisms involved in aging.^[1] ^[2]^[3]. Thanks RV (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it related to the longevity of humans? RV (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Vijg, Jan; Suh, Yousin (2005-02-01). "Genetics of Longevity and Aging". Annual Review of Medicine. 56 (1): 193–212. doi:10.1146/annurev.med.56.082103.104617. ISSN 0066-4219. PMID 15660509.
^ Pitt, Jason N.; Kaeberlein, Matt (2015-04-29). "Why Is Aging Conserved and What Can We Do about It?". PLOS Biology. 13 (4): e1002131. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002131. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 4414409. PMID 25923592.
^ López-Otín, Carlos; Blasco, Maria A.; Partridge, Linda; Serrano, Manuel; Kroemer, Guido (2013-06-06). "The Hallmarks of Aging". Cell. 153 (6): 1194–1217. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.039. ISSN 0092-8674. PMC 3836174. PMID 23746838.

Comment I have sent a message to Zefr after they twice erased RV's comments here (I collapsed them). It is my hope that Zefr will allow the community to reach consensus without being disruptive at the article and this AfD. Consensus is one of our policies. Edit: they again returned to alter comments at AfD and I have sent another talk page message. Bruxton (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Bruxton is deceitful to a) suggest that RV's talk page discussion is somehow related to consensus-building on the AfD evaluation. Rather, they were inserted conspicuously to be a forum against a challenge about WP:SYNTH editing by RV - WP:NOTFORUM; and b) indicate in the collapse heading that I am preventing improvements to the article by RV or anyone. I said my comments to RV were a "warning for offtopic content and WP:SYNTH", as shown in the edit summaries. Bruxton has been warned for deliberately introducing false information. Zefr (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the above text that was put onto this afd that started with this edit [19] this is very odd behaviour to be moving content from users talk-page to an afd. The only content that should actually be here is comments about the afd such as to delete or keep the article. Zefr is correct about removing the off-topic text. I think an admin should remove it all. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to just let the community process work. Zefr has been uncollegial. They have now accused me of vandalism (on my talk page). For Zefr's part, they have performed 6 reverts to the article involving three different editors, and that does not include the complete erasure of the article; also several reverts in this this AfD. It seems that no editor is free to work on the article without Zefr's approval. I have tried to avoid adding to the article since my last edit there was immediately reverted by Zefr. Reverts are decidedly jarring and uncollegial. I believe that the community will get to the right outcome in spite of the histrionics. Psychologist Guy, you should not be encouraging this behavior. Bruxton (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Zefr: An editor who comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions clearly indicates a sense of ownership WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR. Continuous reverts are hindering any improvements to the article Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard.

My argument regarding edit summaries that mention cherry picking, WP:SYNTH, or WP:OFFTOPIC is as follows: As per WP:WINAC It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no direct relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require. An article on the anatomical feature Adam's apple could explain that the term arose from the biblical character Adam; a regurgitation of the Book of Genesis, or an outline of the full story of original sin would not be necessary.

When discussing the topic of "fasting and longevity," it is necessary to mention the human aspiration for a longer lifespan, studies on animals, different diets, as well as the potential harms of fasting on both physical and mental health. It is important to consider the various factors that can impact human longevity, including diet and lifestyle choices. Studies on animals have shown that fasting can have a positive impact on lifespan and overall health. Similarly, research on different diets, such as the Mediterranean diet and the Okinawan diet, has also shown potential benefits for promoting longevity and improving health. However, it is also important to consider the potential harms of fasting, both physical and mental. Therefore, to fully explore the topic of fasting and longevity, it is necessary to consider all of these factors. You can revisit and verify that I have consistently organized all the information related to those factors under separate headings or sections in the article. Kindly also read Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not. Thanks RV (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no good clinical evidence for fasting and longevity, we simply have no long-term data. Valter Longo is very much on the fringe of science. Most of his data is taken from animal models (on rats mostly). WP:MEDANIMAL "in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings". Please see WP:MEDASSESS, animal models are the lowest and weakest kind of evidence. They may provide some mechanistic data but they give no clinical evidence relevant to humans. You can often tell a kook or quack because they just rely on animal models then make far-fetched claims about human chronic diseases. In conclusion you have not really added any reliable sources to your article. It would be best to delete the article. We already have an article on fasting. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested by User:BD2412 that a more comprehensive title, "Diet and longevity," may be more suitable for the article. It is important to consider various perspectives and make a decision that is in the best interest of the article and its readers. The suggested title has a wider scope and may provide a better representation of the content. Thanks RV (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-starter. There are no WP:MEDRS sources to support linkage of any dietary practice/plan or food(s) with longevity. Neither are there MEDRS sources to support linkage of fasting or even calorie restriction (a controllable experimental factor) with longevity. Time to put this discussion to rest with a delete decision. Zefr (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: How is it even possible, then, that the articles Okinawa diet, CRON-diet, and Hunza diet exist seperately, when each discusses the respective diet in connection with purported longevity? It doesn't make sense that those articles can exist separately, but an article discussing the claims of those existing articles can not. BD2412 T 18:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the key word there "purported", i.e., not science-based? Those diets and the purported causation of longevity fall within the category of longevity myths. The Okinawa diet is the best-studied among the three listed, but it is a historical dietary pattern related to mid-20th century eating traditions, not a present-day dietary practice leading to longevity; the article neither contains nor needs MEDRS sources, as it discusses history.

Creating a new article about "fasting and longevity" perpetuates the myth that fasting is associated with longevity. What reliable sources could be used in an article discussing unscientific, misleading claims of diet plans causing longevity? None exists, so deletion is the solution. Zefr (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but so what? We can have an article on the various diets that are "purported" to increase longevity. We would need MEDRS to support any claim that these assertions were true, but not to assert the existence of the beliefs (folk or otherwise). So long as we have in the lede the statement that there is no proof of efficacy (for which we do have MEDRS sources), we are not misleading anyone. As for fasting, as far as I'm concerned that is just another kind of diet. BD2412 T 20:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could be handled by a redirect with one sentence: "Some diet plans involving reduced food intake, such as x, y, and z, purport to extend lifespan, but there is no clinical evidence for such claims."(example refs: Lee, Flanagan) Zefr (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too certain. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide information on all branches of knowledge. "Diet and longevity" falls under the scope of WP:FACTS. There are enough sources that support studies related to the topic of "Diet and longevity". You cannot delete it simply due to your personal dislike.Something obvious to you, may not be to someone else. If we add this topic and link other related myths and diets to it, such as the Okinawa diet, CRON-diet, and Hunza diet, it will make more sense to the reader. RV (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed many of these unreliable sources are found on the Longevity#Diet section. Instead of recreating another article, the already existing section on the longevity article should be fixed and expanded. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can be agreed that the topic of longevity and diet holds potential, as there are numerous diets that could be further explored within this topic. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to create a separate and independent topic that focuses specifically on longevity and diet, while ensuring that the section Longevity#Diet is properly sourced and organized. RV (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator laments that this article had "issues right from the very start", and that expansion notwithstanding, "problems remain". Right, along with 6,000,000 other articles. Content disputes are not dealt with by deletion. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it permissible to seek assistance from different forums, such as [this], even if the discussion has been adequately conducted in AFD, and with different edit summary? Isn't that considered Wikipedia:Canvassing? Please allow me to seek some clarification. I sincerely hope that my inquiry does not cause any offense, and I wish to assure you that assigning blame is not my intention. RV (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calorie restriction per WP:MERGEREASONs #2 (overlap) and #3 (short). Sennalen (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Creator editing in good faith, and there's no case made why this isn't a viable option for further work. Star Mississippi 00:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schmid & Partner Engineering AG

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

Article by paid editor, lacks independent sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Switzerland. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author is transparent about being paid so I'm willing to give that some wiggle room. The article as is lacks sources to support it being notable. I'm leaning towards this being sent back to draft and undergoing the AfC process. But I'm willing to hear what others think in case I'm way off base. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SPEAG article is a work in progress. I am still learning the procedures for publishing articles. There are confilicting recommendations, one of which is to publish as a stub and flesh it out later. I am considering how to proceed with references. I have a draft article pending about a sister organization Draft:The Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society, for which the number and types of references were criticized. I am seeking help from outside sources, and I welcome constructive feedback from wiki reviewers. The work being done by SPEAG, the IT'IS Foundation, and other sister organizations -- developing tools and methods for measurement of exposure to electromagnetic radiation from, e.g., mobile phones and MRI -- is imo notable. It is not self-promotion -- these organizations have ample other avenues for self-promotion -- but rather giving the wiki-reading public an opportunity to learn about how these things are measured. I understand the point that I am too close to the topic, but how long would the world have to wait for an outsider who happens to write articles for wikipedia to find out about these organizations? PLBounds (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the whole process takes a lot to learn. If you need help check out the Teahouse and there are folks there that can help you improve this article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 10:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback, I will denfinitely go to the Teahouse PLBounds (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article so far leaves much to be desired, both in terms of sources (or rather their absence) and style ("a Swiss company in Switzerland"). Also, from a notable Zurich company I would expect to appear in the German-language section first, although it's not necessarily. Nevertheless, removal, in my opinion, is too radical, as honesty in paid contributions should not be demotivated. And that's some incentive to learn the principles of Wikipedia. KhinMoTi (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPEAG and the other organizations in the Zurich43 family are very international. Virtually all publications are in English. PLBounds (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify article has sourcing and other issues, but I’m loathe to smash the delete button, as I’m not seeing a clear lack of notability. I’m particular concerned since many sources will inevitably be in Swiss German or German, and so I cannot personally do a quality review of everything. Let us lean on preserve principles, the article can be improved. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPEAG and the other organizations in the Zurich43 family are very international. Virtually all publications are in English. I am seeking help from an electronics engineering expert in the USA to choose appropriate resources. PLBounds (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about Swiss German/German was because I was pondering if there was media coverage of the company in Switzerland, which could help establish notability. Is there any in-depth Swiss media coverage of the company? For example, a profile in a major Swiss business publication? Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a .ch web search, not much of anything turned up. Either in Gnews or in general. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in English or in French, beyond purchasing offers from the Canadian gov't that they've bid on or various job sites. A search of .ch websites only brings up their site and various job offers. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really nothing found in English? The whole SPEAG website is in English. Yes, the company is located in a German-speaking city, but the scientists and engineers are hired from an international pool of applicants. PLBounds (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are no sources covering the company that I can find. Their website can't be used for notability purposes here. Having a website is hardly notable these days. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources meet these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Give the author opportunity to learn the ropes and time to establish notability (or not). ResonantDis_tortion 16:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say draftify, but I can't find any in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 SAFF Club Championship

