Hosta

< May 10	May 12 >

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing Art Gallery

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

I found no significant coverage. It also partially reads like an advertisement. SL93 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Museums and libraries, and Michigan. SL93 (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline G11 that's copied from here so G12 is also an option Delete Unable to identify ORG-compliant sourcing, mostly local coverage of exhibits, event listings and staff departures. Star Mississippi 13:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The PROD tag that was based on the false assertion that the text was copied from the referenced link was removed by an admin As noted in the removal, there was no overlap whatsoever between the article and the source, so the COPYVIO assertion by two different editors is utterly mystifying. I've added more text and sources. The sources are not all local, as there is significant statewide coverage. At first I thought that this might be a case for redirecting to the existing article subsection Lansing#Lansing Art Gallery but I now think that a stand-alone article is appropriate. Banks Irk (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source says Visual arts exhibitions, statewide art competitions, lease/purchase program and gallery shop, Holiday Art Market, referrals/information resource, ArtSmart - after school art classes, Art Scholarship Alert - high school art exhibition, Summer visual arts camp and guided field trips. The article as of this edit said Serving as a multipurpose space within the community, the gallery currently offers a meeting place for other arts organizations, exhibition facilities for Michigan artists and membership for individuals, families, small businesses and large corporations as well as statewide open competitions, education outreach, "Art Smart" after school classes, Art Scholarship Alert, high school competition, summer art camp, Saturday workshops, artist demonstrations and lectures. down to the same capitalization/spacing on Art Smart, Art Scholarship. The text was even closer in this version which should probably be RevDel'ed if the article remains. @Primefac thoughts on that? Its borderline, but there's clearly copy pasting going on. Star Mississippi 17:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the phrasing is a group of items, i.e. a list, that cannot reasonably written in any other meaningful way (e.g. "cat, dog, horse" vs "horse, dog, cat") then it's not really something that can by copyrightable. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Primefac. That makes sense. The exact same capitalization was what threw me off. Seemed to be more branding that natural use of capitals, spacing but it's all subjective Star Mississippi 20:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV already in article, including [1],[2],[3]. I also did a newspapers.com search and found significant coverage from papers other than Michigan, to be sure that it was not purely local coverage, and found articles in papers from (at least) Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and Kentucky. Jacona (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When I first looked at this AfD I thought the topic suffers the difficulty of many art space initiatives in demonstrating notability and that the best that might be achieved would be to suggest including it in an Art in <place> article. However it has been significantly enhanced by Banks Irk and, while the initiatives described are similar to those of similar art group elsewhere, I think there is enough now to indicate notability here. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Similar to Draft:Maddox Gallery. But art scene is very much subjective, a due dilligence is must. - Hatchens (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:ORG with references. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced article. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 14:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Has run two weeks with no one contesting deletion. Despite original PROD, there is no reason for another relist. Star Mississippi 02:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mermahuataur

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

Non-notable, made up creature. There are no reliable sources being used in the article, and searches brought up no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I initially PRODed this, but then belatedly noticed it had a contested PROD shortly after its creation, so I am brining it here. Rorshacma (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This is a fictional creature, which of course does not mean it cannot be notable, but other than the creators, hardly anyone has commented on it. The Mothman is notable, the sasquatch is notable... the mermahuataur is not. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TAKREEM USA

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

This looks like a vanity page of altogether no notability as per WP:COMPANY. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was hesitant to nominate for AfD since there appears to be some coverage in WP:RS but upon further review, the non-profit does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG. The vast majority of refs are from the company website. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 population concern organizations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of organisations campaigning for population stabilisation

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

This article has had zero citations for its entire history, and overlaps in scope with List of population concern organizations. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2022 (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/2022 May 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge/redirect Obvious duplicate hardly needs discussion, just keep the notable ones with articles. Peteruetz had suggested a merge on the talk page last year. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I agree with Reywas92. Dream Focus 09:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. As Reywas92 said. GenuineArt (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, as mentioned above. Alex-h (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still vote for a merger. There are many organizations on the "Campaigning" page which should merged into the "Population concern" list. But someone needs to go through them and update/add links and sources. I can do some of that later this week but not not immediately. Peteruetz (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Beach Community House

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

Sourced only to local publications. Deprodded because of the building being over 100 years old, which is not a valid argument. All of the hits on GBooks appear to be directory listings or passing mentions ("...X was a former librarian at the Harbor Beach Community House"), and the only hits on Newspapers.com were similarly trivial ("...X will be holding a program tonight at the Harbor Beach Community House"), with all but a number of said hits being from the Harbor Beach newspaper. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Michigan. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added several references, from multiple sources, to the article since the nomination and above delete vote. I feel WP:GNG is now shown to be met. NemesisAT (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of those is local, routine coverage that does not extend beyond the county. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GNG doesn't require sources outwith the county, it just requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Those conditions have been met. I really don't see why we need to be overly strict on sourcing for a historic building. NemesisAT (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: What I wrote was "Deprodding; community building >100 years old likely to have sources. Needs pruning though" implying that sources exist, thereby meriting a deletion discussion. Which we now have; thanks. No opinion at the moment, but if I don't have time to get back to this for all the other deletions in which I have more interest, then I agree with the above that significant coverage need not extend beyond the locale, as long as it talks about the history of the building or its architecture or similar, rather than just being directory listings or the like. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing about this building in the sources cited that would indicate that it is notable. The mural article doesn't even mention the building, except to say that the mural is to be painted on the building. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mural is part of the building. So I think it's fair to say articles covering the mural help establish notability for the building as a whole. NemesisAT (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's sad to see an article up for deletion without a mention of an alternative to deletion. Verifiable content here could be merged to Harbor Beach, Michigan. NemesisAT (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading the article and the sources I've come to the conclusion that it should be kept. The building is not only "old", it has been an important part of the life of this community for more than a century. The sources, although mostly local, are multiple and reliable. Alan Islas (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic by U.S. standards (>100 yrs old), significant in its community, with multiple substantial sources. --Doncram (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nakhchivan (1406)

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

Article was created and kept unsourced since creation (9 years ago). We can't tell that the event isn't a hoax, and even if it isn't it clearly doesn't pass GNG and NHISTORY notability criteria. After checking the other language versions: the Azerbaijani version's sources are not-RS (the same ones added by an IP and removed by HistoryofIran earlier), and even then they aren't verifiable sources, the Russian version has the same ones and the rest of the language versions are unsourced as well. thus no sources were found. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did try to find WP:RS regarding this, but was unable to. This event may very well have happened, but I don't think it's noticeable enough to warrant having an article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Azerbaijan. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page was tagged for speedy deletion by Kevo327 like a week ago. I made an objection against speedy deletion, and asked for a chance to improve the article. Taking it to the AfD straight after the failed speedy deletion does not make any sense. --Abrvagl (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your argument can be summed that you dislike me, so we should keep the article based on that, regardless that you have no policy based arguments or any sources to support your vote. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have feelings for you Kevo327. I ping you twice to discuss and asked time to improve the article. Although you did not reply to discussion, user Explicit declined PROD on 14:00, 18 April 2022. One hour later you nominated article for AfD. Editors should ensure that enough time has passed since previous nominations for deletion before renominating it again. Obviously 1 hour is not enough time, especially considering that I asked for a chance to improve the article. Abrvagl (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't pinged correctly, I hadn't seen that discussion. Also you haven't done anything to improve the article for a full week beside stating that you would, feel free to do so,. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It is in my to-do list. Abrvagl (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry for misunderstanding, now checked, and noted that I forgot to add 327 while pinging. Abrvagl (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I pinged you incorrectly, before immediately nominating article for AfD , you should check the reason why PROD you proposed is canceled. It is just common sense. Abrvagl (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For some reason this nomination was transcluded twice. I have copied the non-duplicative material from the second nomination here and closed it as a duplicate. Also, note to commenters, the usual wording for comments on AfD is "keep" or "delete" rather than "support" or "oppose." Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just found one source that touched a bit about the battle as part of Qara-Yusuf and Timurid rivalry. You guys can take a look at pages 450-460 of this book -> The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia by René Grousset (1939), translated by Naomi Walford (1970), through this link [[4]]. The book contained as well the information regarding the seize of Tabriz. Other than that, there is this book [[5]] titled Ethnic and Political History of Azerbaijan From Ancient Times to the Present Day by Ismail Bey Zardabli (2018) page 226, which also mentioned about Battle of Nakhchivan, although without many elaboration, and whether it is bias or not is unknown. Mfikriansori (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Archives908 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Irrelevant. Article pass both GNG and NHISTORY. Article already updated and provided with number of non-Azerbaijani reliable sources. Abrvagl (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, talking about the aftermath of something generally is just a passing mention of the event, there still aren't enough sources that extensively talk about this event, thus it still isnt notable per GNG. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main problem of the article as you mentioned above is about it was unsourced for 9 years since its creation, and for that problem, it is solved. Yeah, there is no source that extensively talk about the event. But we can't deemed the battle as something hoax. In my opinion, this article should be keep. Mfikriansori (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evaluating cross-wiki articles is not reasonable in this case as these are different projects. Taking a look at the sources, I believe they are pretty much notable as the article itself — Toghrul R (t) 11:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article is certainly in need of some cleanup, it is easy enough to verify the existence of this battle and sources that discuss it in detail with a Turkish-language search. A good starting point is this master's thesis, pp. 74-75. Whilst it isn't sufficient in itself, this two-page discussion of the battle does point us towards some decent reliable sources, which are unfortunately offline. Faruk Sümer's article in TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi also discusses this battle in a paragraph. --GGT (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what I've read above, it sticks with GNG and NHISTORY as noted. Monstarules (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A technical error prevented this AfD from being closed/relisted after the first seven days. It hasn't been properly listed on deletion sorting lists since 18 April, so it should run for at least another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Azerbaijan. – Joe (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-don't-delete Don't delete this if there is someone ready to improve it. I recommend that something on the keep to drafity spectrum be the correct outcome here. CT55555 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources uncovered by Mfikriansori 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proof of a battle having occurred is not the same as proof of a notable battle occurring. The current sources all seem to suggest sporadic mentions. If the whole battle can only be described in two sentences why should we have an article on it? -Indy beetle (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A very fair question, and the reason I haven't !voted is because I'm unable to look at the offline literature to check how in-depth the coverage is. The master's thesis has the most content so far and that's essentially barely a few paragraphs (and it's only a master's thesis). At the very least, however, we can be sure that there is some encyclopaedic content here given that it's covered by multiple RS, so the minimum would be summarising and merging this to some other article. Draftifying is another valid option, I could be willing to work on that draft at a later date when I hopefully have the resources, and it could then be merged if we can't find more in-depth coverage. GGT (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of American television series by setting

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

Unsourced, indiscriminate, fancruft list without any references. It is woefully incomplete, in part because it does not include any works with extraterrestrial settings — I can also name a show set in a fictional Arizona town (Clarence) that is not in the list. Although I have not investigated WP:LISTN for any list of TV shows set in a specific real-world location, this combined list fails LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Lists, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By setting I guess means 'state'. ORish categorization. Effectively unreferenced, fails LISTN. This is something that I guess is acceptable through a category system, but having an article (listicle...) is pointless. List of foo-type media set in Foo-land is almost never an encyclopedic topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every show is set somewhere, so this list is essentially a list of every American tv show. Agree that this is indiscriminate. Rhino131 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an undersourced list that is less than comprehensive. Settings can often be trivial and incidental. Also, how about shows that end up being set in multiple locations. For example I notice under Kansas - fictional we have Smallville, we do not have Superman and Lois, which is just as much set in Smallville, Kansas. We do not have Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. True that is mainly set in the fictional city of Metroplois, in the fictional state of New Troy, but if you do an analysis of the show you will find that 2 episodes in full and another episode in large part mainly occur in Smallville, Kansas, and lots of scenes and sequences in several other episodes occur in Smallville. More to the point I am going to challenge people to come up with comprehensive listings of this in reliable secondary sources. Keep in mind the setting of a show is not the same as the location of filming. It is a functional of the fictional nature of the show, and so is often understated and non-defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about this some more. Why is this a list of American television shows by setting instead of a list of shows set in the US? The later would group together all shows set in a particular location, no matter who exactly created or funded the show. That would make at least as much sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just realized that there is literally not a place on this list to fit not just Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. That show is not primarily set in an unspecified state, it is set in New Troy which is a fictious state, but is clearly, if obliquely specified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no clear criterion for inclusion. Most shows have at least some degree of a setting, and quite a lot use major cities like NYC or LA for familiarity. Some use fictional towns in real states, and some don't specify setting at all or obfuscate the setting for comedy (e.g. The Simpsons). There is no true way to sort TV series by setting because of this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also some settings change. I Love Lucy started in New York City, later they roamed across the country, and later they moved out to Connecticut. Lois and Clark, is mainly in Metroplis (fictional city), New Troy (fictional state), but has secondary scenes in Smallville (fictional city), Kansas. I am sure we could come up with other examples. How much does a show have to appear in a given place for that setting to be worth listing?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally trivial list, fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is pure fancruft, no more, no less..TH1980 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate, as per WP:NOT. There are innumerable television series, which is indiscriminately large as a topic already. Choosing to sort them by setting is arbitrary, so this fails on multiple issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of American television programs by debut date

