Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< June 24	June 26 >

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 redirect‎ to Del Water Gap#Discography. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Del Water Gap (album)

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

Album article previously converted to redirect and recently restored. Does not seem to pass WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mbdfar (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per nomination and Richard3120's justification. Though, frankly, the artist doesn't look particularly notable apart from this, his only album so far, and both articles may be worth deleting. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the target subject passes WP:NBAND. The major contributor needs to understand that the article is not to be used as a public relations medium that is an extension of the subject's own social media/website. The major contributor appears to be his PR agent (based on editing pattern, and their discussion in talk page saying they have permission from photographer and such) Graywalls (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect as above. The contribution history of the editor Deer876 (talk · contribs) is all/nearly 100% about Del Water Gap over a sufficiently long period of time to suggest self advocacy or editing for the subject or his record label. Graywalls (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Tsaturian

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

This semi-promotional article on an artist does not meet criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The sourcing is very weak, and most sources do not mention him at all or fail verification with the exception of one that mentions an NFT he made, and another which is a sponsored project he did for an alcoholic beverage company. A BEFORE search using his name as well as his pseudonym only reveals social media and user-submitted content. No evidence of important exhibitions at museums or national galleries, no museum collections. Possibly TOOSOON? Netherzone (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Technology, and Russia. Netherzone (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator makes a strong case. I am not finding any usable references to show the subject's notability. WP:TOOSOON. - WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree entirely, the existing sourcing is poor and I can't find any better sources supporting notability. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted this article on the Russian-language Wikipedia. I could not find weighty art awards and prizes, no quality independent reviews of his work, and no reviews of his creative path. --Khinkali (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article infobox contains a link to his site which is cited as a source for many claims in the article body. The site itself is offline (whois reports it as not being registered). Internet Archive does have a copy of the site from 2022, which gives an impression of a freelance designer who also occasionally displays his works at places without any curation, likely to promote his professional services. The the article mentions a few works, but none of them appears to have any third-party coverage at all. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crispín Sosa Tapia

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, possible hoax here and on es.wiki. Put bluntly, none of the sources are reliable. The best available coverage comes from a amateurish student paper [1], with additional sources including a provenance-free document uploaded to a file-sharing website ([2]), a blog that isn't even a complete website ([3]), an empty search result [4], and, on es.wiki, the lyrics of some folk songs. I was unable to find additional coverage online, having searched the general internet, Google Books, Google Scholar, and my local university library's collection. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Mexico. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is information about this article in the general internet, there is also in writings that are not on the net, this case was in the media at the time the information is more concentrated in the newspaper library of the state of Puebla, of this Mexican character Crispin Sosa Buu119 (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, please provide citations to and excerpts from the offline texts in question. There’s no issue with offline sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Toxqui, Alfredo (1991). Biographical dictionary of people from Puebla ("Cosmos" Editorial Press, edition). Mexico.

Porrúa Dictionary. History, Biography and Geography of Mexico, Editorial Porrúa, S.A., Mexico, 1986, Fifth corrected and increased edition (six volumes), pp. 1911-1925 volume II, entry "Outlaws of the Mixteca Poblana"

Bautista, Gonzalo/ Sosa Tapia Crispín. Brief Notes for the History of the political state in Puebla. Government of the State of Puebla. Editorial algaba july 2002.

In these quotes the life of this character is mentioned, it is clarified by the situation of his events at the time the government suppressed information in some way at the time. As of today, you can see more about his life and his legacy, even if according to English Wikipedia The guidelines do not apply, his biography is fine, perhaps later, thank you for taking the time and clarifying this article, good day everyone. Buu119 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide the actual, Spanish titles? I'm trying to find these books in Worldcat to verify that they actually exist. Porrúa Dictionary seems plausible (here's the Google Books entry, although it does not allow for a preview), but I am unable to find any record of a book by Alfredo Toxqui in 1991 or Bautista Gonzalo in 2002. I've gone ahead and requested a digital copy of the Porrua text available from my local library and am hoping that I will receive it shortly--if there are any issues with this library request I should be able to retrieve the physical copy in a week once I return from my travels._signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I was not able to get a digital copy due to the poor condition of the physical materials. Hopefully I will still be able to access the book in person. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A link to a blog is an article about a "Arnulfo Chávez", not a "Crispín Sosa Tapia". I think I've seen another article like this one, with a similar story about a good bandit that was killed in Mexico, but I think it was deleted via speedy deltion and I don't recall the article title. But this article is very familiar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason, the es.wiki article on Tapia uses one of the purported nicknames, El Güilo Sosa, as a title, in case that jogs your memory. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That blog that talks about Arnulfo Chavez, actually refers to Crispin Sosa, even reading well at the end of the text, reference is made to him even in the comments that mention and correct. 2806:262:496:108:D949:8D5B:A724:FCC1 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Skynxnex (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the total failure to verify any sources (I also struck out on newspapers.com, jstor, proquest, ebsco, newspaper-archive, and archive.org open library.) If no consensus to delete, since it's not a BLP page, I think moving to draft space to reduce risk of Wikipedia:CITOGENESIS before sources are found and verified. Skynxnex (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rosguill and Skynxnex's diligent searches.