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

The tournament is will not take place Ghdfghmp (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this (non-RS) seems to confirm what nominator says. I also note that there is no parent article for SAFF Club Championship (it's a redirect). Giant Snowman 16:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the same event? https://www.the-aiff.com/article/bengaluru-to-host-2023-saff-championship Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the SAFF Championship and SAFF Club Championship are different things, though both under the aegis of SAFF. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Jo7hs2 (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 00:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Boulanger

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unreferenced stub for 15 years. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Africa, Ethiopia, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's extreme enthusiasm for deleting articles on Canadian ambassadors is not constructive. NB, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence notes that This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources... The escalating campaign is not taking us towards better coverage of diplomacy or anything else. Moonraker (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zero attempt to address notability concerns, and a recycling of !vote that don't address notability all in a space of a few minutes from [20], [21], [22]. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO in my reading suggests holding the office of ambassador would make a person likely to be notable, but we still need the sourcing to prove notability. I fully acknowledge the article as written has sourcing issues. However, I can find sourcing mentioning his actions as ambassador sufficient that I’m not comfortable with deletion and lean towards revision. This individual was ambassador right at the cusp of the digital/print transition in news, and I see enough digital media to suggest there’s almost certainly outstanding articles. What I was able to immediately find include speaking engagements (https://www.africaportal.org/documents/3770/ENHANCINGCAPACITYJUL06.pdf) intergovernmental actions (https://www.ezega.com/News/NewsDetails?Page=news&NewsID=217) dropping all the way down to weaker sources like his appointment announcement (https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2005/06/diplomatic-appointments.html). Since my cursory search of digital media yielded some useful information towards notability, I’m not persuaded this article merits deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability — but the sources listed above are all primary ones that do not constitute support for notability at all, rather than WP:GNG-worthy reliable ones. We need media reportage and/or books that analyze his career independently, not glancing mentions of his name in organizational reports or press releases from his own employer. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Jo7hs2's comment that this ambassador does get mentioned. But that's all. No significant coverage from independent sources. Yes ambassadors can be notable. This one is not.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. No sources in article so nothing to evaluate. Jo7hs2 did a great BEFORE and only found a press release (Fails IS RS), a routine article that uses the subject as a source (Fail IS) and a routine government announcement (Fails IS). Nothing else exists to show notability and the keep votes haven't provided anything that shows notability. // Timothy :: talk 17:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP article about a non-WP:NOTABLE subject that doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO requirements. I looked for sources myself and found nothing that would support a claim to WP:NOTABILITY. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Log Cabin Republicans. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Tafel

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

Notability seems to be WP:INHERITED from Log Cabin Republicans (LCR). Therefore I suggest redirecting to LCR as an WP:ATD.

Although the article claims that Mr Tafel is a founder of LCR, the founding actually happened back in 1977. It seems that Mr Tafel instead opened the LCR's Washington DC office in 1993. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No particular objection to the redirect, but I don't see that it was tried first as an edit and reverted. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jclemens. I thought it best that I get consensus before making such a bold move. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus and I have been kicking around the idea of a PROR--proposed redirection, with a seven-day notice for uncontroversial redirections. This seems like a reasonable case for such a thing, where you don't want to be too bold, but it's something that, if contested, can be undone and sent to AfD. I'd love to see AfD volume for truly uncontroversial things get diverted to the more streamlined process, so we can concentrate on doing the contended AfDs *right*. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support redirects over hard deletion, and yes, I'd love to see a proposed redirect system implemented. Who would it hurt? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I like to see more solid confirmation that there is support for a redirect here, in the midst of this conversation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems fine with me, that way the information can still be found of needed. Should better sources get published, we can either incorporate them into the article or make a new one for this person if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments for deletion stated that the subject either failed WP:GNG or that evidence failed WP:BLP1E for being too closely associated with a single event; the win of Survivor: Palau. This argument was successfully refuted by demonstrating the subject passes WP:GNG through the presentation of evidence which demonstrated WP:SUSTAINED coverage in connection with more than one event. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Westman

AfDs for this article:

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

Although he appeared in both Palau (in which he won) and Heroes vs Villains, this person was more significant in Palau. He was eliminated before the merge in Heroes vs Villains, and I don't think his gameplay made much of an impact to that season, despite how visual and apparent it was. Outside of Survivor, I've seen just his firefighting experience, his shift to insurance (but described briefly), and his personal life. If he can't be redirected to Survivor: Palau, at least redirect him to list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. George Ho (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable reality TV figure who won Survivor: Palau, competed on Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, and is a fan favourite contestant. A winner who has played more than once securely warrants a keep and his legacy is larger than other previous Survivor contestants who have kept their articles such as Sue Hawk and Vecepia Towery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecheeseistalking99 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Thecheeseistalking99 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per previous nomination. RedPatch (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Snow, winners of Survivor are both notable and well-sourced. Two have already been removed in poorly attended AfDs and those should both be reversed. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Participated twice, but in my view still doesnt pass WP:ENT. The criterion "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;" is not fulfilled if you win one show and finish 16th in another (maybe winning twice would count as "significant roles" in multiple "television shows"). Another way to look at this is to see how much in-depth coverage about them is actually available which seems to boil down to three tidbits of information about being a firefighter, insurance industry worker and having a deaf daughter. The main argument for keeping seems to be WP:WHATABOUTX. --hroest 19:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget WP:ANYBIO, none of which this person meets IMO. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Winning Survivor is a significant honor, which would meet WP:ANYBIO KatoKungLee (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think a significant honor refers to winning a game, honestly. Moreover, winning $1 million and Sole Survivor title, to me, isn't that prestigious. I looked up "honor", and I can't tell whether the show is that prestigious, despite running for more than two decades. I know the show is "significant" to the reality TV genre, but calling $1&nbap;million win after lasting 39 (or 26) days and earning jury votes an "honor" begs definition expansion or expansion of scope, doesn't it? George Ho (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improved the article by adding a few more citations. Plenty more exist to meet notability.Pershkoviski (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about complying with WP:BLP? Furthermore, even such sources would probably describe same info about him as the article already has. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Survivor winner and meets WP:GNG. No different than winning the Super Bowl.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" opinions are of very poor quality, asserting notability for winning a reality TV show without basis in applicable guidelines. This needs more discussion of the quality and quantity of available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the season page. Fails general notability with WP:BLP1E, the article generally fits WP:NOTPLOT, and there's a decent amount of WP:OR in regards to some of his accomplishments in comparison to other series winners. And regarding the Super Bowl comparison: there is a wealth of information written about the players and teams that play in the Super Bowl beyond their participation in that one game. Where is any of that information for this, or any other Survivor winner? -fuzzy510 (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, the Super Bowl comparison that fuzzy510 was referring to can be further seen in another ongoing AFD discussion. George Ho (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E doesn't fit this nomination because his participation in Survivor makes him a high-profile individual which removes him from BLP1E (see WP:LPI which must be met to qualify). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about WP:BIO1E instead? As I believe, it can apply to any individual, high- or low-profile, living or deceased, notable for just one event. Of course, it's subjective at best. To me, he was highly significant in only highly-viewed Palau; not so much in Heroes vs. Villains. The Heroes tribe eliminated him in HvV some time before the merge, and he didn't have a chance to impact the whole season.