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

This list has over 5,000 entries, and despite being formatted as a plain list, is so long that I have trouble editing it. It is redundant to List of years in American television, has few references to verify claimed debut dates, and the 2020s section has not been adequately updated to include all notable new programs. No other country has an equivalent list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, we do have List of Chinese television programs by date and List of Japanese television programs by date, but the rest of my rationale still stands. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This content absolutely makes no sense as a separate list, and would only make sense if its content was merged to List of American television programs. However, the latter is also at AfD, and is likely to be deleted, and if List of American television programs is deleted, this list certainly should be deleted as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization AND plain list AND loosely associated topics. These television programs are not significant because of their debut date or the fact that they are television programs. Delete.Lurking shadow (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cumbersome, cloying list. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. TH1980 (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminately large and arbitrary, per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koza - Yitzhak Suknik

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

I'm just not seeing any reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss him with significant coverage, rather than the situation he was in. The piece on the Warsaw Ghetto Museum site which appears to provide the most well-formed significant coverage of him is written by two authors who both appear to be related to him, so not independent. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Poland. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete or draftify. Outside [6] I cannot verify that the subject has received SIGCOV, and one article (of borderline quality - WUM is reliable, but the piece is short, with no footnotes, and pretty much represents a newspaper, not scholarly, level of quality) is IMHO not enough. That said, there likely is a problem with his name being spelled in different ways - I tried several and got nothing. Much of the article is unreferenced, and I don't think we can AGF that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, nor that the cited sources contain SIGCOV. Per WP:V and WP:GNG, responsibility to show that the subject is notable lies on the article's author. If they want to work on this, this can be draftified. If not, I am afraid that the article represents a level of quality that's just too low to warrant keeping in the mainspace (problems of V, GNG, MoS style, etc.). Sure, some are surmounable, but taken together I think this is too much. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although part of a notable organisation (Jewish Combat Organization), Suknik himself has relatively few mentions, even within this article. Although the author of the article states "Koza's role in it is not to be underestimated", most of the details are about the ZOB's actions, and of the leaders - the details about Suknik's involvement are reasonably sparse. I have no doubt that he was a heroic individual, and played an important part within the ZOB, but from what is presented here, I do not feel that there is enough to show his notability as an individual within the organisation in the way that Mordechai Anielewicz as leader is. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a loss here and to be honest quite frustrated by the barriers and walls to building this article.

1. How many sources do you actually need to be sufficient ? I can provide you will ALL the sources about Koza if needed. I have tried to pare the content down to fit with the tone i.e. not quote large chunks from the sources.

2. If you read anything about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (of which there is very little on Wikipedia - which makes me wonder why) very few people beyond the main few characters are ever mentioned or written about in depth and many of the combat fighters are hardly written about or mentioned. Whilst he many not have been a leader is it not worth including his story if it adds something into the picture of the Uprising, again given that there is so little on Wikipedia ?

3. You complain about the name variations. Please go to https://new.getto.pl/en/explore/search. Try Sukenik or Sukiennik. Also try any other surname and see what variants come up.

4. The purpose of adding the Further Reading is so that interested readers can follow up and learn more about the resistance in the Ghetto and events on the important dates so they find out more about these events. It is support material.

5. Reliable, independent, secondary sources ??? The External links to the articles written by myself and another person are placed there so people can read about Koza's story in more depth ... that is all. The main sources are from 4 books. What more do you want ... copies of these pages to see page numbers ? Please let me know.

6. I 'm afraid I am lost with many of your acronyms e.g. SIGCOV. so cannot respond to these issues.

7. It would be a shame to pare down the information around Koza's actions as it gives context to his actions. It is not stated in the article but the ZOB had very few firearms to stave off the German action and within each combat group there may have been at max. only one rifle which would have been in the hands of one person with experience or expertise. Koza was one of these.

For all the above reasons I do object to your 'consideration for deletion' . If however you do not find my arguments sufficient please let me know why and instruct me how to make it a 'Draft' until one and all are satisfied. JSKutcher (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I know little of the subject and nothing of the individual, but I am concerned that this is merely a bio of an individual soldier (in this case resistance fighter), who is not individually separately notable, or more so that any other resistance member. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were ~ 500 ZOB resistance fighters. The vast majority joined because the rest of their family had died in the Ghetto from starvation or had been shipped off to Treblinka extermination camp. They had nothing left to lose but their lives. They were in their late teens or early twenties. Very few survived, either dying during the Ghetto Uprising, or in the Warsaw Uprising or as members of partisan groups outside the Ghetto, and what memory remains of them is scattered in limited sources. For the vast majority the only record of them is their name.

I would therefore suggest that having a story about one of the soldier would add to picture of the Ghetto Uprising. The few names that are repeatedly used when mentioning the Uprising are of course the Leadership. There are not many sources that go beyond this. Yitzhaks story brings out the profile of a fighter in the ZOB, from the motive to join the fact of their short lives under the most appalling conditions and therefore paints a wider picture than just him. Why is this any less important ? JSKutcher (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage of the article subject as an individual to warrant inclusion Such-change47 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to redraft this page to deal with as many of the issues as I can. Can someone please advise me how to put it into draft until I have completed this redraft ? JSKutcher (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - respectfully, not necessary. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. See: WP:OVERCOME. Such-change47 (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification - appears best, given the article creator above promises improvements. For now, however, notability does not seem to be met - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - respectfully, irrelevant. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. See: WP:OVERCOME. Such-change47 (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of American television programs

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

List of loosely associated topics(WP:NOTDIR).

Contains an enormous amount of loosely associated articles crammed together in one list and it shows it. Description fields are empty. Most network fields are empty. Many of the categories field descriptions are simple WP:OR picked by the person including them. Lurking shadow (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lurking shadow (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is far too long and broad, even if only notable programs are included. Some individual channels have hundreds of original programs, not all of which are notable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do we have this?! Should've been nuked the moment the category system was invented, and many of the WLH's are just for other country lists that should go themselves; this isn't used in general by WP:TV at all. Nate • (chatter) 22:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has become far too unmanageable and indiscriminate. WP:TNT may be invoked here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – such a list would only be worthwhile if it was sortable, but the way this list is designed, it is not actually properly sortable, and it has become unmanageable... However, it is possible that the content here could be salvaged if it was reorganized into separate lists organized by decade. But I am guessing nobody wants to tackle a project on this scale. Anyway, the current list very likely violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so deletion is a valid course of action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the articles at Category:Lists_of_television_series_by_country_of_production are fine. Valid navigational list and information list. Lists are far more useful than categories since they can show more information. Some are listing problems which can easily be fixed. AFD is not cleanup. You can take the categories section and have a bot read what type of program the infobox in the main article says it is, and put that information there. The only shows that will be listed have their own articles. Dream Focus 06:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic."

This is the check you have to make if it is a list of loosely associated topics.

These television programs are relevant because they are associated with television in America? No. Does being made in America make them relevant per se? No. Do these entries significantly contribute to the list topic? No. There are thousands of potential entries.

Then there's WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Almost none of the entries are sourced.

Then we have WP:NLIST, actually. Can you show me a single independent source that says that this list topic is notable? Lurking shadow (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A list of all television shows would be notable but too long. Dividing it by country of production is a logical way to split the list up. Dream Focus 12:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with changes) The medium of "TV" has changed a lot over time. In 2022, TV land is vast due to streaming, I'm not sure it makes sense to list them all. However prior to a certain year, the number of shows is not so large or indiscriminate. Thus a list up to a certain year is very doable and useful. What the year is TBD, but 1980 for example, with the debut of CNN and MTV marking the wide adoption of cable. Any show that had a start 1979 or earlier could be included. The advantage of a list over Categories is additional information, sorting, viewing. List of American television programs to 1980. -- GreenC 19:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the current state of the article I'd prefer WP:TNT, then your approach. Lurking shadow (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated the article topic for total deletion ie. there should be no article on Wikipedia under this topic heading regardless of content. That's the purpose of AfD. What do you actually want? -- GreenC 21:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I want has changed due to your arguments. However, I still want this page to be deleted due to WP:TNT and because this means I want List of American television programs to 1980 but NOT List of American television programs.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That essay is just ridiculous. Here is a counter essay explaining why Wikipedia:TNTTNT. Why would someone delete an article then recreate the same article? Just remove what you don't want. Could make various articles for different time periods, and use this to link to them. Dream Focus 16:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TNT should be for situations where there is no consensus on fixing but there is consensus that the article is awful. Or when the other outcome would be merge. We could blank the article. But we don't actually want the exact topic here, so deleting it is a measure to prevent re-creation. And merging the list, which would be the normal outcome, would merge the problems. Please no.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 19:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is not known what the use of this unsorted material is. Alex-h (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list as indiscriminately large, per WP:IINFO/WP:NOT. A more discriminate topic is List of programs broadcast by CBS, which is a verifiable and well-documented way to organize this topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List is indiscriminate Such-change47 (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad. Orientls (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Myx (Global). Discarding the WP:LOOKSGOOD "keep" vote. Anyone is free to add anything about the show to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 20:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Nutshack

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources. The current sources in the article are just the show itself, social media, a source about the network it aired on, and a random "top 15 whatever" listicle -- and that's after removing Know Your Meme, Vimeo, and Facebook.

Further searching found no reputable sources, the closest being a press release that was more about MYX TV than the show itself. All of the hits I found beyond that were unreliable things like TV Tropes, Know Your Meme, Fandom wikis, IMDb, and the like. Despite the show's memetic nature, it doesn't seem to have received any mainstream acknowledgment the way that, say, We Are Number One, Angry German Kid, YouTube Poop, Salad Fingers, or My Immortal (fan fiction) has. I'd suggest a merge to Myx (Global), the network it aired on, but it's not even mentioned on that page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Philippines. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~: I'd say the show is on the edge of being notable enough to have a page, although the show is clearly very obscure. I'd believe that Behind the Voice Actors could count as a reliable source for this page, along with page 200 of DreamWorks Animation: Intertextuality and Aesthetics in Shrek and Beyond (it won't let me view the page currently), and an entry in Giant Robot. Even so, I can acknowledge that the sourcing for this page is pretty slim. There's no doubt about that. However, if the page can't be kept, I'd support a merge/redirect to Myx (Global). I only know of the show because it features a trans woman (likely problematic) named Cherry Pie as one of its characters, but that's honestly the only thing I know about it. Historyday01 (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Voice Actors is a directory listing. That's not significant coverage. And the other two are still debatable until someone can prove how much they covered the context. Given that the former is a book about DreamWorks, I'm not expecting much. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, in that case, I'm changing my vote to merge/redirect, so that the link for the page can still work. Something about the show should be noted somewhere, for sure. After all, the Nutshack page garnered over 14,000 page views this year alone, so it is worth putting a sentence or two on the Myx (Global) page. Historyday01 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the text I can make out, the Giant Robot entry seems to be only a directory listing as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the case, I couldn't tell from the Giant Robot entry... it was one of those Google Books entries where you can only see part of the article. Historyday01 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. I can't find reputable sources for this series, either. A sentence or two could be added to Myx (Global), with the aforementioned press release as a source. However, I'm not in support of a merge, since the majority of this article's content (the characters, episodes, home media, etc.) is irrelevant to Myx itself and shouldn't be merged there. FlameRabbit (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Myx (Global). Fails WP:NTV per nom. Nothing to merge as it can be discussed in the article in a sentence or two. SBKSPP (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is good enough for an article LKF2006 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It looks good" isn't an argument to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How? Please explain why you think we should keep this article.TheVHSArtist (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities Uncensored

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

Much of article is unverified or using unreliable sources and appears to be edited from a biased view. TVHead (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<topic>|list of <topic>-related deletion discussions]]. <signature>
Delete, as it stands, most of the content is just tabloid/gossip content. ProQuest could find nothing better, just passing name-drops in opinion pieces about the E! network or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable tabloid program which ran only two seasons. TH1980 (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject is not sufficiently covered to demonstrate notability for inclusion Such-change47 (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Egoist anarchism#Situationists. Star Mississippi 02:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Right to Be Greedy

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

Originally PRODded by @Grnrchst: with rationale "All of the citations listed are from the text itself and there's barely any actual information about the text in the article, which largely consists of direct quotes from the text. In its current form, this article doesn't meet notability standards and should probably be deleted, unless reliable secondary sourcing can be provided." Seconded by @TenPoundHammer:. Thirded by me, rationale "Thirding; did a WP:BEFORE, nothing turned up in institutional library searches, gschol, or a gbooks skim."

Deprodded by @Spinningspark: "Capable of being improved I think. Not necessary to delete first." On the talk page, he produced these links as "non-trivial coverage": [7], [8], and [9]; and observed that there are "also mentions" here [10] and in other places that weren't readily available on gbooks.

I stand by what I said in reply there: these "all look like passing mentions - it's brought up briefly as an example in the context of talking about something else." People are aware of this work; it is known. But they bring it up as an example, while focusing discussion on something else; by WP:GNG, it is not notable. It looks like the only significant source we have for the book is the book itself.