The history of articles about this person on Wikimedia projects is murky:

commons:Category:El Guilo Sosa has several photos uploaded by commons:User:Julio9107. He claims to hold the copyright on all of them including the snapshot of Crispín Sosa Tapia toting a gun; does this mean he was his associate? commons:User:Historiaspuebla1978 and commons:User:Joaquinronaldo also uploaded photos.

Joaquinronaldo (see above) also created a "Crispín Sosa Tapia" article on the Spanish Wikipedia that was deleted 3 times. He was blocked indefinitely as a single-purpose account after 2 prior blocks.
Spanish Wikipedia has an article for "El Güilo Sosa", Crispín Sosa Tapia's other name. It was created by 83.55.90.118
On our Wikipedia, we have multiple articles:
- User:Julio9107/Crispín Sosa Tapia translated from the Spanish "El Güilo Sosa" article by Julio9107
- Draft:Crispín Sosa created by User:Pueblamx and rejected at AfC
Wikiquote had a file for El Guilo Sosa that was deleted.

The Spanish Wikipedia sources are all unreliable except es:El Sol de Puebla. It is a newspaper in Mexico's fourth largest city, Puebla. It's used as a reference for 16 articles on the Spanish Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the link in our article goes to a useless search page turning up 272,000 various pages.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly draftify per Skynxnex pending a verdict on the purported print publications. There is too much funny business going on here to even consider giving this the benefit of the doubt -- and doubt is about all we have here, which wouldn't be enough to support an article in any case. As a note, the El Sol de Puebla search appears to default to Boolean OR between searchterms, but also supports exact phrases. However, none of the relevant exact phrases I tried ("el guilo", "sosa tapia", "Crispín Sosa") yielded any results at all. Likewise the 5th edition of the Diccionario Porrúa de historia (but perhaps not the increased edition?) is available for search-only access via Hathi Trust, but I'm not able to pull up any exact-phrase matches from any of the three volumes available there. At this point I'd call this a WP:V deletion, not even getting to notability. -- Visviva (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present). This incident is already listed on the target article but the listing is unsourced and this article can supply references. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Syria helicopter accident

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

One small incident in a war; nothing to make it notable at all. (The article was proposed for deletion (WP:PROD) and the creator of the article contested the proposal.) JBW (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Transportation, Syria, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (without prejudice) into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present). Yet another case of bizarre fragmentation! The topic may be notable or not. The answer DOES NOT MATTER as, regardless of the answer, this is an improper WP:SPINOFF from its parent that has just one sentence on the accident and needs all three sentences and sources. Thank you, JBW, for nominating! gidonb (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Military occurrences are far more common than civilian ones, so the threshold for inclusion is higher. This one in particular seems to be a relatively minor mishap without fatalities: an example of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL in military operations. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deeday-UK! How do you feel about going from 1 to 3 sentences on the accident here plus adding missing sources through a merge? The article would still disappear, as you suggest, while adding quality elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not very notable in a war. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grahaml35! Did you also consider WP:ATDs? gidonb (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been added to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present) and I believe the information on that article is sufficient. Therefore, I do not believe a WP:ATD is necessary. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOH S279

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

Does not meet WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and entirely relies on large-scale surveys. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no hits on Google Scholar ([5], [6]) coverage is limited to databases etc. or Wikipedia forks/mirrors ([7], [8], [9]). Fails WP:NASTRO. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article briefly PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I guess. Seems a pity; would be nice to have somewhere to transwiki this sort of thing. -- Visviva (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOH S281