Whether he was high-profile (especially in your definition) is one thing, but writing and editing an individual article about him is something to debate about. I mean, his significance outside Survivor I think pales in comparison to his Survivor appearances, and I figured there's not much to tell about post-Survivor activities either. Well, I can see majority voting to keep, but numbers may not mean as much as both the arguments and weighing them. George Ho (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my definition", the definition is clear at WP:LPI which is used by and linked to WP:BLP1E as essential criteria. Your link is outside the range of an individual who has won this high-profile television show. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still linking to the essay, aren't you? You can think otherwise about BIO1E, but how "high-profile" the TV show is still wouldn't affect the profile status of this person, regardless of appearance in that TV show. Don't you think? The BIO1E, different from BLP1E, can still apply to high-profile individuals known for only one event, including winners.... more likely because it doesn't say that it is limited to only low-profile ones. Palau and HvV are individual events to me, and he won only Palau and hasn't won any other season since. George Ho (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try some reading comprehension here. It is WP:BLP1E that links to the essay to define what low-profile and high-profile individuals are, not me. To downgrade a descriptive essay which is used as criteria for policy seems misleading. Editors continue to use BLP1E without, apparently, reading or understanding it. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. I don't know what else to say to you... other than, "Thanks for reminding me about BLP1E, but I still wouldn't assume they cited policy without reading it." Since you replied to fuzzy510, why not one of us ping her to await her response? George Ho (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As @George Ho pointed out WP:BIO1E is probably more appropriate here. But even then, he doesn't neatly fit in the criteria for either low-profile or high-profile individuals as outlined in that essay. In the case of either BLP1E or BIO1E, however, I notice that nobody has addressed what is my biggest concern - the article is entirely plot summary from their Survivor seasons, and runs well afoul of WP:NOTPLOT. What isn't plot summary is WP:OR. If I were, for sake of discussion, to remove both of these questionable elements from the article, there would be not much beyond "He won Survivor, and participated in a second season." How does that possibly justify an article? -fuzzy510 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like @George Ho I don’t see participation/winning a game show significant enough to merit a BLP. However, there are people notable for appearing on many shows, and if sourced correctly might deserve a BLP. But this ain’t one of them. If those who are adamant about winners being notable, I suggest they create a RealityTV Task Force and define your own criteria and see if the community agrees. There are stupider projects, so good luck. Artificial Nagger (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I note in my comment on the AfD for Bob Crowley (Survivor contestant), I've never watched Survivor. However, I think the series is itself sufficiently famous and widely watched, year after year, that each season winner is notable. There shouldn't be a "notability contest" among season winners, but when I see three AfDs in a row for season winners, along with a suggestion in the comments on one of those AfDs that the AfDs for Brian Heidik and Chris Daugherty were "poorly attended", I'm worried that that's where this is going. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE or redirect per BLP1E. None of the “keep” votes are supported by policy. The rationale they use is OtherStuffExists or Survivor winners are automatically/inherently notable. I don’t need to explain to the closer OtherStuffExists, and AFAIK RealityTV show winners, while may be BLP1E notable don’t cross the threshold into GNG. They’ve got to gain traction outside of their “event”. If someone presents a “keep” !vote that uses actual policy/guidelines I’ll gladly change to keep. Please ping me if you find one. Otherwise I’ll expect the closer’s job should be quite simple.Artificial Nagger (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Nagger, since WP:BLP1E does not apply if the person sought publicity, which this individual did by showing up on the set of Survivor and agreeing to be filmed, that's enough to rate as a high-profile-individual per WP:LPI. He fits the criteria. LPI must be applied, but it's possible that closers who close pages which contain long discussions in a minute or two may have never analyzed that, which is why discussion participants should. Please give those another reading, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Survivor:Palau article. There's really no coverage of them outside the reality shows. To equate winning a reality show with winning the Super bowl is absurd at best. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Plenty of secondary RS exist such as [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] and [30]. The nominator's deletion reasoning is invalid and not set in policy. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure why you used NY Post as an example. It's considered unreliable per WP:NYPOST as of now. Many other articles you exemplified are based on Westman's Palau winnings. As I can see, he planned to spend $1 million for mostly his kids' college educations, but, other than improving the biographical article, I don't see how this info can save the article from being redirected to another destination. So does the 2006 Irish America Magazine article describing his post-Palau activities.

NY Daily News article says he hadn't been at that point chasing after reality TV "fame", so I doubt Mr. Westman would care about (the fate of) the Wikipedia article about him. Furthermore, the news article itself doesn't cover his HvV appearance very much, despite trivially mentioning it.

Curiously, I wonder whether you have read and/or reread GNG, particularly the "presumed" part, which mentions and wikilinks WP:NOT. Speaking of WP:NOT, do you believe that the article violates it? Why or why not? George Ho (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234, thanks, you've analyzed the situation well and sourced and pointed out why this individual is notable. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A second relisting in a second nomination shows that the page is obviously at either Keep or No Consensus (by relisting does the first keep or delete comment "break a tie" or something?). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your prediction, but this isn't democracy. How the arguments are weighed is up to the closer (...or DRV if the closure is viewed to be incorrect and if the closer hasn't reconsidered it). George Ho (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see plenty of coverage that passes Wikipedia:GNG. I see ongoing coverage. I see and hear the arguments that winning a reality show isn’t in an of itself notable, but I don’t concur when we are talking about one of the best known and highly covered reality shows and the individual is sufficiently sourced, I mean that Courant article cited is in pretty impressive depth. I’m just not seeing the case for deletion here.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2007-05-27-0705270663-story.html

Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The news article (or rather an interview with Westman that is posing as an article) from Hartford Courant was two years after Palau (2005). As I see, he discussed mostly Palau, he was hired as The Hartford representative, and he made a guest role in The Young and the Restless. I'm unsure, despite being highly detailed (or significantly covered), whether one is enough to make his insurance career more significant than or as significant as his time in Palau. So would his Y&R role. All it would is potentially improve the article, but I'm still uncertain whether detailing his insurance career and adding the guest role in a soap opera can save the article from being redirected to the season page. George Ho (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guy won a highly publicized show (and with high ratings, most episodes were >20M), returned to the same show several years later, appeared in another television show (albeit as a guest), appeared on specials related to that event (including both direct Survivor shows and TVGuide), appeared on Letterman, was nominated for a Teen’s Choice award (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1798644/awards/), etc etc. I am just not seeing how the combination of reasonably detailed articles isn’t enough to establish notability here, both those cited in the article, and those present elsewhere. I guess my point is, we can quibble over individual sources all we want, but I think that’s losing the forest for the trees…your ultimate argument seems to be that winning a reality show shouldn’t make him notable under WP:BLP1E, but I’m not sure that really works for two reasons…first, I think he falls between WP:BLP1E and regular bio, since while the win is what pushes him over the top, he did have the subsequent appearance on the show; second, I think there’s sufficient sourcing out there for WP:BLP1E.

As an aside, does anybody have access to TV guide online, there may be a June 5 2005, Vol. 53, Iss. 23, pg. 36, by: Katie Gallagher, "What Women Want..." article that involves or mentions him that should be checked?

Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase I said before: his role in Palau is the most significant. His other appearances either pale in comparison or don't match, especially the one in Heroes vs Villains. In other words, not as significant as his Palau appearance (and win). Oh, and the page from IMDB is user-generated and considerably unreliable per WP:IMDB. And.... I wonder whether the author of a TV Guide article was the same Palau runner-up (who IMHO performed abysmally in the (jury) finale, i.e. Final Tribal Council).

Oh, and I checked other sources used in the article. Per WP:RSP#Screen Rant, Screen Rant isn't appropriate for BLP articles. Survivor Hall of Fame isn't independent from Survivor franchise to me; that source is also part-interview (i.e. primary source). Neither is the host Jeff Probst's top ten favorite winners. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is alternate (albeit not contemporaneous) confirmation of the Teen’s Choice award nomination and I’m sure it’s verifiable in print media (this was 2005, not everything is going to be online). https://liverampup.com/entertainment/tom-westman-survivor-married-wife-family-height.html

I guess I still just don’t see how he doesn’t rise to the level of notable, I mean heck, the guy was on one of the weekly TV Guide covers https://books.google.com/books/about/TV_Guide.html?id=m6yvgvusRXoC and gets mentioned pretty regularly.

I get that you have sourcing concerns, but I think they’re not insurmountable. And again, I think we can nitpick over each individual source not meeting this policy, or that policy, but I think the shear bulk of evidence here is enough that we should preserve. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Screen Rant is not verboten, it’s cautioned…

“ There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons.” I would argue you’re interpreting WP:RSP#Screen Rant more strictly than it was intended, notability isn’t what I view the consensus view of “controversial” for RSP. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about Screen Rant. Moving on, I don't know where Live Ramp Up got the info about Teen Choice Awards nomination from, but I can find another source via The Wikipedia Library. (Speaking of Teen Choice, that nomination was Palau-based.) The source uses CBS News article; reliable, but it's based on winning the Palau season. The Uproxx article, also used by Live Ramp Up, is dead, and I couldn't find it on Internet Archive. George Ho (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really do hear your Wikipedia:BIO1E concerns.