(I've attempted to ping the three other involved editors. If Twinkle's XfD function doesn't allow pings, someone please let me know!) asilvering (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Politics. asilvering (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prod2-er. The sources provided are merely passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Egoist anarchism#Situationists, it's not an unimaginable search term. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak agree to redirect. I think this section you suggested should be rewritten, perhaps using the above mentioned sources rather than directly citing the text itself. Incorporation into a smaller section within a larger article seems like a good balance notability-wise. Grnrchst (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few issues. (1) There is nothing to recover from the current article, as no secondary sources are cited. (2) I've read through the four Google Books sources above and agree with the nom that they are mostly passing mentions. Furthermore, I don't see how we would write an encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic without devolving into original research and primary sources, based on the available refs. The sources quote from the text because its contents are lyrical and inscrutable. (3) Same goes for Egoist anarchism § Situationists—it does not say anything that helps a general reader understand egoist anarchism. That paragraph should be removed from the article if that's all we have to say about its relation to the topic. And then there would be no reason to redirect there. (The paragraph should also be removed because it's only cited to itself and attempts to make analytic claims, which require secondary sources.) There are no other valid redirect targets. czar 12:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I just rewrote the section Egoist anarchism#Situationists with the above mentioned sources and it wound up being rather short. Definitely not enough for its own article, but I think it works well enough for a small section of a larger one. (Although its notability is still questionable) Grnrchst (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I still don't think it belongs in the article, but that's a content matter for its talk page: Talk:Egoist anarchism § Scope. czar 13:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support redirect to Egoist anarchism#Situationists now that something has been written in that article. SpinningSpark 13:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Egoist anarchism#Situationists. Fails WP:BK and WP:GNG, per nom. and others, so it shouldn't remain as a standalone article. However, per Grnrchst and others, a redirect is justified.Sal2100 (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Global Logistics

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

complete PR spam about a run of the mill company that's sourced to WP:MILL content and press releases. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCORP. References are mostly press releases with no WP:SECONDARY analysis or commentary. The remainder are self-published.This article was first created as a draft by Cardinal Marketing, deleted within the hour as G11, recreated a few days later by BenPritchard2703 only to be deleted again within the hour as G11, and lastly recreated by the current author, Mjjdbm, an SPA who has been asked to declare their connection with the company. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a puff piece trying to masquerade as a Wikipedia article. TH1980 (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Setting aside the circumstances around its repeating creation, this article is little more than a list of acquisitions such as might be found on the News page of a corporate website, but which announcements fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. They describe a company going about its business, but without indicating a reason why it would be in an encyclopaedia. The sole claim which might indicate notability is that their Freight Calculator "disrupted the market " and became an industry standard: were this so, one might expect it to have been the subject of WP:RS coverage, but my searches are not finding that. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion Such-change47 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Curb Safe Charmer's reasoning, none of the references meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also might want to delete Draft:Cardinal Global Logistics which has been recently created, probably as a work-around this AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mitto Password Manager

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

Long-defunct website that never had notability, and certainly doesn’t have it now. Last AfD came out inconclusive, mostly due to a user since blocked. K. Oblique 17:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K. Oblique 17:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all arguments for keeping in the last two AFDs amounted to WP:SOURCESEXIST. This has had three chances for people to bring up more sourcing and no one's done it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both Occam's Razor and a Google search suggest that this can't be adequately sourced. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find zero RS coverage. Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage for inclusion, I could find nothing warranting inclusion. I mean nothing! I could not even find proper primary sources let alone independent coverage. Such-change47 (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Mijanur Rahaman

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the sole author, User:Rajib2209, appears to be a WP:SPA focusing on this subject. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Please help me. How can i submit my profile Rajib2209 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Ari T. Benchaim Hey, Please tell me in details what can i do now? Rajib2209 (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  In general, you really should not. If you're notable, you'll have your article soon enough. If not... this is an encyclopedia, not a social network. You don't 'submit your profile'. Please also read WP:AUTO. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NOTRESUME. Even a cursory look at the sources shows that there are no independent reliable sources discussing the subject. In fact, virtually all the sources are actually articles written by the subject.Slywriter (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can furnish references to reliable, independent published sources that provide significant coverage of this person. Things that he wrote are of no value in establishing notability. Calling the subject a "famous personality" in Wikipedia's voice is a giant red flag, and a glaring violation of the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an attempted autobiography (above note by creator calling it a 'profile'). Separate issue is that Rahaman claims to be the photographer of the photo of himself. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Sandstein 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pageimages-denylist test

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

Since a {{db-test}} was inexplicably declined despite the author acknowledging the page was a test page, I guess this needs to go to AfD. Anyway, this sort of page should not be polluting the main namespace per, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screenshot/fodder * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete as it is a test page, under criterion WP:G2 CT55555 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I scored out the speedy as I see a credible argument to wait to hear the justification to keep. CT55555 (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move off the mainspace, support soft delete, oppose speedy delete This is not a regular test page, but one that needs to exist in mainspace if the banner added is to be believed. Minimal reproducible test cases are incredibly useful in bug fixing so I believe that WP:IAR applies here. That being said, it seems that the discussion has run stale on Phab, so unless one of the page's authors explains why the article needs to stay I'm in favor of deleting it or moving it off the mainspace with the redirect being deleted, without prejudice for recreation. Under that general philosophy, I also believe that speedy deletion is inappropriate at this stage. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy without redirect as it seems to be stale; if more testing needs to be done it can be moved back when it's needed (there should surely be a test/staging wiki for this, but anyway...) Stifle (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence supplied to substantiate the "keep" !vote. ✗plicit 14:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Ainscough

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

Article about soccer player who made four appearances in USL League One, but fails WP:GNG comprehensively. All of the online coverage appears to be routine/trivial in nature. Jogurney (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify as I couldn't find any SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG - not a notable subject. --Angelo (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG Rylesbourne (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources demonstrate this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The one "keep" opinion appeals to user reviews and scores, which are not reliable sources. Sandstein 19:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Drone Virus

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing suitable was found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--- Keep This film has over 200 reviews on IMDB, 100+ user reviews on RottenTomatos , has several external and verifiable sites discussing it, and may have at one point been avaliable on Netlix. Yes, it does not have any critic reviews but it certainly doesn't have a lack of audience ratings. I am not sure why you want to remove this as there are thousands of film pages with less attention that this movie has gotten.CherriGasoline (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Edited to say that it does appear to be on Netflix. This URL is listed on several sites as being the location of the movie in several countries. However, I cannot personally verify this as it is not on USA Netflix. Correct me if I'm wrong here.CherriGasoline (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Offhand I'd recommend turning this into an article for both the book and film - that would likely be the easiest way to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a book. Reviews in Green Bay Press-Gazette, The Post-Crescent and Oshkosh Northwestern (barely) satisfy WP:BOOKCRIT. The movie is unnotable, but could be mentioned as an adaptation. Receiving 205 votes in IMDb does not make it worth a standalone article, quite the contrary for a modern film. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two book reviews are rather short and in local newspapers. The Post-Crescent article is more of a "local boy makes good" story just about the book getting published. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK3. Rationale is completely nonsensical. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chodaczków Wielki massacre

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

The article is violating the following rules: Wikipedia:Fringe theories, WP:Original, WP:NCORP and at least Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Me4ysŁaw (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Poland, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Could you give an example?

I did link to a scholarly source:^[1]^: 15

After further looking I have found much more evidence of the Chodaczków Wielki massacre:

Book describing the event by USHMM: ^[2]
Historian Stanisław Jastrzębski says in his work Ludobójstwo nacjonalistów ukraińskich na Polakach na Lubelszczyźnie w latach 1939-1947 that "862 people were murdered in Chodaczków Wielki."^[3] (I had to Google Translate this from Polish, so the translation may be a little off)
Internetowa encyklopedia PWN says that there was a massacre:^[4]
Institute of National Remembrance mentions the massacre in this page (albeit in passing):^[5]
Mausoleum of the Martyrdom of Polish Villages in Michniów: 862 people were killed^[6]
There is also an article on the Polish Wikipedia that is sourced primarily to scholarly articles and works. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Article seems to be properly sourced. The nominator is a brand new account and may not fully understand yet how Wikipedia works. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not seeing any evidence of the claimed WP:OR and I'm somewhat at a loss how WP:NCORP relates to a historical event. While I'm unable to assess the Polish language sources myself, I'm not seeing anything that would obviously indicate this is a WP:FRINGE theory. If there is a genuine concern regarding the quality of the sourcing, I'd ask the nominator to explain it in more detail. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. There is nothing in the article that would indicate WP:FRINGE or WP:OR. Scholarly sources of the massacre are easy to find.--Darwinek (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Naleźniak, Paweł (2013-12-30). "Genocide in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia 1943–1944". The Person and the Challenges. The Journal of Theology, Education, Canon Law and Social Studies Inspired by Pope John Paul II. 3 (2): 29. doi:10.15633/pch.493. ISSN 2391-6559.
^ "Nieukarane zbrodnie SS-Galizien z lat 1943-1945 : Chodaczów Wielki, Huta Pieniacka, Podkamień, Wicyń i inne miejscowości / Aleksander Korman. - Collections Search - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum". collections.ushmm.org. Retrieved 2022-05-11.
^ "Ludobójstwo nacjonalistów ukraińskich na Polakach na Lubelszczyźnie w latach 1939-1947 / Stanisław Jastrzębski. - Collections Search - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum". collections.ushmm.org. Retrieved 2022-05-11.
^ "Chodaczków Wielki, Encyklopedia PWN: źródło wiarygodnej i rzetelnej wiedzy". encyklopedia.pwn.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 2022-05-11.
^ Kraków, Instytut Pamięci Narodowej-. "Ukraińscy ochotnicy w SS". Instytut Pamięci Narodowej - Kraków (in Polish). Retrieved 2022-05-11.
^ "Wieś na kresach południowo–wschodnich pod dwiema okupacjami". Martyrologia wsi polskich (in Polish). Retrieved 2022-05-11.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tilikum (orca). Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Keltie Byrne

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

These individuals are only notable for One Event In such a case the general rule is to cover the event, not the person. The event has been covered in great detail in the articles Tilikum (orca), Blackfish, Killer whale attack, Sealand of the Pacific, Tilikum v. Sea World, and Captive orcas. I am also nominating the following related pages because as they are both related as being part of the same event.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. VViking_TalkEdits 14:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Dukes to Tilikum_(orca)#Second_death as there's literally nothing else known about him. I'm undecided at the moment about Byrne. Star Mississippi 14:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE. Actually, if you look at any one of those pages you listed, the Keltie Byrne incident is not discussed in detail at all, but rather mentioned in only a brief couple of sentences with a citation to only one news article here and there. I could see perhaps merging all 3 of Tilikum's "victims" into one article titled "List of incidents [caused by Tilikum? Is that appropriate??]" or something where the individual pages could be collected together without outright deleting them fully, but they have a great amount of notable detail that doesn't warrant deletion so much as merging for practicality's sake. The Byrne case in particular is often ignored simply because it's Canadian, not American, despite there being a wealth of news articles, witness statements and other secondary sources on the subject. Deleting it would be counterproductive and dismissive to something important. Merge it maybe, but I wouldn't fully get rid of it. PetSematary182 (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]

KEEP. The interests of Wikipedia readers are best served by keeping and improving this article, rather than deleting it. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, and British Columbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as WP:CSD#A10 of six nines in pi, not a plausible redirect. —Kusma (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pi whole number

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi (first 100000 digits) and other such discussions, but worse, as Pi is infinite and the "whole" pi is impossible (so not a good redirect either). Fram (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says what it is except not really. IT was created today so I highly doubt it's notable whatsoever so I will say delete. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's gibberish, maybe a feeble joke, by someone who didn't understand, or maybe didn't even know about, the proof that pi is transcendental. Even if it were true that pi had that exact value the article would be just an assertion, with no sources and no evidence. Athel cb (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but for pure interest have a look first at just how many things are wrong with the article. If pi were genuinely rounded to the nearest Whole number it would be 3, and even the wikilink provided, for those who'd like to know about pi, goes to a page that doesn't have a link to pi... it's quite an achievement for such a short and pointless article to reach such a state. Elemimele (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is so much to say that it's hardly worthwhile. I thought it might the work of a very inexperienced editor, but in fact Booklover834 has been around since 31st December 2021, has made plenty of edits and created some pages. Athel cb (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This could fall under G1, G2 or G3 depending on the intentions of the editor that created it, but clearly shouldn't be here Dexxtrall (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While there is no interesting content in this TNT-worthy article, I note that there have been notable attempts to approximate pi by whole numbers. In principle I could see a case for a redirect. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's snowing. Recreation by editor unfamiliar with/unwilling to comply with notability guidelines. Clear consensus in multiple discussions. I'm also going to SALT. Star Mississippi 13:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susantha Sisilchandra

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being an consul for a country does not confer automatic notability. The "International Businessman of The Year Award" awarded by Greater Dallas Asian American Chamber of Commerce is a non-notable minor regional award. The Stevie Awards are also non-notable awards, which individuals pay to enter and there are multiple winners. Dan arndt (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, and Texas. Dan arndt (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consuls are almost always non-notable. Only ambassadors are more likely than not to be notable, but that is more because people who are notable for other reasons are often made amdassadors, than people becoming notable as ambassadors. As it is this article is businessman promotional cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, promotional/non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, consuls even less so. The awards are minor and don't add to notability. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. —Natalie RicciNatalie 00:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peer mentoring. ✗plicit 15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer tutor