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

Definitely does not meet WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article only relies on a single source (excluding its SIMBAD entry), that itself is a large-scale survey and does not establish notability. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no hits on Google Scholar ([10], [11]), cited journal article ([12]) doesn't appear to even mention it, based on my control-f search, other coverage is in routine databases/surveys or in mirrors/forks of Wikipedia. Fails WP:NASTRO. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article briefly PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I guess. Seems a pity, but as noted above there just isn't much to work with here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teals Crossroads, Alabama

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

I'm not seeing any coverage to establish notability for this intersection aside from being mentioned in various lists of places. –dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama. –dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete Aerials (and in this case U Alabama has extra coverage) show that a store appeared around 1963-'64; its vacant building is still there, and there might have been another business across the road (now gone). I can find nothing narrative about the place, and the only non-listing name drops I can find are WRT a tornado that passed through the area, causing no significant damage however, and a cemetery maybe half a mile north attached to a relatively new church. I have to think this was always just a crossroads. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barbour County, Alabama#Communities where it's listed as an unincorporated community and maybe add in its co-ordinates so it can be located on maps. There's inhabited property round abouts and a modern church, but it doesn't look like it fulfills the legally recognised populated place criterion of WP:GEOLAND. If it was on a State Route or US Highway and the crossroads widely referred to, it could have been a redirect to the relevant road, but here the roads are County Roads. Similar to Spring Hill, except that place has notable residents and a notable church. Doesn't seem to be anything of note here though, now or historically. Rupples (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed to a redirect, but it will need to be removed from the "Communities" list unless we have a reliable source that describes it as such. I don't see any evidence that the surrounding homes are part of, or known as, Teals Crossroads. –dlthewave ☎ 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changing from redirect as dlthewave rightly states lack of evidence for the surrounding houses/church use of the name. Rupples (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perkins, Arkansas

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

Non-notable railroad siding. –dlthewave ☎ 18:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arkansas. –dlthewave ☎ 18:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete In spite of all the verbiage about the rail line in another article, aerials reveal that the line wasn't built until the Certainteed factory was built. We have thorough coverage after than to show that this is only the north end of a long siding. Mangoe (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Earth shows a railroad crossing. The Certainteed factory is nearby. No evidence of a community within several miles.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion, deletion contested on article talk page so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd Leave it Be - While it is not an earthshaking question whether Perkins does or does not have a Wikipedia page, I see no reason to delete it. The article is accurate and documented, and the settlement appears on maps of general applicability like Google Maps. I’m sure it’s important to the people who live there, and It is certainly an important locale to the railroads since the websites for both Union Pacific (see Reference 3) and the DeQueen and Eastern (see https://patriotrail.com/rail/dequeen-and-eastern-railroad-dqe/ ) specifically reference it. And, while someone seems to have been cranked up to discuss Umpire, Arkansas on its Wikipedia page, most unincorporated communities in Howard County have even less going for them (see Corinth, Midway, Mineola, Okay, or Schaal). That’s just a function of rural Arkansas; I don’t think we want to delete Howard County because it’s boring. And, I suppose that, to the extent someone sees the place on a map and wonders about it, the fact that there is a Wikipedia page but such page does NOT show Perkins as a more interesting locale may by itself answer the question of whether this is a hidden gem worth investigating. Absent a good reason to get rid of the page, I’d leave it be. TulGuy (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Moved from Talk:Perkins, Arkansas –dlthewave ☎ 22:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