It’s marginal if any reliable sources cover him as a main or sole focus of coverage of the event initially making him notable, rather than him only in connection with an event or organization. I fully acknowledge that. However, since he was the main focus of several post-win articles, and there were several events associated with the win including the aforementioned nomination, and since there are other events such as a second, full not merely reunion/clip show appearance on Survivor (American TV series), which I acknowledge not all will consider a separate event, I think he squeaks over. BUT the article would still need substantial revision if retained as it currently is partially duplicative of the content in the season article and needs improved sourcing. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo7hs2 (who is Jo7hs1?), thanks for your good analysis and for holding strong against the bludgeon. No wonder many good editors won't come close to RfC discussions, some of these guys tooth and nail editors before the keyboard finishes vibrating. Survivor really has to live up to its name here! Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Survivor_(American_TV_series)_contestants as per WP:BLP1E MetricMaster (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Jo7hs2 - Subject meets WP:GNG. I don't see why WP:BLP1E would apply here; we have evidence of sustained coverage beyond the single event. Suriname0 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable according to all relevant guidelines. I’m surprised anyone would have considered this to be in question. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's further comment - I can respect and appreciate !keep votes that cite notability, guidelines, and number of activities and appearances. However, the matter isn't solely about notability. Rather it's about what to do to the article about him. I'm unsure whether detailing his appearances and activities, especially less significant ones, would be in readers' best interests as well as this project's. If the article is retained by default, be it "kept" or "no consensus", then that means cleaning up the article. However, I'm unsure whether cleaning up the article would help much other than to appease those wanting to keep the article. George Ho (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot: the whole discussion depends on whether guidelines or policies weigh more than the other. If neither, then should be equally, right? George Ho (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page should have been Kept a long time ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Just a somewhat editorial comment that the notability template is intended to flag articles that need to be looked at and either tagged for deletion or have the template removed. It is not intended to remain forever, as with any such template. Its presence doesn't 'solve' an issue, it highlights one. Anyways, there's a consensus to delete here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Escoda

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

Certainly accomplished, but I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Was deprodded, and additional sourcing was added, however, none of that was in-depth either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Law, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while he’s clearly accomplished, I concur, I did my own search and I’m not seeing sourcing that is in depth, only casual mentions beyond his firm’s bio, and his publications, the significance of which isn’t established either. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company lawyer is not terribly notable, rest is routine business stuff. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to keep the articleThe the criteria is for Wikipedia:Notability is "Thus, notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources.". I think there are several reliable sources and independent from the subject that enable a objective verification:

as a university teacher (web and news of the CEU San Pablo University, Complutense University of Madrid,...),
as a legal scholar (Dialnet database, Dykinson publishers, Bosh publishers, ...),
as a lawyer (Spanish National Institute of Cybersecurity database and news, legal newspapers as ConfiLegal, ...).

Some of the sources are not deep enough. I agree. Could be. But that is precisely what the {{n-tability|1=Biographies}} template is for. The article has twenty references. If they aren't deep enough, that's usually fixed with that template. No need to delete the article.

The article refers to a Spanish lawyer and businessman. He is not a person like an actor or a singer. His references are legal, business and Spanish newspapers.

There are many references. They may not be very deep. But for that, the {{n-tability|1=Biographies}} template has already been posted. There is no need to delete it. If not, Wikipedia would run out of articles of this type.

There are many articles related to computer businesspeople, for example, that have almost no references. But that is fixed with the {{n-tability|1=Biographies}} template, not deleting them. For example, Dan Engel, Gary Bradski, Craig Mundie, ...

I de not think the article should be deleted. It would be enough to leave the {{n-tability|1=Biographies}} template as a warning.

what is the n-tability template? Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Specifically, none of the reasons in the long post above indicate notability. Certainly not WP:ACADEMIC, as the subject's publication record is very modest. As for a lawyer being registered as a lawyer, that is required. So none of that establishes any notability. Jeppiz (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. I only see blog posts and corporate websites but nothing that indicates SIGCOV. Also clearly doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 13:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Dudo

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

Played 32 mins of professional football but has spent the majority of his career as an amateur/semi-pro in the third tier of Belarusian football. After much searching in Russian and Belarusian, I have not found any clear evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Ostrovets and Football.by, both of which mention him once only. This Tribuna article used on the Belarusian Wikipedia article is just a brief loan announcement with no depth. FCO is not significant coverage and the source is not independent either, as he was employed by the club at the time. SPORTBASIC also says that team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject and winning an award based on a fan poll would never meet WP:ANYBIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I’m not convinced we have an actual consensus… or the dragging this out to a month would help create one. Status quo ante, see if the article develops and renominate if necessary. Courcelles (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayalakshmi Shibaroor

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

Non-notable professional who does her job, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article from the IFJ regarding her journalism suggests that this article needs substantial improvement MNewnham (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning by MNewnham. I originally was thinking of supporting a redirect, but the argument and source provided by MNewnham convinced me otherwise.Historyday01 (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 10:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A source included in the article says that the sting operation by her on the illegal water connection issue by BWSSB led the Government to pass an order to disconnect illegal water connections. Between this and the attack against her described in the source linked by MNewnham, she seems notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallJarsWithGreenLabels (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after discounting the socks. Courcelles (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norma De Saint Picman

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

Look like a spam, poor quality and messy reference, pictures of this article also seemed to be copyright violations. How could this passed AFC review？ -Lemonaka‎ 10:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Lemonaka‎ 10:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Environment, France, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spiderone, article is describing original works and environmental processes bz artist Norma De Saint Picman, thanks for remowing from deletion lists Eleonorahon (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonaka, pictures are original with no copyright violations, thanks for remowing a note for deletion Eleonorahon (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Missing independent reliable sources, no evidence of notability. --TadejM ^{my talk} 07:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Missing reliable sources. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Norma De Saint Picman graphical works / etchings, lithographs, are included in Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris, by her previous name Natacha Pičman, [31], [32], [33], [34], the last book original illustration for Auteur(s) : Sébaoun, Wilfrid (1928-....)

Voir les notices liées en tant qu'auteur Titre(s) : La mouette et l'horizon [Texte imprimé] / Wilfrid Sébaoun ; ill. d'Anna M. Abécassis, Michèle Belfis et Natacha Pičman Publication : Paris (85 rue d'Assas, 75006) : les Éd. de la reine Mab, 1992 Impression : 42-Saint-Just-la-Pendue : Impr. Chirat Description matérielle : 111 p. : ill., couv. ill. ; 21 cm

Autre(s) auteur(s) : Abécassis, Anna (1946?-2003). Illustrateur Voir les notices liées en tant qu'auteur Belfis, Michèle. Illustrateur Voir les notices liées en tant qu'auteur Pičman, Natacha. Illustrateur, this is regardsing her graphic work.

Keep Nora De Saint Picman Associated Fragments of Reality, Exhibition in Museum of Gorenjska, Nora de Saint Picman is a visual artist who deliberately transitions between various artistic media and connects them in her public projects, artistic cycles, and thematic challenges. She blends classical artistic expressions with new technological approaches. Painting, drawing, printmaking, collage, sculpture, photography, and screen images are the means by which the author shapes and assembles visual organisms that can be specially designed for a given gallery space. The diverse artistic images and practices are combined into unified visual and ambient installations that cannot be evaluated as self-sufficient entities. The postmodernist opening of the creative field within the narrow art gallery area is always associated with the author's expression of personal engagement. In terms of content, the author's art projects can be defined as an artistic response to a creative impulse, phenomenon, state, or event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleonorahon (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still missing independent reliable in-depth sources. --TadejM ^{my talk} 10:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this page seemed to be vandalized by sockpuppet, @TadejM@Spiderone and @WomenArtistUpdates, I've filed an SPI request on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eleonorahon -Lemonaka‎ 11:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU note to closer The above discussion is a bit of a mess with the unsigned comments, but Eleonorahon and Norawaterlilies, who left them, are confirmed to one another. I've struck through one of them. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D'LIFE Home Interiors

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

Company that looks to fail WP:NCORP, in particular WP:ORGIND. The reason for this is that I can only seem to find press releases issued by the company and no decent independent coverage. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D'LIFE as a brand is pretty popular in South India and has enjoyed sustained coverage in the digital media. Don't most reputed digital media platforms place sponsored label in the articles they publish about brands. Bluesplaya (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/company/j-m-lifestyle-interior-projects-private-limited/U74999KL2009PTC024637		~	This subsidiary is not directly mentioned, just a database page on the parent company	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/dlife-home-interiors-is-all-set-to-complete-its-south-india-expansion-in-2023/articleshow/97311274.cms	Per the disclaimer "Disclaimer - The above content is non-editorial, and TIL hereby disclaims any and all warranties..."	~ See WP:TOI		✘ No
https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/dlife-home-interiors-to-complete-south-india-expansion-by-december-2023-301723185.html	A press release directly from the company itself			✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/brandhub/dlife-home-interiors-launches-its-4th-branch-in-bangalore-nagasandra/article66622905.ece	Disclaimer in red at the bottom “This article is part of sponsored content programme.”			✘ No
https://etinsights.et-edge.com/interior-designing-evolution-in-the-urban-landscape/	Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Times – ET Edge Insights, its management, or its members			✘ 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}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the 5 cited refs, the first is about the parent company and doesn't mention D'LIFE Home Interiors at all. The rest all have disclaimers saying they are paid/sponsored content. Bennv123 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I felt a citation for the parent company JM Lifestyle will give more support to the article as a whole. Should I remove that citation?

The 2nd citation from Times of India, a trusted digital news media, does mention D'LIFE's relationship to JM Lifestyle, reporting that it is owned by the latter. Should not refer to D'LIFE as the brand of JM Lifestyle since it the article only talks about D'LIFE being owned by JM Lifestyle?