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

A while ago I proposed a merger of this to peer mentoring. The merge was supported by User:Cmacauley but opposed by User:Andrew Davidson and closed as no consensus/stale a while back. I am still concerned we have a WP:POVFORK on the same topic, one shorter, one longer. (The longer article on mentoring mentions the term tutoring many times). Note that the shorter article has been subject to an educational assignment, and tagged with 'essay style' and 'more citations needed', but frankly, I don't think it's bad enough to warrant an outright deletion, and it contains a number of scholarly citations. My preference still remains on the 'merge', but since there was an objection registered, I am unsure what else to do - except that having two articles on what appears to the the same topic is generally not good to the readers. Perhaps a discussion here will allow us to reach a consensus on what action to take. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see overlap in these concepts. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Like Reywas92, I support a merger of this page with peer mentoring. Historyday01 (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by an Admin per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tad Damron

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

This article has been created, deleted under the various WP:G7 criteria, moved into draftspace, moved back into articlespace (what you are reading here) a number of times, and these events are in the most part only viewable by editors who are able to see deleted versions of this article. It would appear to me reasonable enough to create a deletion discussion to enable the participation of editors who do not hold those advanced permissions. WP:BEFORE done, and in my opinion this article does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO and any number of other notability criteria. As always, I am happy to be proven wrong. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and West Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure why it couldn't be simply deleted as A7, like I tagged, but anyway. Perhaps the creator needs to be sockpuppet checked as well, previous incarnations of the article were created by people afterwards blocked for sockpuppetry, which would make this a G5 candidate as well. In any case, total lack of notability. If deleted, please salt. Fram (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Country Fire Authority brigades

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTIINFO. No ididcation that any of these entries are notable individually or as a set, also huge amounts of stats and cruft relating to the equipment each group or division uses. Ajf773 (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia and Lists. Ajf773 (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete as this is a volunteer emergency Service and helps with training to identify what near by brigades have for emergencies. Please read about what has been adder and what the content is. 110.174.85.134 (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia .. not a directory or guide. Ajf773 (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly well-meaning, however that is not purpose of wikipedia. Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Force in popular culture

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

A completely unreferenced TVtropic listcruft. Like all similar articles (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs in popular culture), it fails numerous policies, guidelines and like: as an 'in popular culture' article, WP:IPC and MOS:POPCULT/TRIVIA, as a list, WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT, as a potential topic, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, due to lack of references, WP:OR and WP:V. While it is not impossible a imagine that a proper article could be written on this topic, my BEFORE failed to find anything useful to even start o nthiat, plus WP:TNT applies to the current OR list of trivia ("In the Stephen Coonts novel Wages of Sin, Joe Billy Dunn, Tommy Carmellini's colleague-turned-nemesis, is an ex-Delta Force Operator."). That's what TV Tropes is for, folks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, Popular culture, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced mishmash of ideas in pure violation of WP:NOTTVTROPES. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a single bit of sourced content actually discussing the topic as a whole, just a list of largely extremely minor trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The number of errors in the list makes it problematic as well. Intothat darkness 02:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is substantially WP:OR. I haven't even seen evidence of notability, where Delta Force in popular culture has significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. But if someone did find those sources, there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from the current article, which appears to be written entirely from questionable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Frroku

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

No evidence found of any notability for this player. Fram (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Albania, and Greece. Fram (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing coming up in news searches at all. Google search just has the usual Soccerway, Transfermarkt, BeSoccer etc. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . ✗plicit 14:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank White (writer)

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The notability claim here is that his work exists, which isn't an "inherent" inclusion freebie in and of itself in the absence of passing WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but the only footnotes here are to content self-published by organizations he was directly affiliated with, not any evidence of GNG-worthy media coverage or analysis about him. Bearcat (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . ✗plicit 14:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Walker (author)

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The notability claim here is that his work exists, which isn't an "inherent" inclusion freebie in and of itself in the absence of passing WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but the only footnotes here are his own self-published content about himself on his own blog, not any evidence of GNG-worthy media coverage or analysis about him. Bearcat (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . ✗plicit 14:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cherise Sinclair

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The notability claim here is that she won minor literary awards that aren't highly meganotable enough to confer an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of passing WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but the only footnotes here are those awards' own self-published websites about themselves, rather than any evidence of media coverage about them or her. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough sourcing ot justify an article on a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . ✗plicit 14:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilcockson

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

WP:BLP of a sports journalist, referenced entirely to his own writing about other things rather than any evidence of other people writing about him or analyzing his work as a subject -- but as always, qualifying for a Wikipedia article requires the latter, not the former. Bearcat (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Harris (author)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a writer, not reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not automatically enough in the absence of a properly sourced WP:GNG pass -- but there's absolutely no sourcing being cited here besides his own self-published blog, and the article has been tagged for that problem since 2011 without ever having any new sources added in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG, produced during the halycon days of 2007 when it seems that if someone had published any book(s) they could have an article, have been unable to find any reviews on harris' work. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet notability requirements and I can find nothing of note on the books he is mentioned as being author of that would change this. Dunarc (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability criteria. –Ploni (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. nomination withdrawn, no other delete arguments. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vonoprazan/amoxicillin

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

No evidence that this package of two medications is notable. Sources are press releases (both in the article and in GNews[11]). Fram (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Medicine. Fram (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough sources in Gscholar describing clinical usage of the medication. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide a link to some of these please? Fram (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  In the non-scholarly press:
  - MPR
  - FiercePharma
  - Bloomberg Law
  - Con Live (which is pretty popular in the ID community)
  - Pharm Times
  On Google Scholar, see the Furuta paper in Digestion, the critical view on the drug by Graham in J Gastr Hep, cost-effectiveness analysis by Kajihara et al, a treatment optimization study, a study of effectiveness against BSA, therapeutic effect in presence of EtOH, effect on gut microbiota, comparison against PPI-only regimens, some controversy as to whether its effect generalizes, alternatives to when it fails, genotype specificity... I'd consider this a very well documented drug that has been commented on quite significantly in both the industry press and in academic literature. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a combination medication like amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (Augmentin), not a dual therapy. Such medications are approved in their own right and treated as a separate drug. The amount of literature goes beyond press releases. Scholarly literature looks at it from multiple aspects, including critical commentary on a potential contribution to antibiotic resistance. Industry literature is also quite significantly covering it, so I fail to see how WP:SIGCOV would not be met.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll guess I'll withdraw this AfD, but a few remarks. Not the responsability of those who replied here of course, but the article creator shouldn't create articles with only press releases as sources (and should at least add some other sources when challenged instead of some handwaving "all drugs are notable" comment). And of the sources provided here, it looks as if some are just press releases as well (the non-GS ones that is). The first one, EMPR, is at least in parts identical to this from the same day (but with a different author), and copies most of its text straight from company publications like [12]. Not what we would normally consider an independent, reliable source. Similarly, the ContagionLive source is a rehashed press release, with many sentences copied straight from what the company provided, and very similar to the PharmacyTimes article you also provided. For non-med products, these sources would be rejected for being not independent. Fram (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional text and citations added. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Rush (2005 TV series)

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

Deprodded with addition of sources, but only one is actually about the show. The rest of the sources are about the bakery and do not mention the show at all. Fails WP:NTV Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References 6 and 7 are both about the show, and all of the references talk about the show. The NTV guidelines say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." -- there are 7 sources, 5 of which are independent from the show. -- AW (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I just added another one about the show --AW (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is an interview and thus not independent. Sources 2 and 3 are about a bakery and do not mention Sugar Rush at all. Sources 4 and 6 are again about the bakery and only dedicate one sentence to the show. Sources 5 and 8 are from Food Network. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to have a few more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Washington Post article does provide some detail on the show, and this article helps the show to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that multiple, independent sources exist establishing notability. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Poovey

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

The article does not follow Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. Specifically, WP:SINGLEEVENT, as there is no other information surrounding this individual despite the single event he is described in. It also does not follow WP:NBASIC, as the cited articles are related by subject, and the author of Reference 2 is simply retelling Isaac T. Hooper's own experience, from his published works. Uncanniey (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2022 (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/2022 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pennsylvania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Seems notable for a series of connected events that took places over a period of years. There is sustained coverage of events, even hundreds of years later. CT55555 (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Score out my initial vote as I find Uncle G's argument convincing. Currently reflecting. CT55555 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe this to be a series of connected events. The Perseus Digital Library reference is a direct quote from Isaac T. Hoopers original work, The first reference is great for giving historical context, but doesn't mention Poovey once, and the final refence is to the bible quote. So the only secondary source describing Poovey is Isaac T. Hooper's writing, which while accessed from two separates sources, is not multiple coverages. Uncanniey (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are the nominator, it's quite unconventional for you to also vote.
I am struggling to understand how you see this as one event. Here are some events in the article:
1. Aged 33, teaching himself to read
2. Reaching conclusion that bible prohibited slavery
3. Making proposition to Coates, later making another
4. Escape/walking away
5. Issue of arrest warrent
6. Days later, arrest, then sentencing for 30 days
7. Prison visit and associated negotiation and refusal
8. Sentencing for 30 more days, followed by another negotiation and rejection
9. Leaving jail free
Even grouping some connected events, I consider this to be at least 9 connected, but separate events. CT55555 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Important comment. The book that is a key source for this is a 1994 publication by Daniel E. Meaders. It was incorrectly presented until now as a book by Isaac T. Hoopers about Isaac T. Hoopers, which it is not. Source for this analysis: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780429024122-36/james-poovey-1-daniel-meaders CT55555 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Isaac Hopper's anecdotes has over the years been that one class of historian discounted them completely, and another class of historian believes them uncritically. The truth is in-between the two extremes. Hopper did explicitly change facts and names in several cases. Meaders's annotated collection of Hopper's Tales is one of the few works that addresses the historicity, but the entry for this person has just the one footnote giving its publication date in the National Anti-Slavery Standard and nothing else. (In the actual book it is "James Poovey¹", not "James Poovey 1" as on that WWW page.) The problem is that notability requires multiple sources, and there just isn't a second source for this subject, nor any further corroboration from Meaders. (Meaders discusses the problems of verifying the Tales, including that even purportedly independent contemporary newspaper reportage seems to have been in fact Hopper sending in his own stories.) Hopper is the only person who ever wrote about this person, and almost half of what Hopper wrote in this Tale was about Hopper. Given that Hopper isn't wholly reliable, having a second source to corroborate is a must, and the best shot at that doesn't provide one. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points made by CT55555. Also, I added a reliable source I found, a journal, that I added to the article and which further shows notability and the extent the subject had to go through to free himself. You can read it here: Pennsylvania LEGACIES. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just Hopper recycled, not actually an independent second source. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - A cursory look shows that the article's writer, Christopher Densmore, that you refer to as producing a "recycled" article was at the time of the writing curator of Friends Historical Library of Swarthmore College. The only thing cited in the article is the United States vs. Schooner Phoebe, U.S. District Court, Philadelphia, Oct. 1800. It does not site Hopper, making the article an independent second source. AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That "cursory look" is the very problem. You just haven't thought about the sourcing here, or found anything other than someone recycling Hopper's Tale. Swarthmore College is where (most of) Hopper's papers are held, and Densmore is using Hopper as the source. Densmore even mentions the PAS explicitly, some of the archives of which is of course by Hopper. Hopper is the single source for everything here. It seems that you haven't actually read Meaders on this subject, as Meaders explains this very everything-comes-back-to-only-Hopper difficulty with Hopper's Tales, as I pointed out above. Uncle G (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/update I think the original claim of this being one event is not persuasive, but I think Uncle G is presenting a more convincing argument about this all coming from one source. I thought I had rebuffed that when I found the book by a second author, but Uncle G says that is also coming from the same source. At this point I'm convinced by Uncle G who appears to understand this better than me, but I have moved to strike out my vote, rather than change it, in case others present more information/analysis that changed my opinion further. I'm encouraging others to jump in here and to critique this comment. CT55555 (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isaac Hopper was one of eight abolitionists featured by the the History channel for the work he did freeing slaves. Hopper was entrenched in the movement, which is why he documented a variety of freed slaves, including James Poovey's case, and the reason other historians and writers have repeated Hopper's work. Hopper was not a fiction writer. He documented anti-slavery, which is a valuable piece of history and the reason his work has been cited over the years. He was in the trenches with other abolitionists, doing the work to free slaves and to write down that work. That does not lessen the value of that work or his documentation of Poovey. It also does not mean, because Hopper's work has been cited by others, that Poovey is not a notable subject. Poovey's efforts to free himself were notable, and so Hopper documented it. I doubt this would be the only Wikipedia exception to a single-source article if this stands. It does not make Poovey and his history less notable. I would venture to say there are other journals and/or books besides Hopper's dating back to the abolition period that include Poovey's case, which would be on library bookshelves and unavailable and not searchable online. Also, I agree with CT55555 that this is not one event and the arguments pushing that it's one event are not persuasive. CT55555 broke down the arguments and credibly refuted them one by one. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In what circumstances can we accept a single source? CT55555 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see enough for a stand-alone article, could very well be a subsection in a freedman/other slavery article perhaps. GSscholar, Jstor and Gbooks have zero hits on this fellow, I don't think it's that notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm leaning toward delete because I am not sure how verifiable this biography is as accurate history. All the information about James Poovey seems to stem ultimately from the writings of Isaac Hopper, who is himself the secondary hero of the story for refusing to make Poovey return to his master or extend his punishment. The master is identified only as "Mr. Coates" (Hopper did not provide his first name) and I don't see any evidence that later historians have identified Coates further, although there couldn't have been many blacksmiths named Coates in Southwark, Philadelphia in 1802. Even though Philadelphia, then as now, was one of the largest cities in the U.S., no evidence has been provided that there was any contemporary newspaper coverage, any reaction from slaveholders in Pennsylvania or elsewhere denouncing the situation, or any one else besides Hopper himself taking public notice of Poovey during his lifetime. That said, if I'm wrong and there are contemporary sources describing Poovey and how he became emancipated by civil disobedience, I would be inclined to change my recommendation towards keeping the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disputes with slaves typically weren't covered in newspapers, and no major crime was committed in this particular case. (He didn't even run away.) Curator Densmore of the Friends Historical Library at Swarthmore College is careful to state that Poovey was not legally emancipated; rather, he became "free" in practice. (Have changed the wording at the end, and revised throughout.) Interestingly, Hopper's original written account does not even cover the outcome of Coates's dispute with Poovey; it was Child who supplied the ending based on notes she compiled on how Hopper recounted this and other Tales of Oppression orally. (The Hopper and Child versions are different enough that I've tried to make it clear which parts she added.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to historians and future researchers trying to identify who "Coates" may have been: The Philadelphia Directory for 1802 lists A. Coates, shipwright; John Coates, shipwright; and Isaac Coates, shipwright. Based on my limited knowledge of early Philadelphia geography plus Google Maps, of these three men, the one with the address that looks most like historical Southwark is John Coates at 158 Swanson. The term “shipwright” is often associated with carpenters, but could also be used to mean blacksmiths, and in fact, in The Philadelphia Directory of 1803, the occupation for A. Coates is listed as “shipsmith” rather than “shipwright”. (Further note: In searches involving the letter "s", it often helps to substitute the letter "f" in these texts.) It makes sense that a blacksmith in 1802 Southwark, Philadelphia, would be involved in shipbuilding. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent, thoughtful discussion here from all angles, and very helpful in completely rewriting the article. The important thing is to make sure that what little information is available is presented in context. Please take a look. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have initially voted keep. I have been convinced to withdraw that vote and reflect. I have reflected. I am recasting my vote as keep again, I think Cielquiparle's careful explanation about how there are multiple independent sources here to be the key to my decision to conclude keep. CT55555 (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cielquiparle's rewrite. Patapsco913 (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the finding of a second source in the rewrite, this passes WP:GNG and is no longer subject to WP:1R. TartarTorte 18:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. being in the news for a current event does not establish academic notability. Nothing indicates Orsini achives that through any other channels Star Mississippi 01:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Orsini (sociologist)