@TulGuy:, what is it that makes you say this is a settlement, or that anyone lives (or did live) there? Right now all we know is that it's the location of a railroad connection, and there's no significant coverage to establish notability. Unfortunately your argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT which isn't a valid reason to maintain an article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it actually is a railroad siding then it needs to pass the notability guidelines for us to have an article on it, and it doesn't. The one source cited which isn't a map or database [13] doesn't provide significant coverage of the subject. Hut 8.5 17:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to De Queen and Eastern Railroad. Seems that all we can say about it is that it's a railroad junction, so it makes sense to redirect to the railroad article that already mentions that junction while also providing broader context. -- Visviva (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a bit more of a policy-based rationale here, it appears to me that: (1) because De Queen and Eastern Railroad already contains useful information about Perkins, a redirect is appropriate per WP:ATD-R and WP:R#DELETE (i.e. if this were already a redirect there would be no basis for deleting it); and (2) outside of unusual circumstances that don't apply here, delete-and-redirect is proscribed by the bedrock policy WP:PRESERVE. (Plus it's also twice as much work.) -- Visviva (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To further articulate: My thinking, which could be faulty, is that a delete-and-redirect is identical in effect to a redirect-and-revdel, and therefore we should only be doing the former in the very limited cases in which the latter would be appropriate. -- Visviva (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per my earlier comment above: there's nothing there in the satellite image. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell what's at the location. There is a giant CertainTeed plant 0.3 miles from the point Google Maps identifies as Perkins ( https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Perkins,+AR/CertainTeed+Plant,+794+AR-369,+Nashville,+AR+71852/@34.078495,-93.8617253,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8634988eafd8e1d1:0x2b13c74a0ae424ba!2m2!1d-93.8599091!2d34.0767775!1m5!1m1!1s0x863499d9415514e5:0x797ae0b882eccc10!2m2!1d-93.8592001!2d34.0801977!3e0?entry=ttu ). The plant has a Nashville, Arkansas address, but is 11.4 miles from Nashville ( https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Nashville,+AR/CertainTeed+Plant,+794+AR-369,+Nashville,+AR+71852/@34.0168764,-93.9396059,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x86349b067331f6b7:0x51f1f154368d37e2!2m2!1d-93.8470509!2d33.9482519!1m5!1m1!1s0x863499d9415514e5:0x797ae0b882eccc10!2m2!1d-93.8592001!2d34.0801977!3e0?entry=ttu ), and all that typically means in the countryside is that the Nashville post office is delivering the mail in the area. (I’ve lived in an incorporated town in the country, but my mailing address was nevertheless another town entirely, where the post office was located.) If you go to USPS.com’s “Find USPS Locations” page ( https://tools.usps.com/find-location.htm ) and feed in Perkins, Arkansas as the search term, the USPS knows exactly where that is and has no problem telling you that Dierks, Murfreesboro and Nashville are the nearest post offices. So Perkins isn't a figment of our imaginations; and again, unless there is an affirmative reason to delete the page, I'd leave it alone. I note someone has already modified the page to call Perkins a rail connection point, which it certainly is. I'd vote for that over deletion entirely. TulGuy (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Visviva's work above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, and I might be missing something here, but just for the record I should note that that is the opposite of the point I thought I was making (namely that delete-and-redirect would be improper here). -- Visviva (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tippett, Nevada

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

The few sources that cover this location in detail [14][15] describe it as a sheep ranch that included a stagecoach stop, general store and lodging. This really doesn't amount to significant coverage, they don't describe it as a community and there's no official recognition that would meet GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nevada. –dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google Earth shows that today, this is just a spot on a rough dirt road. There's a farm nearby. Nobody else lives within several miles.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Demonstrably a populated place (one Lincoln Highway guidebook gives the population as 10, which probably undercounts the effective population, as newspapers show quite a few folks who were "from" or "born in" Tippett; like many fourth-class post office communities, Tippett would likely have served as a locus of identity for the surrounding area). Has significant coverage with many encyclopedic details in Romancing Nevada's Past (Shawn Hall, Univ. Nevada Press, 2016) and probably also in The Lincoln Highway: Nevada (Gregory Franzwa, 1995, appears self-published but by an unquestioned SME in Lincoln Highway history). Widely covered in ghost-town blogs, although probably few of those are RSs. I think this meets the WP:GNG: there is ample material from which to build an article that provides encyclopedic value to the reader. But in any event, as a bona fide populated place with a significant form of government recognition, it passes WP:NGEO. -- Visviva (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While not IMO essential to the question, the following White Pine News clips might be useful in getting a sense of the community once here: (1) a front-page story on an obscure battle over control of voting and mining in the Tippett district, (2) a description of the star routes serving Tippett and neighboring communities shortly before the post office was snuffed out, (3) a report on mining prospects in the Tippett district, (4) a representative Tippett society column. There may be nothing let of Tippett now, but this was no mere mapmaker's fancy. -- Visviva (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A more rigorous policy-based rationale for my !vote follows:
First, the rules: Under WP:NGEO, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, while Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Thus, even where a community has received no legal recognition at all, the GNG provides a path to presumed notability. And the GNG of course requires that the article subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, where "significant coverage" must be sufficiently on-topic and detailed that no original research is needed to extract the content. Therefore, regardless of legal recognition, a community is presumed notable (i.e. suitable for a stand-alone article) if it is the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
Next, the sources. We have an information-dense paragraph (looks like 50-60 words) with fairly dense information in this Lincoln Highway book from Stackpole Books, and a full two-page profile in this book published by the University of Nevada Press. Numerous more glancing but informative mentions can be found in other secondary sources, such as this 2013 Lincoln Highway article in Nevada Magazine, and this 1916 Lincoln Highway Association guidebook. An early cross-country travelogue devotes two (small) pages, about 100 words, to a description of the Tippett community and its "interesting lot of people".
Conclusion: Even without considering the questions of legal recognition, self-published sources, or contemporary press coverage (all of which would weigh, if at all, further in the article's favor), Tippett merits an article under the GNG because it has been the subject of coverage in independent reliable sources, and that coverage is sufficiently detailed and on-topic that no original research is required to extract the content. -- Visviva (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visviva above. We're just trying to meet WP:GEOLAND here, and notability still exists even if the settlement does not. Came across this report that mentions the post office as being a recordkeeping house. AviationFreak💬 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - probably a section of the country, not a town.