"The rest all have disclaimers saying they are paid/sponsored content".

Please note that even the most digital media platforms (Hindu/TOI) have their policy to place sponsored content label in articles about brands. Bluesplaya (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesplaya: The point is that none of these cited refs establish that this company meets the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage (i.e. not coverage that doesn't even mention the company) in sources that are reliable and independent of the subject (i.e. not sponsored content/press releases). Bennv123 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't most reputed digital media platforms place sponsored label in the articles they publish about brands. Only if the article was sponsored by that brand. Bennv123 (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that even the most digital media platforms (Hindu/TOI) have their policy to place sponsored content label in articles about brands. The business sections of The Hindu (e.g. [35], [36]) and The Times of India (e.g. [37], [38]) are full of articles about companies that are not labelled as sponsored content. Bennv123 (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find in depth coverage that isn’t either sponsored content or a press release. These sorts of primary sourcing are insufficient to establish notability, only to support factual information. Evidence in article and in my own search insufficient to establish notability at this time. Unless somebody can turn up some in-depth coverage (perhaps in another language), I’m persuaded deletion is appropriate here. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the interpretation provided in the source analysis table, although a subject's notabilty is not based solely on current sourcing. When looking at this category of AfD I try to assess the likelihood of independent, significant indepth coverage turning up if I haven't located any myself. Open to changing my opinion should someone find sources that satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG but for now I don't see any, so recommend delete. Rupples (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find sources that satisfy WP:NCORP. Although Cited pages look WP:SECONDARY they are largely WP:PRIMARY as they include disclaimers like this one: Disclaimer - The above content is non-editorial MetricMaster (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panuwat Kongchan

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

Semi-pro footballer playing in the third tier in Thailand who made 4 professional appearances half a decade ago. Google News has one hit; Goal, which mentions Kongchan just once. Further Thai searches did dig up more coverage, but nothing addressing Kongchan in detail. Super Sub Thailand is a trivial mention as a goalscorer. Thsport and Ballthai both have an article about him, however, both sources largely duplicate each other and also severely lack any independent analysis. Clear consensus exists at AfD that sources which consist of little more than just a quote from a player are not considered to be significant. Ballthai does mention his age (which differs from what this article has) but that isn't WP:SIGCOV either. Please note that WP:SPORTBASIC calls for sources to be intellectually independent of each other so, even if Thsport and Ballthai were considered to be significant in terms of coverage, they would only count as one source because of the duplication. An explanation can be found here.

If someone can find multiple WP:RS discussing Kongchan in detail that are independent from each other, I'll happily withdraw this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 10:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Raymond Gottlieb

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

Do we have an article on this guy just because he may or may not be the father of a princess's child or has he actually been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources? I, for one, do not see it. Or is this a case of a person notable for a single (impregnation) event? You be the judge! Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and France. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLPGOSSIP: Avoid repeating gosip. "Rumoured" isn't good enough. And with that and the unsourced stuff removed, there isn't anything left. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Courcelles (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke (Mortal Kombat)

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

Minor character that actually fails notability guidelines with lack of third-party sources. GlatorNator (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters. All of the reception is trivial mentions and minor gamecruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters per nom. Essentially no notable role in the series since day one. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This will be the 3rd Mortal Kombat character deletion attempt that is currently active. It just seems like some attempt to pull off a WP:GAME. Here's more sources that were somehow unable to be found despite me finding them in seconds: https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters3/smoke.html, https://altarofgaming.com/character/smoke/, https://legacy.mortalkombatonline.com/content/games/mk3/smoke/, http://mortalkombatwarehouse.com/mk/smoke/, https://screenrant.com/mortal-kombat-smoke-subzero-lin-kuei-cyber-initiative/, https://www.mkcsite.com/portfolio/smoke/, https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2020/nov/24/reptile-ermac-smoke-fatality-mk11ultimate/, https://www.mksecrets.net/mk3/eng/mk3-bios.php, https://www.warnerbros.co.uk/news/articles/2020/12/23/komplete-history-mortal-kombat-part-1, http://www.avoidingthepuddle.com/smoke-mortal-kombat-9-guide/, https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2022/apr/19/mortal-kombat-cut-ending/, https://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com/mk3/smoke/bio/, Smoke clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines on what sources are reliable and what sources are not. Random pages are not proof of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ Have you gone through every single source I posted?KatoKungLee (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even from the URLs I can tell that pretty much all of them are primary/unreliable/inadmissible. I don't even have to read them to know that, as it is extremely obvious from where they are located (and from my unreliable sources plugin going into heavier red alert than the Starship Enterprise). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, you have not and therefore you don't know.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how "I read the URL's" equates to "I have not". If a source is inadmissible per WP:RS, what is in it is not going to change anything about the situation. Being disruptive, childish and hostile is not going to help your case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KatoKungLee, you are being disruptive across-the-board in these AfDs. You should know that "mortalkombatwarehouse.com" or "mksecrets.net" or "mkcsite.com" clearly do not help in establishing notability. Go check out WP:VG/RS for what are considered reliable sources before asking others to check your clearly subpar search results. It's not helping your case and it's detrimental to the process. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not viable sources in the slightest. They’re either primary (Warner Bros., who happens to own the franchise, and sites with “MK” in the domain name) or deemed unreliable (EventHubs). I advise you take a look at What is and is not a reliable VG source? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters. per nom. No SIGCOV, lots of cruft. // Timothy :: talk 09:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - character does not appear to have independent notability. None of the sources presented so far help prove it either - they're all a combination of unreliable sources (eventhubs), Fansites (anything with mk in the title of the site) or not third party coverage (Warner Bros). Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Completely non-notable. No coverage. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters MetricMaster (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters: As with the other Mortal Kombat character articles, this one is not independently notable. A spinout if unnecessary and it's padded with a whole ton of cruft. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters. I kind of wish the nominator here had nominated all of these articles together, but with the extensive amount of WP:FANCRUFT in each of these, I understand why it's taking so long too. Nomader (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kabal (Mortal Kombat)

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

Like many other lesser Mortal Kombat characters, no longer meets general notability standards due to lack of viable third-party coverage. Should be redirected to the MK character article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect To List of Mortal Kombat characters. Very minor character with an unnecessary spinout - merits only a list entry. The reception scrapes the bottom of the barrel of fancruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningless comment It’s not so much an unnecessary spinout, but more about how Wiki standards for VG notability have evolved over the years (the Reptile article just had its GA status rightfully revoked), plus time has simply not been kind to the midcard MK characters. What was considered good reception back in the day is now outdated and superficial, hence a lot of MK character articles getting the ax as of late. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a spinout - it was merged in 2008 and spun back out in 2012, then went back and forth until it was permanently spun out in 2014 with a massive expansion (of cruft). At that point, guidelines for notability were well established. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both assertions are correct, and not mutually exclusive. It's both. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per above. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters#Kabal per above. –Vipz (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and there's a lot more sources out there (only if you look for them though). Not real sure what the sudden interest in MK character deletions is, but Reptile, Shinnok, Smoke and Baraka are either all now up for deletion or just passed it. Is every MK character going to be nominated?KatoKungLee (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of them do not seem to be notable for anything besides a mention at List of Mortal Kombat characters and their sources were heavily WP:REFBOMBed to give the false appearance of notability. I would expect most of them to not withstand an AfD. There is the odd character like Mileena who may be notable in their own right, though her article would not really stand up to modern Good Article standards and needs a massive pruning in parts to remove all the "So and so ranked her 12th on the hottest female characters list" sentences. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A mere claim to notability with no corroborating evidence other than "sources exist" is not sufficient. This is an encyclopaedia. Not a database of video game characters. Evidence of notability needs to be provided. Please list your best three sources that demonstrate notability and I will change my submission to keep. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The “there’s sources out there” argument bugs the [expletive] out of me. If someone thinks there are sources out there for an article on the chopping block, then for Pete’s sake, they need to go find them. I cleaned up the article several months ago, which doesn’t make me special, but there were simply no new viable sources out there. And no, not every character will be put up for deletion, which would be overkill. Baraka had been tagged for notability since last November following the first rash of redirects. For being the mega franchise MK is, unfortunately it’s either feast or famine in regards to coverage of the characters. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but as I've already told you, this is not a "recent trend", there have been many MK characters at AFD in recent months/years. It's not indicative of anything beyond experienced editors noticing shoddy articles existing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters per nom. No SIGCOV, lots of cruft. // Timothy :: talk 10:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - character does not appear to be independently notable by Wikipedia standards. None of the sources submitted to this AFD would constitute significant coverage from a third party reliable source. I can run through them if I must, but it feels like most editors already see pretty easily that the source quality thus far is extremely low. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is clearly fancruft. I'm sorry, but there is no SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters: Per nom and Sergecross73. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I understand the merge votes considering the current state of the article, however, I've been keeping my eye on this one for a while, and I've found this this, this and this. The last one, for instance, touches upon censorship. The first one is particular in-depth. I'm not sure on the reliability of this one, but here's article of him on an old archive site. As with Kung Lao, there might be more out there, so I'll continue looking. But as it is, I feel this passes the notability test. MoonJet (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bleeding Cool is merely a blurb and is not notable coverage. ComicBook's short piece about his Brutality doesn't actually discuss censorship at all. And the "Sony Geniuses" is a blog that is definitely not viable VG content. C'mon, man. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ComicBook source not that much, but it's good to use to find more sources that might uncover more and better sources. Bleeding Cool is not much on its own, but might help with other sources. MoonJet (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Den of Geek is the only source that is useful that you've cited. Article still fails notability guidelines for third party sources. GlatorNator (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedingly weak example of RS coverage. Doesn't bode well if you're putting your best examples out first. Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect lacking of independent sources. GlatorNator (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 00:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Kaun?