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

Nominating on behalf of 85.211.232.197. IP placed deletion template on page using edit summary of "this Italian professor has no biography on the Italian wikipedia and he is not a relevant voice to be added". I waited a while to see if they would open a discussion, but they didn't, so I offered on their talk page to do it for them and they asked if I could.

I don't have an opinion either way on if it should or shouldn't be deleted, but for a bit of background, this article was deleted back in 2016 due to a lack of notability, though things may (or may not) have changed recently. He has made some, er, "controversial" comments on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and has got some attention for those, but I'm not too sure that it allows him to get past WP:BLP1E, (although, on the other hand, there has been quite a bit of attention on him).

Again, I don't have an opinion on it either way, so my part of the nomination shouldn't be taken as a delete. (Note: The multiple speedy deletions of this article under the local equivalents of G2,G3, G11 and G12 from it.wiki seems to have got some media attention.[13][14][15][16][17]) Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 04:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Italy, Russia, and Ukraine. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 04:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable. Even years ago, checking the sources, you could have noticed how his book tranlsated into English was a cited on journals, his professional career increased even further. When you manage even before reaching notability for more "pop" reasons to be cited in sources in at least three languages (Italian, English, German), there is not really a lot of doubt. The spike of attention now is an additional coating on the cake of notability, with more sources in English, Russian and Italian. All international or national news publishers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to disagree. there are many books on left-wing terrorism in Italy after WWII, and Orsini's has not made a particular impact. He is a mid-career academic, with reasonable credentials, but certainly not somebody who would attract any wide interest, especially from non-Italian readers. His only claim to fame is his stance on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, and that does not justify an article on him. 2001:4BC9:A44:946:C5F4:A187:5D92:93EB (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's in the sources in the page... you can't disagree with sources, not very wiki.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I can add more sources about the media attention of the deletion on itwiki. I usually don't in these cases because it make itwikipedia sometimes look bad, but if you want more proof of generic notability we can put it there, it just reinforces the relevance. He did not need that, he is known internationally for his work (the book about Red Brigades) and the issue with Rai3 and his contract. That's already enough by enwiki standard.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alexmar, just to clarify, the deletions on it.wiki were speedy deletions as it had met the local equivalents of speedy deletion criteria G2, G3, G11 or G12 (it seems to have been deleted at least 6 or 7 times, probably more), not because of a lack of notability, like when it was deleted from here in 2016. Can you possibly give some sources that help establish notability? I'm not questioning their existence, but it would help the discussion move toward a conclusion if you provided some. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, using deletions on another wiki as a proof is methodologically wrong if the core aspect treated there are not sources and the topic. So maybe you should point out first why citing deletions for formal reasons is important in a discussion based on content. Also, it's not correct to ask me for sources of notability like the ones in the articles are not enough, this is not something who should be done implicitly or under the umbrella of a neutrality that based on the fact you add the reasons for the deletions and not the IP, it's not strong here.

First, write down precisely why you (not the IP) think that the current academic and general sources in so many languages over the years are not enough. Not as general concept but as your personal position. At this point, I can add you even more sources about the aspects in the artice and - why not- also about the deletion procedures. Of course, when you are cited everywhere on national newspapers when you are deleted, that means you are notable. Which means that the correct thing to do for a Wiki is to write the article. Even if the wiki has a high standard, with these academic sources it's almost impossible to deny notability. If you do so, you won't have 6-7 formal deletions in a row, every expert user knows that. Even the general public nowadays knows that, like those who write to me in private asking to why I am not writing this article, which at a certain point I do.
So please write down, why do you think I should add also 4-5 national national sources about itwikipedia that proves Orsini is notable also because of this aspect. Or just add them yourself, you already add sentences to the article--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: Sorry, my comment seems to have been a bit open to interpretation, and you seem to have interpreted it differently to how I intended it.

For goodness sake, I try to help an IP to do something that they were having trouble doing on their own, and now here we are.

You've somewhat put me in a position where it is best to make my actual position on this debate clear.

Keep: I suppose that might surprise you? Anyway, next time I see an IP mess up when trying to nominate a page for deletion in good faith, I'll just ignore it. This has been far more trouble than it's worth. I'll steer clear of that page too in future. I'm also not going to contribute any further to this discussion here, as this can only go downhill. Good day/evening/afternoon/night/morning. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 15:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might not be clear because it's not in the article yet ("yet" because it's written so far on weak sources, or they are not accessible and it's just in some google previews, or it can be inferred directly from his statements) but just so you get a more in-depth context besides some citations usually extrapolated by media: Orsini comes from the left, not the right. He showed in the past for example a quite strong pro-immigration stance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Orsini comes from the left does not seem relevant to this discussion. 2001:4BC9:A44:946:C5F4:A187:5D92:93EB (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding strong sentence hinting in one direction without stressing this concept, means it's up to me to balance the article now. So it's relevant, beacuse unbalanced articles have bigger chance to be deleted.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author: BTW, should we also cat=S (Society topics) to this deletion procedure? If I have to enlarge the article citing also the impact on national newspapers of Orsini's article deletion that means it's a social topic as well, including all the international debate about the position of Italian pundits on this geopolitical topic (see sources). This kinda goes beyond the person. Also the themes addressed by him are in the field of sociology, they are used as sources even here for these topic, editors who write about these issues might have a qualified opinion why the author of the sources needs a contextualization. So cat=S is a correct tag as well --Alexmar983 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep]: NO, don't delete Professor Alessandro Orsini's page, please. (not signed comment by IP 80.183.58.139, move here)

Comment by author: I point out that sourced information is now removed from the article with undo. This sort of behaviour is the kind that should not occur during a deletion procedure. It would have been better to discuss in the talk page, than start a AfD. I am not very comfortable here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Russian invasion in Ukraine, Alessandro Orsini was an unknown professor whose main field of research was the left-wing terrorism in Italy. As stated by someone else already, his works have not made a particular impact on the public debate in Italy or in the academic world on this topic. He became known to the Italian public for his controversial statements on the war in Ukraine and other recent statement (like Hitler didn't want to start the II world world and children were happy during the fascism period).

Also this page cannot be used as Alessandro Orsini CV. Also I find quite bizarre that Alexmar983 wrote that Orsini 'became one of the most recognisable guests on Italian talk shows', considering he started to appear frequently as a guest in different Italian talk-shows just two months ago.

The page in the Italian wikipedia of Alessandro Orsini is still a draft. If the Wikipedia English version will be kept, this page will be added mainly for the controversial statements of the person rather than for his academic contributions. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote something that is in the source: "è diventato uno dei volti più noti dei talk show italiani che approfondiscono il tema del conflitto." Not bizzare at all, and indirectly proven by the fuzz of the deletion of its page. And tha academic contribution were enough in 2021 to prove relevance in the field. See the discussion about the book and the source in German of 2019.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Orsini has become one of the best-known faces in the Italian talk shows covering the topic of the conflict (war in Ukraine)" and instead you wrote "has become one of the most recognisable guests on Italian talk shows'. Plus there is a difference between an article from a newspaper and a page in an online encyclopedia like wikipedia. This sentence will be valid after the end of the conflict when Orsini will not be invited anymore as a guest?

Anyway, I want to stress again that Alessandro Orsini was an unknown academic, before the war in Ukraine and his controversial statements. His published works in his specialised field never made an impact and this page cannot be used as a personal CV. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

volto noto and Il più discusso ospite di talk show televisivi del momento ... you have to express the concept somehow that he is really known. People recognizes his face, which is what notability means. So don't undo in these cases. Discuss, ask for more sources, put a template in ns0. It's clear that you will keep inserting or make me insert more and more sources that will prove the notability about this aspect (which is already enough per se to keep, per notability guidelines). Which proves to me that we should have not helped an IP to open an AfD, but teach them to discuss in the talk page about the content first. I will add both sources in the next days, please agree on a formulation that will fit in your opinion at the end of the conflict. it has been two months that newspaper about every single sentence he days, so...

Anyway, you already stressed your position. I can't do anything that reminding you the sources, start on those not on what you think in general. Also, if you think this page has a CV style, that should have been a suggestion for the motivation of the AfD, although it can be disproved quite easily. It does not focus very much on the publications and academic positions.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use the source correctly, citing the sentence partially. And the new links you have mentioned now, they say respectively 'known face' and 'the most discussed talk show guest at the moment'. You should also add the English translation (for non Italian speakers), if you write something in a language different than English.

Regarding the source, it is fair to use it correctly and not reporting the sentence omitting some parts that can change the meaning of it.

Also as an IP, I have the right to contribute to Wikipedia and to discuss regarding an AfD.

This biography page of Alessandro Orsini has not been approved on the Wikipedia Italian, where actually the person is known. Exactly why should this page have relevance in the English version?

I also find contradictory that you say that this page has not been built as a CV, when creating and writing this page you have added even the personal Facebook page of Alessandro Orsini. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I keep thinking that this a discussion related to editing so should have been started teaching you how to edit and discuss in the talk page of the article before opening AfD. Especially this strange contradictory AfD where somebody might keep it but open it to express what you might think, which now seems something else. You needed to gain more expertise, maybe opening a AfD later.

Having a FB link that does not prove the article is a CV, and you are really exaggerating this aspect. it was evaluated by many users on the way before you in many weeks and nobody defined it a CV, because it is not. Also you don't know yet how to read the history of a page. I did not add any FB link, I am very tolerant considering nowadays social media are closer to a personal webpage, so would be a Twitter profile. I add these things all the time also on Wikidata, but I usually don't care about those here.

Beware: someone else would have started to point out that accusing me of putting something I did not put is a bad-faith attempt. You are just not expert, which is a shame and it would have been better, since this is probably notable, to have this discussion in the talk page so you could have been trained.

Also, you can be an IP or a user, but you lacked some literacy. I just hoped you could become a more trained editor before this opening. It's not wise to put a newbie with starting editing skills and limited knowledge of guidelines in AfD, one of the most time-consuming process sometimes. For examples, in theory now we have to focus on the content in ns0 and here, and this is not good for the article. Normally, poorly-edited deletion attempts can be removed and not-so-expert users can learn a little bit more. Here I have to train you in good faith but since you think this is confrontational, you accuse me. That's not fair.

Normal users can use on-line translators, it's really simple. I prefer everybody to do that themselves so they can use a third party service and it is not up to me because someone will accuse me of not translating correctly (I know...). I found bizarre to be lectured about sources since I am the one who had to move the discussion on them, you were more inclined to very generic statements. Another source: il professore più controverso della Tv... you can't be the most controversial if people do not compare to all the other ones, so it means you are known. In this case they made a specific dedicated article just about him.