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

Pay-TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for such a series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MrsSnoozyTurtle do you remember this AfD? Best of luck. :) Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as 3+ full length reviews are there. And many more can be added. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: per WP:SK#3. Clearly passes WP:NFO as there are many reviews of the series. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 13:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has many reliable sources and reviews with more that can be added Lewcm (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily passes GNG, see sources like Indian Express, India Today, Hindustan Times etc which can be easily found over the internet. On the contrary I believe the nominator should go through the Wikipedia policies properly again before taking any other article to AFD, since they have also unsuccessfully nominated another article in the past as mentioned by Twinkle1990. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 16:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is WP:SIGCOV by multiple independent secondary WP:RS establishing the subject’s notability and satisfying WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bava (Singer)

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

There is no wide coverage, with only a few in-passing mentions. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's hard to know how much involvement she had on this if she's a co-writer and without anything else to build her case, it's not a super strong argument to keep her.KatoKungLee (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient WP:INDEPTH coverage for WP:GNG purposes. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Al-Nasri

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Oman. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mock Spanish

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

Argumentative essay that doesn't attempt to explain it's topic neutrally, WP:TNT AtlasDuane (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Bilateral relations. AtlasDuane (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see references coming from different sources, so I don't see a problem with the topic's neutrality. I'm more worried however about the essay part, since most of its content seems to come from a primary source and derivative works. Irecorsan (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up as necessary. This is a notable topic within the fields of (socio)linguistics and anthropology. As Irecorsan notes, it currently cites sources from several different authors. There is usable material here, including in the edit history. Cnilep (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. A quick perusal on Google Scholar comes back with a large number of hits that seem to be discussing this as a distinct phenomenon, referring back to Hill (I think), and not just using the phrase generically. Nevertheless, I'm a little squeamish about the WP:FRINGE aspects and neutrality of this. If there are no sources critical of such a new idea and Hill's claims specifically, it might be difficult to write a good article about. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don’t know what may have changed in the guidelines since I was an active editor, but I don’t understand why a fairly content-rich and well-sourced article should ever be nominated for deletion rather than simply cleaned up. Wikipedia is a source of information, and any information that cites valid secondary sources should virtually always be kept. Tone and quality issues should always be handled by editing. If there is some information that comes from a primary source, then the first remedy (in most cases), I think would be to look for secondary sources for the same content. If secondary sources are not found, then the portions of the article that rely entirely on primary sources should be deleted until such time as secondary sources are found. If sodoing renders the article empty or stubbed, then it should be filled out with what information there IS to be found in secondary sources. Only after trying to fix the article’s problems should an article ever be nominated for deletion. Poor editing is solved by better editing, deletion is the lazy editor’s fix; if you have the time to nominate then you have the time to edit, and that is the most valuable way to spend time as an editor. Wikipedia becomes more valuable through building, and deletion should always be a last resort. Jumping to deletion without first doing what you can to improve the content and presentation is, to my mind, at least as destructive as vandalism in that it not only reduces the value of the wiki as a resource, but also helps to create the widespread perception that our editors are some kind of clique who put gatekeeping above content creation, and it has led to a lot of editors—myself included—feeling that the task of making useful information available to a wider audience has been abandoned. Which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as more and more inclusionists leave in frustration at their work being devalued, leaving the ever-growing proportion of deletionists to drive the culture of the wiki towards a “less is more” mindset. But in reality, when it comes to information sharing, less is simply less. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am not understanding the press for deletion. The article is well sourced and there is plenty of supporting evidence not yet cited in the article, including mentions in major newspapers and scholarly articles. It’s clearly a topic in linguistics and has social relevance. Issues with tone, quality of writing, etc should be dealt with by editing, not deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems to be about the same idea as wonton font, incorporating cultural elements into another form of expression. Article is well-sourced, seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with above. I think it could use more sources especially in the "The opposing perspective" section, which only has one reference. But it's a good start, and would be better with edits rather than a full deletion. The two sides should be fleshed out more to give neutrality, and the opposition not just a long summary of a single paper. I also noticed that AtlasDuane mostly hunts out articles for deletion, so that could be why he pushed for deletion while the rest of us see it as an edit issue. Just a thought :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slach11 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Brown (social scientist)

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

Zero notability. No in-depth, independent coverage. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Veggies (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Veggies (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before anyone says it, fellowship in the Royal Society of Arts does not appear to be satisfactory for the purposes of WP:NPROF#3, as fellowship is quite trivial. Curbon7 (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We have nine reviews of four books. That would normally be enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, but my keep is weak because the two with the most reviews are edited volumes rather than authored works. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Similar to David Eppstein, I think she has a weak pass at WP:AUTHOR, due to the number of books that have reviews in academic journals. Are the books "well known" and "significant"? I think it could be argued either way, but well known enough for academics to do substantive reviews of them, although each of them seems to have only one review, hence the "weak". I improved the article a bit, added an education section, improved categories and infobox, I didn't add any significant coverage CT55555(talk) 15:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is a long-standing member of methodologically-orientated organisations, such as the Pedagogy Network of the National Centre for Research Methods (https://www.ncrm.ac.uk/research/pedagogy.php) and the Centre for Imaginative Ethnography (https://imaginative-ethnography.com/how-we-work/who-we-are/), and edits in the capacity of a methodological expert for the Journal of Participatory Research Methods (https://jprm.scholasticahq.com/editorial-board), Disability and Society (https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=editorialBoard&journalCode=cdso20) and The Qualitative Report (https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/editorialboard.html).

and

She is regularly invited as a keynote presenter and workshop leader, such as for example for the National Centre for Research Methods, the Social Research Association (https://the-sra.org.uk/SRA/SRA/Events/Archive-of-presentations.aspx?hkey=5585b053-e9b5-499f-8714-a2272a08081c), the American Association for Public Opinion Research (https://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/Online-Education/Webinar-Details.aspx?webinar=WEB1222), Photovoice Worldwide (https://www.photovoiceworldwide.com/key-themes-in-photovoice-research/), as well as numerous symposia and network conferences (https://blogs.staffs.ac.uk/c3centre/events/event/art-practice-based-research-seminar-series-hosted-by-agata-lulkowska/; https://www.ucl.ac.uk/qualitative-health-research-network/nicole-brown; https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/centre-for-qualitative-research/2022/03/09/qualitative-research-symposium-2022/). 2001:871:205:5773:A0A2:93BE:CF29:EB1F (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NACADEMIC as he is Fellow of Royal Society of Arts and also passes WP:NAUTHOR as we can find reviews. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Satisfies WP:AUTHOR based on books alone IMHO, her academic h-index is 15 which is considered ok MetricMaster (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thamina Kabir

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

Autobiography of lawyer and beauty contest entrant. Of the 14 cited sources, mrsuniverseltd.com and thesbbs.org are non-indpendent primary sources. The Sun is generally unreliable and deprecated, according to WP:RS/PS. Only two, Samakal and Banglanews24.com, have a general reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. However, their two articles (so similar they're probably based on the same press release) are brief human-interest stories, which may not be up to the same standards as their news reporting, as described at WP:NEWSORG. Searches found nothing deeper than brief quotes in connections with clients she has represented in court. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Worldbruce (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Beauty pageants, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Worldbruce (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lawyer is famous in the UK for the landmark case where she represented a Muslim client and secured dowry payment and compensation for harassment. Please see link below for Landmark UK court ruling due in ‘bride price’ dispute.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/16/landmark-uk-court-ruling-due-in-bride-price-dispute 2A00:23C5:9198:A901:F1C3:F22E:C694:5E99 (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lawyer is famous in the UK for the landmark case where she represented a Muslim client and secured dowry payment and compensation for harassment. General public should be aware of this case as it relates to many women from different background not just Muslim background in the UK.

Please see links below for Landmark UK court ruling due in ‘bride price’ dispute.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/16/landmark-uk-court-ruling-due-in-bride-price-dispute 2A00:23C5:9198:A901:F1C3:F22E:C694:5E99

Relevant paras: “If this case is won in favour of Nazma, this decision will be an overwhelming triumph not only for her but also for other women in her circumstances,” said Thamina Kabir, the principal solicitor at Thamina Solicitors, who is representing Brishty.

“There is no established case law or parliamentary law dealing with women in this position. The decision itself would be the best and most thorough examination of a problem that has vexed legal practitioners for decades.”

“This decision, if made in the favour of Nazma, would be a landmark decision of this decade and would positively influence the justice system by forcing the legal practitioners to think in a different way to ensure the claimants’ entitlement that they deserve. Certainly we will see more and more cases at the doorsteps of civil and family practitioners.”

If the court finds in Brishty’s favour, the case will establish a precedent that cases involving mahr can be heard at UK county courts for breach of contract and at the family court as part of financial settlement. This would enable women to demand the payment of their mahr in full as is required by sharia law.

The ruling would be applicable not only to Muslim women but to women from all cultural backgrounds where the tradition of giving mahr is practised, regardless of their immigration status in the UK and whether the contract was in oral or written form."

Source 2: https://www.muslimwomenscouncil.org.uk/media/news/landmark-uk-judgment-bride-price

Source 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He1sHdzgBU8

Source 4: https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed222992 2A00:23C5:9198:A901:F1C3:F22E:C694:5E99 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources in the existing article and the comment by 2A00:23C5:9198:A901:F1C3:F22E:C694:5E99, I would say this page merits remaining as an article. Surely, it should be improved, but deletion is not the answer.Historyday01 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to a single one of those sources that is reliable, independent, secondary, and contains significant coverage of Thamina Kabir? --Worldbruce (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited from court cases, noms source evaluation is accurate, BLPs need proper sourcing and there is not SIGCOV from Ind RS that address the subject directly and indepth. Article reads like a resume, not a biography. // Timothy :: talk 13:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kunj-e-Qafas

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

This was draftified by me but creator recreated it. Fails WP:NBOOK. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The book has received media coverage and several reviews in Urdu sources: Daily Jang, IBC Urdu, Daily Nai Baat, Daily Pakistan, Geo TV, and a few others. Insight 3 (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above comment and added some improvement, doesn't fail WP:NBOOK. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I understand the concern about prior draftification, my reasoning is that the amount of media coverage pushes the subject across the WP:NBOOK threshold. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Shawn ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Baah

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

Doesn't meet the basic badminton criteria WP:NBAD to qualify for a Wikipedia article. zoglophie 05:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Ghana. zoglophie 05:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sourcing consists entirely of statistics tables, game recaps, and mentions in lists of players. No SIGCOV whatsoever. –dlthewave ☎ 02:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5; nothing more than trivial coverage found. The article creator has done well to build something from the stats coverage and passing mentions that are available but the subject doesn't seem to meet our minimum inclusion criteria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After an independent in-depth look into the article subject, I find that it fails WP:GNG. Additionally, I also uncovered the fact that it fails WP:SPORTSBASIC under criterion 5. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 00:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parul Gossain

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - coverage consists largely of WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can’t find anything to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are all quotes or interview (i.e. primary). KhinMoTi (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Provided sources are not good and I was not able to find anything else that is good. Fails notability. Pershkoviski (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, brief mention sources doesn't pass the notability check. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd say that the sources are ok, and that Gossain is mentioned in various books, like From Bombay to Bollywood: The Making of a Global Media Industry (also see here), Indian Cinema Through the Century, and other publications such as "From IndiaFM.com to Radio Ceylon: New media and the making of the Bombay film industry" (forthcoming publication), and some other scattered articles. From what I'm reading here, it appears that the other commenters here, and OP, did not do their due diligence to find at least some sources, as I found these sources pretty quickly.Historyday01 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, and in my opinion, she stands out for including reference to reputable sources. passes WP:BASIC. DYDK (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC) — DYDK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure why this was relisted once. Let alone twice. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nowhere near enough coverage by WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. I agree that it seems there was already a consensus to delete before being relisted… I assumed there was perhaps a reason for this, and maybe everyone was missing some proof of notability out there, so I looked into the subject myself and simply confirmed that there is no realistic claim to notability. I would be more likely to support keeping the article if the subject were notable per WP:GNG. However, the subject isn’t notable and therefore doesn’t warrant an article per wiki guidelines. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is clearly no appetite for deleting the article, since the subject appears to be demonstrably notable, although there really is no clear consensus as to what to do next. Then again, that's an editorial matter that can be discussed outside of the context of an AfD, so I am closing as keep without prejudice to any further action. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Swabia

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

Even if this article weren't an unsourced, confusing, and poorly constructed list, its subject—the title—does not seem to be notable; all results I can find pertain to its bearers. There is no discussion about what authority, if any, the Duchess of Swabia holds, or how the role's history. An anonymous username, not my real name 05:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and History. An anonymous username, not my real name 05:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot write knowledgeably about the subject (or her noteworthiness), but I was bewildered when I opened what I thought would be one Duchess, I instead saw a long string of royal houses (that was one long, varied life !); Unless constrained by some project-wide convention, I think it would be clearer to retitle this (if worthy of retention) Duchesses of Swabia. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Duke of Swabia. Completely unsourced list with no explanation of its criteria, and no improvement in over a decade. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be feasible to attach a duchess or duchesses to each duke in that list, as happens with many such lists (e.g. Descendants of Queen Victoria. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The table at Duke of Swabia has a "Marriage(s)" column that could potentially contain more information. —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The corresponding table at Duchess of Swabia, oddly enough, has no column for the names of their husbands, which leaves the reader adrift. I strongly (though perhaps ignorantly) suspect that the corresponding Dukes are at least as notable as their respective Duchesses. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the right hand column. Bermicourt (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After slapping hand to my forehead twice (how could I miss the same thing in two different tables?), I started re-sorting the Duchess tables to put husbands in the middle (after marriage and before duchess-becoming, leaving death as the intuitively-logical end) and boldfacing both spouses, so that they're more apparent to a careless reader like me. I've done maybe 40-50% so far, realizing that my efforts might well vanish in the mist. Incidentally, after years hard-taught lessons in Wiki markup, I was able to remove a lot of unneeded coding.—— Shakescene (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind this being kept as improved, but would like to see the scope clarified. Why doesn't the list start with Liutgard? And what is the point in having extra (very short) tables for every separate dynasty? —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. I've just spent a few minutes on Google Books searching for "Duchess of Swabia" in German and found sources that refer to half of them. Hadwig (Hedwig) is the most frequently mentioned in connexion with this title, but Judith, Reginlind (Regelinda) and Gisela also appear a lot. Others found include: Ida, Matilda, Elisabeth, Gerberga, Adelgund (Adelaide or Adelheid?). And there are two missing from the list: Maria/Marie and Jutta. So it's clear this was a real historical office and this list appears entirely genuine, but no one's added any sources yet. I suspect the nom only searched in English (understandably) and not in German where there are clearly a lot of sources. Bermicourt (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: I've made a start by adding a lead sentence. This article has not been tagged as unreferenced or with any other improvement tags, so should be given a chance before being brought here to AfD. I note that the original creator, clearly a royalty/nobility specialist, edited regularly from 2010 to 2017, but seems not to have edited since then apart from a flurry in Feb 2022, so may not be around to help improve it. PamD 08:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started a discussion at Talk:Duchess of Swabia about adding descriptive details where warranted to make this more than a bare list. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that until a few minutes ago it was only tagged on the talk page with one WikiProject banner: I have added 3 more and left a note to alert relevant editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. PamD 09:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources clearly exist, per Bermicourt. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just added sources for eleven of these women. It's made slighly trickier by the fact that their names in Latin or German are sometimes different from their English names, but the sources give enough information (dates and spouses) to identify them. I've only looked for sources that link the person with the actual title. Of course, there will be a lot more out there that just refer to "Foo of Swabia", but I wanted to establish first that we have people recognised as duchesses of Swabia. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main question is whether they should be listed separately from their husbands. —Kusma (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A subsidiary question would be how much discussion could continue at (or be transferred to) Talk:Duchess of Swabia. While the main question is if Dss of S should be deleted or merged with Duke of S, the distinction between AfD and Talk Page inevitably got muddy with perfectly-legitimate votes to "Keep but Improve" — when you say that, it would seem unconstructive or even perverse to leave "Improve" without at least suggesting how. I am adding my own comment or suggestion in reply to your (User:Kusma's) remark above about lists of dukes and duchesses, but any follow-up should probably be a new topic at the (perhaps doomed) Duchess talk page. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to merging or moving. AFD is not cleanup. Srnec (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject has demonstrable notability. It is in need of improvements, not deletion. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shanmen. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Shanmen

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

The same with Shanmen, maybe merge 淺藍雪^❉ 04:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Huangdan2060 (talk · contribs) created both articles (Hall of Shanmen and Shanmen). The two concepts seem to be different:
1. "The Shanmen (simplified Chinese: 山门; traditional Chinese: 山門; pinyin: Shānmén}, also known as Sangedatsumon or Gate of Three Liberations, is the most important gate of a Chinese Chan Buddhist temple."
2. "The Hall of Shanmen or Shanmen Hall (simplified Chinese: 山门殿; traditional Chinese: 山門殿; pinyin: Shānméndiàn), also known as Hall of Three Liberation or Hall of Mount Gate, is the gate of a Chinese Chan Buddhist temple. In ancient times, nearly all Chinese Buddhist temples had a Shanmen, as an important gate of the temple. After successive wars and cultural discontinuity, with only one gate, most of the existing ancient Buddhist temples usually follow the hall style or change the middle gate of the three main gates into a hall called "Hall of Shanmen"."
Hall of Shanmen seems to refer to a gate of a Chan Buddhist temple, while Hall of Shanmen refers to the most important gate of a Chan Buddhist temple. I do not know enough about the subject to know whether they are the same topic and whether they should be covered in separate articles or merged together. I've asked Huangdan2060 to provide their opinion here as the creator of both articles.
Cunard (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pretty much interchangable words, 殿 means hall, and Shanmen is in fact usually a hall, so 山門殿 is tautological, even if different, the difference (Shanmen could also exist as a pure gate) is only minimal that doesn't qualify a separarte article, a section at most.--淺藍雪^❉ 13:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation.