This "unknown academic" was known on his own. I was improving that part before we ended up here. But also "pop" notability is ok, they are all some notability. However, a contradiction in this discussion is that according to you, dear British IP friend, his presence on the media is transient and this is an encylopedia, so we should not stress too much about how notable he is because of mass media and disregard this part. Yet, if a newspaper extrapolates a quote from the guy and makes an article about it, which is occurring a lot recently, that quote is the most transient thing you can find as a source, but it can be stuffed in the article according to you, and you do so. So in other words, this adding of sources implicitly recognized the notabilty because of press coverage. So... why are we here debating about the opposite? You should not add more of those, you should remove them all. Do you see this?

In the end, I am a decent person, with a name and a surname, who edited an article of a notable figure based on old and new and academic and general sources, in many languages. I don't want to spend a week to balance a cherry-picking of sources instead of adding more academic ones, which is what I would have done probably.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite distasteful that you checked my IP to see where I have been writing from and you have addressed me as 'dear British friend' (ironically). You have already stressed enough how illiterate I am on Wikipedia! Ok, that's fine!

But even adding irrelevant award (Cimitile Prize without even a website page related to the award) to the page of Alessandro Orsini, it doesn't change the fact this person has become known only for his recent controversial statements and not for his academic contribution! 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was kinda necessary in view of a long and complex AfD, see comment here. It's more distasteful IMHO to constantly look for accusations, but personal tastes I guess.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Alessandro Orsini does not fulfil any of the notability criteria for academics, as defined by Wikipedia. He has become known to the public not through his academic achievements, but through his statements in talk-shows, that do not represent independent reliable secondary sources. His research has not had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He has won no major international prizes, etc. Essentially he has not fulfilled ANY of the notability criteria for academics. He is not even widely cited, his h-index is very low.Morningbastet (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he was known to the public also because of a scandal about promotions, this is part that could have been enlarged. That's also why there is an article in German citing him as relevant in his field, for example. Than he became known for the end of the contract in late February, than for the deletion of the article on itWikipedia, than again for every minor statements he says as it is now. But you can combine the last three as a unicum (a big one). Also the criteria are respected in points 1 (significant impact is the book about Red Brigades), 2 (the awards are national), maybe 5 (he was chair of a specific institution of the University until yesterday, that basically existed because of him). That's why I never enlarged with pleasure the "controversies" part, it's transient and people overthink about it ignoring the rest. Although all combined, the stuff of the press coverage kinda prove also point 7. At this point someone will criticize all of them, but it's more fair than citing generically they are not met at all. You need to demolish all four of them to prove he is not relevant as an academic. Which you will maybe, but I have met researchers here with much limited impact. That's why years ago the page was almost kept.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983 Being "known to the public because of a scandal about promotions" has nothing to do with academic notability. There need to be multiple independent articles from independent sources to support academic notability. Luiss University does not have a high ranking internationally, and Associate professorship is far from being equal with fame, in the absence of multiple independent sources of some weight that state his notability in the field. This article is likely a promotion/advertisement. The chair at Luiss was terminated and Luiss issued a statement distancing itself from the controversial statements of Orsini. Notability, not lack of notability, must be proven. This article only reports the controversies, which did not occur in an academic setting, but in Italian TV talk shows that have nothing to do with academic settings. The Orsini biographical article on Italian Wikipedia has been deleted, this means that for a researcher that has done essentially all of his training in Italy, he does not even merit notability in Italy. In the anglophone world he is even less well known. Several of the sources cited in the article have not been validated as independent reliable sources with a good reputation for soundness and journalistic rigorous. At most, the name of Orsini could marginally deserve to be mentioned only in an article listing controversies on Italian TV talk shows, about the different proposals of responses/policies concerning the war waged by Russia on Ukraine. But he certainly not a notable academic, he simply does not fulfil the criteria.Morningbastet (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am already out of this so don't ping me. BTW "only the controversies" is too much. Probably when I was looking for academic sources and inserting them I was aomewhere else... Seen many times: someone stuff the articles with controversies and later someone else act as if it's the only thing there. And than if you talk about open aspect (academic relevance), the subject shift on the "controversies", and vice versa. Very unhealthy.

Also, the part about deletion on itwiki is wrong. Even national newspaper reported it as done for formal reasons not related to the content because many many people found it quite bizarre. Besides that, using itwikipedia, which has higher threshold of notability and is usually criticized for that, to detect relevance in Italy is poor method (not the first time these things occur, may I remind you the Aranzulla case?). Using a wiki in general is poor method, such a disregard for sources. May I remind you also that we come from a 10-years scandal of hr.wiki about political aspects? That's why it would be wise to stick to the sources.

I wonder how many people will reappear in this AfD after many weeks or months of inactivity just to state such "stretched" interpretations of reality. How many of them will be anonymous? I won't know, I am out of here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also you should stop writing that Wikipedia Italian has blocked the publication of Alessandro Orsini page. Here some reliable news sources that prove your claims are untrue:

https://www.tpi.it/cronaca/wikipedia-cancella-biografia-professor-orsini-perche-non-ha-senso-parlare-censura-20220319881084/

https://www.bufale.net/scompare-alessandro-orsini-da-wikipedia-il-motivo-ufficiale-non-compreso-dai-complottisti/ 85.211.232.197 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about? He never said anything that is false. Alexmar983 correctly claimed that it.wikipedia is controversial related to notability and should never be used to assess it. For example, may I remind you recently the deletion of Vladimiro Giacché's article?

Also, you pointed out with third-party sources that even the very selective Italian wikipedia could not disproof the notability of Orsini.

—193.207.166.52 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I checked IP because, as I predicted, IPs were going to be actively involved here (nobody wants to use their name of such public figure) and it's the only way to get an idea if you are no check-user to know who's who because they might change. For example 193.207.xx probably added a source in the article, but with a different ending (193.207.210.18). Interestingly, it looks like the two IPs who were against the notability are from UK and Sweden, all the other pro-keep IPs seem to be Italian. There might be exceptions later, just a curious fact.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As pointed out by Morningbastet, Orsini does not fulfill any of Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics. I've been hesitating for a couple of days because he has arguably been "notable" in Italian mass media (mainly talk shows and tabloids) since March, for expressing views on topics outside of his academic specialty. But this seems to be a fallacy known as WP:ITSINTHENEWS. The only way I see him still being of public interest half a year from now is if he pivots from academia to politics (there is talk of that), in which case a Wikipedia page might be warranted under "politician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.195.49.49 (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. Something that is temporarily in the news is not worth to be in an encyclopedia, but this is not the case. There was in-depth coverage, and an evolution of sources. this one point out for example clearly not only that Orsini is worth a dedicated article on a national magazine but also states the Orsini was already on TV before 2022. this other source involving Orsini dates back to 2007. It's a little bit nuanced than an explosion of interest after February. That's why I was very skeptical about enlarging the 2022 section and I think I was right.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep absolutely. Notable and relevant nationally Italian as a professor and essayist for the awards won and the dissemination of his books https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2004077618/ https://scholar.google.it/citations?user=sUFtCR0AAAAJ&hl=it, as well as a television personality for his countless appearances on Italian TV and for the prominence given by the sources to his statements and controversies related to his positions policies, which is also treated by international not Italian speaking sources https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/stellenvergabe-an-italiens-hochschulen-ein-echtes-100.html https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/italien-luigi-di-maio-putin-russland-1.5562597 https://www.lopinion.fr/international/la-fascination-interessee-de-la-television-italienne-pour-les-opinions-pro-poutine?_amp=true .176.247.12.196 (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has yet failed to make a mark on WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Only 424 cites on GS, as yet is far too low to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Keep even the very rigid Italian Wikipedia cannot disproof the notability of Orsini. They are debating when (not if) to move it right now!

Discussing about recent information is unpractical, considering the coverage in older and more stable sources. Orsini did not just appear only now on newspaper, he was already cited in the past. All these details are however too recent and controversial. For example here orsini is very critical of the reconstruction of the closure of the department given by newspapers, so it's the sort of critical topic that should be taken with calm later.

The first part, the one which was enlarged before the AfD was opened, was the most useful one, it's strange to "help" pushing in this territory, IMHO.

The English version of its book about Italian Red Brigades is massively cited in the literature It's probably woth an article per se.

That's why he fulfills the general guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academics)—193.207.166.52 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'rigid' Italian Wikipedia? The page has not yet been approved. Full stop.

To support the fact that Orsini's book is 'massively' cited (according to whom?) you literally posted a link to a post from Orsini Facebook personal page. And regarding the other link (which is to Google scholar) and you restrict the research to 'scientific articles', the result for citations is just 1 (ONE). I am speechless about your misleading comment. 85.211.232.197 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GS is not restricted to only scientific articles. See his profile there. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Also I want to point out that the 424 citation on Google Scholar are referring to two different people named 'Alessandro Orsini'. And most of them have been published not by the sociologist, but a researcher in pediatric neurology.85.211.232.197 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP said in the literature, not "in the academic literature". Also, as a person who created with another user the Wikidata items of these people to avoid confusion, and I hope a decent expert of bibliometry, I remind you that citations are not potatoes, they vary per sector. I agree that the book about the Red Brigades, which also shows more citations under its Italian titles and was debated over the years, it's probably worth an article per se.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Facebook link was never used to proved the citations by the IP, it's there to remind that recent news-related information should not be "stuffed" in an article, they are controversial and unstable. I agree with that, there were plenty of sources on the way and available way more stable, but someone really wanted to go this way. In any case, if there are sources entirely dedicated to Orsini, as a whole (that is, in-depth coverage), they seem to be ignored even if recent.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I live in Italy. Everyone I know, in my circle of friends and acquaintances, knows Alessandro Orsini. In 2018, not everyone knew him, but he gave a speech in the Italian National Parliament (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6k4B_h4Gkc). Therefore, there's no reasonable doubt about him deserving to appear on the Italian wikipedia; but there may be reasonable doubts about the Italian wikipedia deserving to have a page on him, given the way they are dealing with the issue of the final approval of his page [18]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto cassone (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author: I am here again because I have just connected the itwikipedia article on Wikidata. So I was curious to read here how it was going. Now, itwikipedia can do whatever they want (maybe they will put it back on the draft? The consensus for the move was however pretty clear)... as you can imagine from some comments here, the whole story turned out to be already a discrete disaster of communication during the last weeks, but it's wrong in general to use other versions to evaluate notability.Maybe now this aspect will be very much appreciated, who knows...

In any case few people with a name and a surname will ever make a public statement that Orsini is not notable here in Italy. Even agreeing on high standards of notability, this person was on the national and academic sources already years ago and there are so many sources of different types over the years that you cannot possibly get consensus for the deletion, which is something it should have been explained to people with limited competence instead of pushing for AfD.

I might say, I disagree with the concept discussed on itwikipedia that the page should not have been published because of possible tensions despite being notable. From a practical point of view, the page can be handled. For example, here it remained for circa two weeks, no big deal. Experts users approved, it was there to be enlarged... Only the AfD attracted the noise and made impossible to discuss properly about the content. Personally, I won't do as well. too much bile, there at least three clearly false accusations in this procedure.

At least we are lucky this AfD did not arrive on national newspapers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I note that, further to discussion on this point above, Italian Wikipedia has now promoted this subject to article space. I view their collection of activities as sufficient to merit inclusion here, also. BD2412 T 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alexmar983 can you stop bludgeoning the discussion please. You don't need to write long screeds to everyone as it discourages participation in the discussion. Also it's irrelevant what has happened on IT. The only issue is do they pass GNG, is this BLP1E and is PROF met? Can we focus further discussion down to this please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author: I was away from here from nine days. That looks like a considerable amnount of time. In the meantime, I see people commenting every issue including reporting false accusations, but nobody cared. That looks like bludgeoning but wasn't it a problem at all? it.wikipedia was not relevant but why stating it to the only person who said so and not to the people who used it for days?