Merge/redirect to Shanmen per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect Looks like the same thing. 山门殿 in Chinese Wikipedia is a redirect to 山门. Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for the Study of Science Fiction

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Lacks any truly independent sources. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Organizations, Education, and Kansas. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page - the lack of TRULY independent sources is largely due to a previous director who keeps trying to use the page to promote himself and his current project - every time someone tries to make the page better, he goes in and puts in the self-referential links instead. This Center is an important one, and we are trying to block users who are continuing to add circular, self-promotional material. 23.112.95.243 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to allow the staff to update the page and maintain a page free from interference, we can start by blocking 2600:1700:5ac1:4c30:4d50:e524:219:22a7 from modifying the page (until he gets another IP, of course). Thanks. 23.112.95.243 (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One account has been blocked and the page is semi-protected so that IP addresses cannot edit it. Propose changes on the talk page. Edit warring is unacceptable. And who, exactly is this "we" and "staff" you refer to? If you have an association with the topic, then you have a conflict of interest, and you should not be touching the article, but using the talk page instead. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, if truly independent sources exist, where are they? Simply copy and paste the URLs or whatever in this discussion. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page initially created and edited by a former Center director, with multiple links to his website and a non-neutral POV. As above, those affiliated with Center also appear to be editing. Page should probably be deleted in keeping with conflict of interest policy. 2001:49D0:8511:3:683E:901E:3E2:CCCC (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TRAINWRECK. If this is a notable subject, interested parties could then create a new, policy conforming draft in AFC. 208.185.4.221 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: there was significant logged-out editing going on and I've tried to put a stop to that. TRAINWRECK is applicable, but I'd prefer it if DISinterested parties created a new article. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Olson-Kennedy

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

Fails WP:NBASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC.

On NBASIC, in the article at time of nomination there were four media articles that Olson-Kennedy did not author. All of these articles contain brief commentary from her, but none of the articles are about her. While conducting WP:BEFORE, I continued to find articles containing brief quotations from her but I found no WP:RS about her that met WP:SIGCOV.

On ANYBIO, none of the awards listed on Olson-Kennedy's work profile website seem to meet ANYBIO#1. I was not able to find any in-depth media or academic coverage of her that would meet ANYBIO#2. For ANYBIO#3 I was not able to find any biographical dictionaries that cover Olson-Kennedy's research field, but I don't have access to the more general Marquis Who's Who to preform a search.

On NACADEMIC, while Olson-Kennedy's research has been cited, I've not found any evidence that it has had significant impact per #1. She's not recieved any awards that qualify for #2. She's not been elected to a highly selective and prestegious society or association for #3. Her research is not in the field of higher education for #4. She's not heled a named chair or distinguished profesor for #5. She's not held a high level elected or appointed administrative post for #6. Though she has been quoted in conventional reliable media, I don't think it's frequent enough to meet #7. And she's not been head or cheif editor of any academic journals in her field per #8. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Medicine. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also just to note, Olson-Kennedy is a paediatrician who treats and supports trans youth and adolescents, as such her article is a semi-frequent target for borderline attack content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment query: could that be addressed with a lock or other measures short of deletion? Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. The subject here has published under both the last name "Olson-Kennedy" and also "Olson". Under the latter name, I see enough highly cited papers that I think it is a pass of WP:NPROF C1. The media seeking her out as an expert on transgender issues provides some support via WP:NPROF C7. The article is in poor shape, but as usual WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking "weak", after substantial sources found by Mvqr. The PBS piece in particular (which is distinct from a different PBS piece cited by the current article) looks to be somewhat significant coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Russ Woodroofe points out the citation record is significant. Furthermore, there is coverage by significant media: [39], [40], [41], [42]. --Mvqr (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to disagree with nom, I see enough citations of her (under either name) work that I disagree with nom’s characterization on #1 and I see enough mass media quotes to disagree with characterization on #7. Citation record is sufficient to pass NPROF and she’s been held out as an expert by at least some credible media. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in line with other users. The sources cited seem credible enough to justify keeping this page. A quick search pulls up USC Health Profiles, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Duke Sexual and Gender Minority Health Program, National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center, The Atlantic (supposedly mentioned in this article, but its behind a paywall, so I can't confirm it), San Diego State University School of Social Work, Academy for Professional Excellence, ScienceNews, Washington Post (said to be in article, but it is behind paywall), The Hollywood Reporter (also see here), NBC News (see here), CBS News, Newsweek, Scientific American (see here), and Al Jazeera America. Historyday01 (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I looked into this myself in some depth and come to the conclusion that the article subject satisfies WP:GNG. As an additional point, I also find that WP:NPROF criteria 1 and 7 are definitively met. Hopefully my discovery of this will put the discussion on a trajectory for keeping. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghost (Pakistani TV series)

AfDs for this article:

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

Television series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find additional sourcing that would meet Wikipedia:INDEPTH. I checked to see if the show was maybe known by another name in local language, but none of the sources gave one, while giving them for other shows, so this appears to have been the air name. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails to meet WP:GNG, can't find anything except videos on social websites. Although the previous result was speedy, the problem is the same as the previous one. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lack of WP:INDEPTH coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tierny Olalere

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I read through the article sources and did a few checks of my own, and a few of them are right at the in-depth line, in my opinion, but not on the positive side of that line, and there aren’t many sources. The article is only a few days old, and ordinarily I’d be inclined to incubate, but looking at her works so far and the limited (and marginal) sourcing, I have to concur it doesn’t seem to meet NBIO. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:NACTOR. She is still an up-and-comping actress in the Nigerian film industry. She has not starred in any notable films and has not won any notable awards. It is definitely WP:TOOSOON for her to have a stand-alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reading the article and doing a careful and thorough independent search, I don’t see any indication of notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Cayce

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

Non-notable film director. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I did a search for possible Wikipedia:GNG satisfying articles. I didn’t find anything that satisfied me. The most comprehensive articles I could find were a press release and several articles about an alleged sexual assault of an actress from Harlem (TV series). See for example:

https://www.kron4.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/616117315/international-filmmaker-marc-cayce-set-to-premiere-new-movie-in-hollywood/

https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/jerrie-johnson-marc-cayce-sexual-assault-claim-49102687?utm_source=msn&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=feed

I’m just not seeing two or three good, in-depth articles here. His IMDB history doesn’t show a number, popularity, or age of works that might suggest something is missing because it’s in print, etc…

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0147270/

Accordingly, I must concur with the delete recommendation.

Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maccabiah Games medalists in karate

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

Currently unreferenced list article full of non-notable names. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable list of names and non notable tournament. Ajf773 (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be just a listing of karate medalists from some of the Maccabiah Games. There's nothing to support a claim of notability and no significant independent coverage. No evidence it's considered a major karate event in the martial arts world. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:LISTN, the subject doesn’t warrant a stand alone page. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to RepRap. czar 01:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RepRap Fisher

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

Lacks significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RepRap as per WP:ATD. I already made the language more neutral in the article, so I would support a merge into RepRap and a removal of the image(s).

Born25121642 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or weak merge) to RepRap. Not seeing sourcing to make it notable on its own. Overall RepRap article is clearly notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. Not seeing how this meets WP:NSOFT for standalone article. Coverage seems limited to press releases about product release and their rewrites.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WYSE International

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

Non-notable organization - fails WP:NORG. US-Verified (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made an attempt at sourcing and didn’t turn up anything remarkable, a few scattered mentions for them taking applications, some bios from their own website, but nothing containing significant detail. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and England. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG, and I too couldn't find any remarkable WP:SEC cites to support MetricMaster (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
Delete: Searches find passing mentions (such as this tribute to two of the management team) and mention of their "Global Change Makers" programme, but I am not finding the coverage of WYSE itself to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "TRS weighing options over joining nat'l federal front". The Times of India. 15 August 2021. KCR had mooted the idea of a federal front before the general elections in 2019. He flew from one state to another to discuss the idea with regional satraps like MK Stalin of DMK, Banerjee, HD Deve Gowda of the JD(S) and Naveen Patnaik of the BJD. However, the proposed front could not take off.

[2] Vijg, Jan; Suh, Yousin (2005-02-01). "Genetics of Longevity and Aging". Annual Review of Medicine. 56 (1): 193–212. doi:10.1146/annurev.med.56.082103.104617. ISSN 0066-4219. PMID 15660509.

[3] Pitt, Jason N.; Kaeberlein, Matt (2015-04-29). "Why Is Aging Conserved and What Can We Do about It?". PLOS Biology. 13 (4): e1002131. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002131. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 4414409. PMID 25923592.

[4] López-Otín, Carlos; Blasco, Maria A.; Partridge, Linda; Serrano, Manuel; Kroemer, Guido (2013-06-06). "The Hallmarks of Aging". Cell. 153 (6): 1194–1217. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.039. ISSN 0092-8674. PMC 3836174. PMID 23746838.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]