I know that not writing or writing again after nine days would have made no difference in the result, but I think a reader should notice this as well because I will not pay the price for everyone. I know it's easier that way, to blame just one person, but it's not correct. The problem was opening the AfD so rapidly. As usual, I am out, I was only here because I connected the itwiki version--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if I deleted the text by mistake a few days ago, I write again my opinion. Keep per WP:GNG: there is significant coverage of secondary reliable sources which started more than a decade ago. I would like also to point out that this AfD was strange: people tried a lot to talk about an AfD procedure on another wiki, but later it was reminded to ignore that fact when the article was published there. --176.200.60.24 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the others saying that he ultimately became famous in Italy because of his strong controversies on Russian conflict, not much for his academics studies --Broncoviz (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ptolemy of Mauretania. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Urania

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

Obscure, non-notable subject of a dedicatory inscription set up by a freed slave in ancient Rome who is itself up for deletion here. Although she was possibly a 'queen', the actual meaning of this designation appears to be somewhat ambiguous in the sources, and there's no conclusive proof that she was related to the people the article claims she was (according to the website the article itself cites; this source I found tells a similar story). The article relies wholly on self-published sources and the subject probably fails WP:GNG; nothing seems conclusive enough for a standalone article in any case. Pinging asilvering who first pointed out that this person may not be notable, and Ficaia who wished to redirect this to the person he thought was her daughter (whether that is so in fact is not certain). Avilich (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Avilich (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger. We don't have to be certain the two are related to redirect, do we? Both women are mentioned here (see p. 318). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same source I linked. "We may suggest" and a question mark in the family tree don't inspire too much confidence. Avilich (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect doesn't necessarily imply that the two are physically related. But they are mentioned together in the only good source we can find. And "Julia Urania" is an unusual name, so I see no reason not to redirect. Anyone searching for "Julia Urania" should be directed to Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger, which includes the Classical Quarterly article as Further reading. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to mention the two possible husbands, according to your own source, who have articles as well. I don't care which one is the best target, only that the problems described here be solved with article improvement or removal, though feel free to propose any alternative or stand by your original choice. Avilich (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger is clearly the better target. Why choose between two possible husbands when we have one possible daughter? Also, the Classical Quarterly article is named for and focussed on Drusilla. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this source which says "one need not linger" over her since "so little is known about the personalities" of that context and that she may not even have been a formal queen but a freed slave. The author also doesn't venture to postulate any relationships, so who knows if the "daughter's" article need even mention such an inconsequential and uncertain detail. At the end of the day, all we have is a name who somebody wrote down 2000 years ago and we don't know for sure what to connect it to or what it represents. Avilich (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is the way to go I think, unless someone finds some reasonably significant coverage that has something to say about her that isn't speculation. As far as possible redirect targets as an alternative to deletion, the daughter seems like the best destination. But I'm not sure we really need an alternative to deletion here: we're not really sure much at all about this person, including what her name even was - basically, I don't know what reader would be looking for her in the first place under this name, so I'm not sure we're doing anything useful to anyone by having an article or a redirect for "Julia Urania". We should check that all the articles that link to Julia Urania have a one-sentence (or even less) note on her with that jstor article as a reference so that none of the articles are losing context in a way that implies Julia Urania was definitely a known, historical person with that name, but otherwise... -- asilvering (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to better determine a redirect target if that's the ultimate consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect -- A person whose very existence is only known from a single inscription is unlikely to be notable. This is a better option than plain deletion, as someone may search for her.
Redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject lacks sufficient sources for notability, no merge or redirect required. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are just not enough sources to show notability. We should not merge or redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania: I believe just based on historic relevance alone we shouldn't outright delete. I'd be more in favor of redirecting to this article, since that is the only known confirmed link between the subject and her notability. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 02:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there's no reason to prefer the husband to the daughter, and there are apparently two husbands, as said above. Subject is too obscure for someone to search it before the proposed redirect targets anyway. Avilich (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This probably makes no difference, but according to this there are two known inscriptions. SpinningSpark 16:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second inscription was found in Arles, far from Mauretania, and names a husband and son who seem utterly unrelated to the speculation about this article's subject. The author remarks how téméraire (I hope your French is better than mine) it would be to draw conclusions based on nothing but an analogie of name. NebY (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly we are not keeping this but there is no clear consensus on where to redirect so can we settle that please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to relisting question: while reaffirming that I don't think redirect is necessary given that no one is likely to search for her, I additionally don't think that redirecting her to either proposed option is helpful. The one source we have on "Julia Urania" is not sure whether she is Ptolmey's wife or Drusilla's mother; both are conjecture. (See: [19], p. 319.) -- asilvering (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ptolemy of Mauretania or, as a second choice, Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger. Having to choose between redirecting a non-notable woman to her notable husband or notable daughter is difficult. For that reason, I actually would not be averse to keeping the page, even though a GNG case looks impossible. All her relationships can be given in context and the uncertainty of the information properly explained. SpinningSpark 13:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with disambiguation? There are two inscriptions, almost certainly referring to different women, and speculation about the possible notable relatives of one of them. Could we have a disambiguation page along the lines of
- Subject of an inscription found at Cherchell, possibly married to Ptolemy of Mauretania and/or mother of Drusilla of Mauretania the Younger
- Subject of an inscription found in Arles

This would at least allow us to mention more than one of the proposed redirect tagets. NebY (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the inscription at Arles is not the wife of Ptolemy then not only would she appear not to be notable herself, but she has no relationship to anyone or anything notable, so a disambiguation page is inappropriate. You cannot use Arles as the target article on a disambiguation page unless you first shoehorn in a mention of her in the target article, and that would be WP:UNDUE. SpinningSpark 15:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good points. Thanks for thinking it through for me. NebY (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. Stand alone notability is borderline, and rather weak, although I could see this go either way - assuming reliable sources are found. MY BEFORE gave hints that there is some discussion of her, but I couldn't find anything accessible, reliable and in-depth in the few minutes I spend. Do ping me if this is rewritten and I'll revise my vote. Oppose hard deletion as this is a searchable name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus The previous relisting comments are both hoping for clarity on the particular intended redirect target, if you want to throw in an opinion there. -- asilvering (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering My choice is Ptolemy_of_Mauretania, because, a, it has an (unreferenced) paragraph about her (whereas Drusilla article has a sentence at most), and b, in my BEFORE, I recall seeing the name Ptolemy but not Drusilla. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus notability is met Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jhimma

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

It is a normal film which has nothing for notability of the subject. References given in the article doesn't show significant coverage. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retain

Comment: The film complies notability guidelines given in WP:NFILM. The pageviews for this article since its creation is: 98,813. In my opinion the article should be retained. Rickyurs (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfied WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fulfills GNG, nothing wrong with it being a "normal film" — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NFILM with 2+ cited reliable reviews. More reviews may be available in Marathi language and/or offline -- Ab207 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Mukund Bissa

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

Content and references establish that he was a freedom fighter but not much notable to have a wikipedia article. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 doesn't have sufficient significant roles or coverage Nosebagbear (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Olszynski

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

Possibly a non-notable actress with only 1 famous role. However, not much third-party coverage. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Poland, California, and Illinois. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly needs improvement but I believe this actress has done enough film/TV to make here notable. See below. WCM_email 07:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“

Informant Tiffany Williams is portrayed by Paulina Olszynski. She’s appeared on many TV shows including Chicago Med, Chicago P.D., Chicago Fire, The Mob Doctor and Two and a Half Men, among others. Fun fact: she made her TV debt in a 2006 episode of Grey’s Anatomy (see link above). On a personal note, Olszynski just got engaged this summer (see cute photos on the beach below). NCIS: Los Angeles airs Sundays at 9 pm on CBS, right before Madam Secretary. [20]

”

Wee Curry Monster, as major characters? The Wiki page shows her only as supporting character. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly yes, in NCIS:Los Angeles, she had a role as a major character. Its a weak notability but probably enough to deserve a wikipedia entry. I will wait to see if others agree. WCM_email 15:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm suprised you say that, particularly since she hasn't broken and mostly routine coverage and occasional bit of PR. Even the two references are woeful, one short para and mention for a film in 2015. She is a bit-part actor who hasn't broken through. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. If any PR references, they would be on the article already. scope_creep^Talk 21:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, actresses with some guest appearance on TV and a supporting role in the 20 million dollar My Soul to Take movie. Lacks significant coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON at best, low visibility career, problematic sources. Se.com is Super Express (newspaper) [21], that's pretty much Polish WP:DAILYMAIL. The other source cited is not WP:SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After a month, I am not spinning the wheel again to see if it gets more contribution. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miel de Botton

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: A sources search turn up [22] (Evening Standard) as the only reliable third party source with extensive coverage (There's a Daily Mail article as well but it cannot be used for establishing notability). [23] Entertainment Focus establishes the existence of two records. There's unfortunately not enough substantial coverage, in particular for a BLP. A bit of a shame there isn't more, really. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I reduced the article to substub status and integrated the two sources above - this should make clearer what substantial coverage is left. Much of the previous content was closely paraphrased from her bio. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be fair bit of coverage, for example: A magnetic connection Miel de Botton, from soulful music to heartfelt philanthropy, No camping for Miel, Alain De Botton’s sister Miel talks about music and fame, GUIDE INTERVIEW: Miel de Botton on starting a singing career after the break-up of her marriage and performing at her first festival in Dorset, Singer Miel de Botton to make festival debut at Camp Bestival Piecesofuk (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These [24] [25] [26] look like enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG to me. Jacona (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lied Place Residences

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

no evidence this is a notable building or project CUPIDICAE💕 20:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources available such as:

NemesisAT (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all local papers that are effectively business announcements, not substantial coverage of the building itself. CUPIDICAE💕 21:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG doesn't exclude local coverage, and I disagree that they arne't substantial coverage. They cover the whole development or project, and I feel establish notability for it. NemesisAT (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources:

NemesisAT (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No effective references. The coverage above is incidental, run of the mill stuff. No effective coverage. scope_creep^Talk 07:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/lied-place-residences-developers-make-case-for-additional-tif-dollars/article_e643c405-0419-518b-a50e-4f1458252f69.html?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&utm_medium=social&utm_source=undefined_JournalStarNews	Appears to be a third-party report on a meeting between developers, officials, and the city council	The Lincoln Journal Star is a merger of two long-running papers, appears to be reliable	Article focuses on the development	✔ Yes
https://journalstar.com/business/local/topped-out-lied-place-residences-in-line-for-more-tif-money/article_6d5ae338-5b3c-5948-95ac-64f7909a247b.html#tracking-source=article-related-bottom	While the article does contain a quote from a developer, there is enough independent content here IMO			✔ Yes
https://www.klkntv.com/lied-place-residences-groundbreaking-wednesday/		Have no reason to believe 8ABC is unreliable in covering this uncontroversial subject	~ Article focuses on the project, but is only five sentences long	~ Partial
https://www.1011now.com/content/news/Emergency-crews-responding-to-accident-at-Lied-Center-garage-566382811.html		Appears to be a reliable source	~ Construction worker killed while working on the project.	~ Partial
https://www.dailynebraskan.com/news/construction-on-new-lincoln-skyscraper-set-for-2021-completion/article_78fc2c5c-f9e5-11e9-82de-47698d9e4ea7.html	Appears to be based entirely on statements from a developer			✘ No
https://www.wowt.com/content/news/Major-development-proposed-for-downtown-Lincoln-498562271.html	While some of the article is quotes, three paragraphs appear to be independent			✔ Yes
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fjournalstar.com%2Fbusiness%2Flocal%2Fdirections%2Ffirst-residents-expected-to-peer-from-awe-inspiring-glass-at-lied-place-by-football-season%2Farticle_609ea774-0deb-5a9e-9f6b-b50334060053.html	Contains quotes, but there is enough idnependent coverage here			✔ Yes
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fjournalstar.com%2Fbusiness%2Flocal%2Flied-place-will-rise-rapidly-with-four-floors-of-office-space-37-condo-units%2Farticle_c51ec716-9a18-589c-9be7-586105ec5d31.html	While it does contain quotes from the developers, it also contains a quote from the mayor and a little historical info and general info			✔ Yes
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}}.

WP:ROTM is an essay, what is important is that the subject passes WP:GNG. It does pass, as demonstrated by the source assessment table above. NemesisAT (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The "article" here is essentially a blank page? The only content here is an infobox? Regardless of whether this is notable or not this is currently in no state to remain in article space. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also the creator appears to have attempted to try to draftify it then requested deletion on the talk page. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've written some text now, so this is no longer a concern. This includes additional references on top of those I already mentioned above. NemesisAT (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is apparently 20-story building, or perhaps equivalent to 22 stories, and is a skyscraper. The fact that it is a skyscraper and that it might possibly be huge, be among the tallest buildings in Lincoln (i don't know) is not mentioned in the article. User talk:NemesisAT, some context about its size esp. relative to other buildings in Lincoln would improve the article and would likely help establish its significance to the AFD editors here. --Doncram (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Per List of tallest buildings in Nebraska, it is in fact the tallest building in Lincoln. Another option would be to expand the row at List of tallest buildings in Nebraska#Lied Place Residences (now with "id=" type anchor so it can be linked directly) by putting descriptive info into its right column cell, and to redirect Lied Place Residences to there, i.e. to merge this article to there. However if there is enough sourcing and material for a separate article, it should be kept as a separate article. --Doncram (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if we can avoid a n/c, because right now there isn't one
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No participation in 2 relists. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Labour Party (Bahamas)

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

Minor party which contested one election in 1972 and received 0.5% of the vote. Fails WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The party held a seat in the House of Assembly (which it lost in the 1972 elections), and I think any party that held a seat in a national legislature has inherent notability. I've made a small expansion to the article. Cheers, Number 57 09:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, it may be the case that this was a rebranding of the Labour Party (this source describes the CLP as being "reconstituted"), in which case the two articles could be merged, although I'm not sure under which title. Number 57 12:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Contrary to what was said above, there is no criteria that awards a political party inherent notability; political parties fall under WP:NORG, which explicitly states "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools". Almost no sources seem to exist; party likely fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say there was any criteria that awards the party notability – it should be quite clear that I'm giving a personal view on the matter. Number 57 22:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no counter has been proposed to Cunard's sources, and no indication a third relist would raise any. Star Mississippi 02:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CD USA

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

Fails WP:NTV. Only one source and I could find no others. Deprodded with addition of source already in article Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Dempsey, John (2005-11-02). "DirecTV gets original with music show". Daily Variety. Vol. 289, no. 23. p. 22. ISSN 0011-5509.
  The article notes: "DirecTV has greenlit its first original series, a weekly one-hour music show called "CD Us." Skein, to kick off Jan. 21 exclusively on DirecTV's channel 101 (and in high def on channel 401), will feature what the company calls a mix of music genres, including pop, indie, rock and urban. Performers signed up to tape their performances at the Tribune studios in Los Angeles a few days before the broadcast include the Goo Goo Dolls, Sean Paul, Leela James, Pretty Ricky, Ben Harper and David Gray. The series is based on the British program "CD UK," produced by BlazeTV, which will also produce the U.S. version under the aegis of Conor McAnally, executive producer and director of programs for Blaze TV."
2. Hofmeister, Sallie (2006-01-19). "Fox Sports Executive Places Big DirecTV Bet on Music". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "A spinoff of a top-rated British program, “CD USA” will feature interviews, behind-the-scenes reports and performances by as many as seven bands per episode, including big-name acts such as the Goo Goo Dolls, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Linkin Park. ... “CD USA” and other new offerings in the coming months represent the first major consumer initiatives by DirecTV since Murdoch took control two years ago. ... Everyone agrees that scheduling as many as seven acts a week for “CD USA” will be a bear."
3. Cling, Carol (2006-12-25). "TV looks at Vegas celebration". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Las Vegas returns to the national New Year's Eve TV spotlight Sunday when the Fremont Street Experience serves as epicenter for "CD USA," a 4½-hour, six-band musical marathon airing live on DirecTV's Channel 101 at 8 p.m. (That's 11 p.m. for East Coast types.) The idea for the extended bash began when executive producer Conor McAnally pondered U.S. geography."
4. Wilkes, Neil (2005-02-11). "DirecTV signs deal for 'CD:USA'. ITV chart show CD:UK is winging its way to the USA". Digital Spy. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.
  The article notes: "Satellite operator DirecTV has signed up for a US version of CD:UK, Broadcast said today. CD:USA will adopt a similar format, studio and graphics to its UK counterpart but will be backed by a higher budget."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow CD USA to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Mhking (talk · contribs), who contested the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and none likely to emerge with the language issues facing this discussion. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zamindars of Mahipur

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

A non-notable aristocracy; our article is a glorified genealogical register. No reliable sources, excluding the Banglapedia entry, exist that cover "Mahipur Zamindars" or "Mahipur Estate" or "মহীপুর জমিদারি" or "মহিপুর জমিদারি" or "মহিপুর জমিদার" or "মহিপুরের জমিদার" in any significant detail. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My philosophy is that if another reputable encyclopedia, such as Banglapedia: the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, has an article on a topic, then Wikipedia presumably should have one too. So for me, the question is whether this article is so problematic that WP:TNT is called for. I have concerns about whether the cited sources actually support the content. Several sources are so obscure, or described so incompletely, that I cannot obtain them for verification. SalamAlayka, you cited these, can you supply copies of:
- Ahmed, Wakil (1983). উনিশ শতকে বাঙালী মুসলমানের চিন্তাচেতনার ধারা (in Bengali). Bangla Academy. p. 238.
- Sakkhatkar (2011)
- Alam, Muhammad Mahmudul (2013). গংগাচড়া উপজেলার ইতিহাস ও ঐতিহ্য. Rangpur: Lekhak Sangsad. p. 26.
- ইতিহাস (in Bengali). Vol. 38. Itihas Parishad. 2004. p. 40.
- বাংলা একাডেমী গবেশণা পত্রিকা (in Bengali). 22: 92. 1977. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

--Worldbruce (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banglapedia ought not be treated as a RS; no sources, no author-bios etc. I have spotted errors dime a dozen in their entries. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require that sources contain author bios in order to be reliable. The Muhammad Moniruzzaman in question seems to be the one who earned his PhD in 1996 from the University of Rajshahi for his thesis on Zamindars in Rangpur, and has since written several books on the history of districts in the Rangpur Division.[27] They are available only in print, but are a logical place to look for more information on this topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stronge Oppose. This article find on Banglapedia. This is Bangladeshi encyclopedia. Prodipto Deloar (Talk • Contribute) 02:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time for LaundryPizza's deletion sorting to garner some input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . ✗plicit 01:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastiques

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

No significant coverage found per WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Belarus. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Their scant body of work can be found in several of the usual streaming and directory sites, but I can find no coverage in journalistic sources. Can be deleted for failing WP:NBAND or even WP:EXIST. Also, their website is defunct. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a copyright infringement of https://www.visionafrica.org/about-us/meet-sunday/. See CSD G12; deleted by administrator Iridescent. (non-admin closure) DanCherek (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Africa Radio

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

Unreferenced and not notable. Appears to be promotional. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mestizos in the United States

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

“Mestizo” is not an actual ethnic group or term used in the USA to self-identify by Native Americans or Indigenous-adjacent people at all. The term itself is racist, rooted in white supremacy, and some countries in Latin America like Bolivia have decided to do away with the anti-Indigenous colonial-era term entirely. I recommend you all to actually read about the term and why it’s so offensive to spanish-speaking detribalized natives like myself and others. We are not “mestizo”, we are Native American, we do NOT wish to be called “mestizo”. This article is also highly one-sided in its perspective, plenty of people have tried to edit it and have had their edits removed because they pointed it out the white supremacist origins of this term or why it’s offensive and racist, despite having sources/references to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koire292 (talk • contribs) 14:54, May 10, 2022 (UTC (UTC)

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now. As for my own view, nominator (a newly-created account with no edits outside of this topic) is not offering a policy-based reason to delete the article. There may be valid arguments for moving the article, redirecting it and/or blowing it up and starting over, but I'll leave that to editors who are far more knowledgeable on the topic than I. --Finngall ^talk 00:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment for User:Koire292 I trust you on this, although I don't know about the term. Wikipedia does have articles on racist terms. If you would like to collaborate to make this article accurate, i.e. to include an explanation that the term is rejected, racist etc, I would be happy to collaborate on that. CT55555 (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote follows, my chat with User:Koire292 continues on their talk page, and thinking time makes me want to support delete more than this comment suggests, so I've struck out my comment above CT55555 (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly expand on why the article title is considered offensive if so. I don't know about the term either but deleting means losing the opportunity to educate. oncamera _{(talk page)} 07:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct matched this. We have many articles about offensive terms. But we don't tend to have forks that describe the use of offensive terms. I think Mestizo might be the place for the educations. That argument aside, this article is mostly uncited, therefore appears like a lot of WP:OR. I say this in case those details might shift your thinking, as they did mine. CT55555 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
procedural keep/close - no policy based rationale given. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. The nominator is new. But I think I understand their intentions, even if the AfD doesn't refer to policy, the argument does relate to WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:GNG. CT55555 (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article seems to consist of original research (or WP:SYNTH) and the subject does not seem to meet WP:GNG. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 13:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For multiple reasons:

It's mostly uncited, therefore original research. In fact the bulk of it is uncited. That would normally be a problem, but in the case of content that is controversial (to put it mildly) this is all way below the quality-bar. Such articles require much greater care (essay: WP:CONTROVERSY)
I am not suggesting it as created with bad intent (sincerely) but it is (as per nominator) perpetuating ideas that are perceived as racist. Our tolerance for this should (essay: WP:NORACISTS) be low. CT55555 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a third (basically echoing Cullen328) this is like an essay and therefore delete as per WP:NOTESSAY CT55555 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. It is poorly referenced and most of the references do not even mention mestizos. There is no evidence that any significant group of people self-identify as mestizo Americans, and the term is not in common usage in the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was originally going to vote keep, as the deletion rationale is wrong about Wikipedia's role. There are articles for many other offense terms, and I don't believe WP:NORACISTS applies. However the article starts by saying the term isn't officially used in the US, and there are no figures for population. It doesn't get better as the article goes on. We have an article on Mestizo, and any details of its changing use, racial overtones and colonial history should be there. What is here is a lot of poorly referenced WP:OR. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my mention of WP:NORACISTS...I accept this is vague and open to debate. This article is not overtly relevant to the essay, but I think that the first two subsections of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_racists#Problems_with_racism are relevant. But I could be wrong, I don't want to over-state it. CT55555 (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a term not used in the US and the article is trying to make dinstictions that are not existent in a real or at least a trackable way in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends

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

Only one source in the article seems to be secondary. Further searching, and translation of sources from French, revealed nothing better. Just a couple clickbait listicles about adult animation, some press releases, and some directory listings. Being just a series of Internet shorts hosted on one website, it seems not to have reached reliable source coverage territory. Last AFD closed (prematurely, IMO) as "Speedy keep" due to a myriad of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:SOURCESEXIST type comments, but as far as I can tell, no reliable sourcing has been presented. The only source actually presented in the last AFD was this, which after Google translation, yields less than a full sentence about the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Further assessment of the sources:

This one seems to be sufficiently about the show.
This one is about the animator and out of a myriad of paragraphs, dedicates only two lines to the show.
Source 3 is just the animator's Kickstarter, a WP:PRIMARY source.
Sources 4 and 5 are the show's own website.
This is an interview with the animator in a Russian blog; i.e., another primary source.

In short, I think the sourcing is borderline at best and, unless someone finds something really major that I missed, I'm still leaning delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I tend to believe that articles should be kept whenever possible, I'm not sure about this one as a person who searched for sources myself and was unable to find much of value, for a very obscure show. Having said that, I don't think the article should be deleted, but rather any sourced content should be merged to Adult animation#France, where it would be more appropriate, and the article become a redirect to Adult animation#France. Additionally, the analysis on French Information and Communication Sciences Review should also be merged into the Adult animation#France section. I will say that I am willing to change my opinion on this topic in the course of this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep During the previous AfD User:Firefangledfeathers found an academic paper about it: https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/8166 prompting the nominator (User:JayPlaysStuff) to withdraw the AfD with a SNOWBALL keep. So I find that convincing. CT55555 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is an academic paper a reliable source, though? Who wrote it? What cred do they have? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to a translated version of the article (if that doesn't work, just throw the artcicle in Google Translate) it says: "Aurélie Petit is a doctoral student in Film Studies at Concordia University in Montreal, under the supervision of Marc Steinberg." More about Petit here, here, and here. Historyday01 (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, academic papers are reliable sources. This is a paper written by doctoral student in film studies at Concordia University and published in SFSIC and hosted at Centre pour l'Édition Électronique Ouverte. I would consider this as top tier for reliability.

As per the link I shared, it was written by Aurélie Petit, who is "a doctoral student in Film Studies at Concordia University"

I think the credibility of a doctoral student in film studies, who published an academic paper on this is self evident.
Which part of this did you have doubts about? CT55555 (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The part that says "student". They're not a professional writer or authority figure on the subject. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure about that. I'd argue that they have enough authority to include as a source. 173.64.72.34 (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"student" being prefaced by the word "doctoral" is significant.

Either way, it's published

Thirdly, The WP:SCHOLARSHIP section called Dissertations will give you guidance on the reliability of PhD student's work that is published under supervision (as this is) CT55555 (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good points on all counts. It is definitely a reliable source. 173.64.72.34 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the journal article, the only thing that matters is whether it's academic, peer-reviewed, etc. Even if they're an undergrad, if they get published in a "real" journal it's a real publication. But here we have one of these, and that's really it. As far as I'm concerned this does not pass--so delete, but I say this fully aware of the fact that in some topic areas two websites are deemed enough. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: I can't believe you said that. Reliably published, peer-reviewed scholarly papers are the gold standard for referencing an encyclopaedia, not something to be viewed with suspicion. SpinningSpark 13:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, exactly. I can't believe that either. Considering that the page itself garners hundreds of views every day, it makes sense to have content about the series, whether through keeping the existing page or merging and redirecting as I've proposed here. Historyday01 (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: in the first AfD my friend User:Dennis Brown found this, and that seems like a pretty decent source to me--but that's two, then. Dennis, I pinged you so you can vote keep, haha. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, ok. Would you support merging the sourced content into the Adult animation#France section? I think this animated series is at least worth mentioning there, even if very briefly Historyday01 (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: This page is not as strong as it could be, but I think there is enough value to merge specific content to an appropriate page. 173.64.72.34 (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the same reasons as the last AFD. There are sources which demonstrate it passes WP:GNG, the gold standard for notability. Wikipedia isn't censored. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as GNG is passed. The academic source is reliable, in-depth, significant coverage. @TenPoundHammer: can you please strike {{tqd|"only source actually presented in the last AFD" from your OP?
Here's another écranlarge source with more coverage of the show. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Naleźniak, Paweł (2013-12-30). "Genocide in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia 1943–1944". The Person and the Challenges. The Journal of Theology, Education, Canon Law and Social Studies Inspired by Pope John Paul II. 3 (2): 29. doi:10.15633/pch.493. ISSN 2391-6559.

[2] "Nieukarane zbrodnie SS-Galizien z lat 1943-1945 : Chodaczów Wielki, Huta Pieniacka, Podkamień, Wicyń i inne miejscowości / Aleksander Korman. - Collections Search - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum". collections.ushmm.org. Retrieved 2022-05-11.

[3] "Ludobójstwo nacjonalistów ukraińskich na Polakach na Lubelszczyźnie w latach 1939-1947 / Stanisław Jastrzębski. - Collections Search - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum". collections.ushmm.org. Retrieved 2022-05-11.

[4] "Chodaczków Wielki, Encyklopedia PWN: źródło wiarygodnej i rzetelnej wiedzy". encyklopedia.pwn.pl (in Polish). Retrieved 2022-05-11.

[5] Kraków, Instytut Pamięci Narodowej-. "Ukraińscy ochotnicy w SS". Instytut Pamięci Narodowej - Kraków (in Polish). Retrieved 2022-05-11.

[6] "Wieś na kresach południowo–wschodnich pod dwiema okupacjami". Martyrologia wsi polskich (in Polish). Retrieved 2022-05-11.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Hosta

Recent Comments