Nothing in the Online Nevada Encyclopedia. It does not have specific articles for towns but is mostly historical. The Las Vegas newspaper archives from 1909 to 1927 have nothing:[16]. (After 1927, I got 1800+ hits; I went through the first 100 and only found Tippett used as a last name.)

Visviva's first article talks about Tippett as a "district" of White Pine County, not a town. It spells it two ways: "Tippitt" or "Tippett". It says that county officials voted to merge it into the Pleasant Valley district. Article 3 about mining once again uses the word "district". These hard rock metal ore mines take up a lot of space and aren't something normally found in a town (there are a few exceptions). Article 2: old-time U.S. rural post offices are not proof a town once existed -- they could just be a low volume "distribution node" of sorts in someone's farmhouse or store.

I think Tippett was a section of a very large county, not a town.

Here's the Google Earth link for the USGS coordinates in the article. Please look at it.

I'm really trying but coming up short. I still say delete.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may not have been clear as to my intention in providing those links in my self-reply: I was trying to provide a taste of the various goings on at Tippett, not to use those particular clippings as a basis for notability.

To my misfortune, I am prone to focusing on the arguments that I find most interesting, which are usually much more tendentious than the boring arguments that actually have a chance. In hopes of fixing my blunder, I have added a more formulaic policy-based rationale as a second self-reply above. In sum: my arguments about NGEO are beside the point because this (former) community passes the GNG -- and does so, ironically, thanks in part to the fact that nobody lives there anymore. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a ghost town!

(But since I can't help myself, I'll add that I think it speaks volumes to a little-considered aspect of Wikipedia's systemic bias that we don't yet even have articles on open-country community or fourth-class post office, institutions without an understanding of which it is almost impossible to make sense of the lives of the majority of US residents in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Imagine a world in which any contact with the outside world (including newspapers) comes through the post office, which is also the only place you are likely to meet any neighbors who live beyond hollering distance. No surprise that these places became the locus of identity for the communities around them, the place people were "from", even when no commercial center developed. And no surprise that, as here, these places often became centers of political activity (as Tippett for example came to serve as a voting precinct, seat of a mining district, seat of a school funding district, and site of mass meetings). I might try to build a userspace essay on the subject since this sadly seems to come up with some frequency lately. To leave rural communities -- which are quite different from small towns -- out of our coverage would be to abandon a vast swath of documented human experience for no particular good reason, which to my mind is entirely contrary to our mission. But, again, no matter how much this argument interests me I don't think it really has any bearing on the outcome in this particular case. The GNG suffices.) -- Visviva (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mentioned in several books on the Lincoln Highway and in a book on ghost towns in Nevada: [17] SportingFlyer T·C 13:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visviva and his book refs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Visviva and others. Okoslavia (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Wilcox train robbery. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcox, Wyoming

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

The Old West's Infamous Train Robbers And Their Historic Heists describes Wilcox in 1899 as "little more than a trackside station and water stop manned by one or two railroad employees" and I could find no evidence that it was ever anything more than this. Newspaper and book coverage focuses almost entirely on a nearby train robbery and various railroad-related incidents that took place nearby, simply using Wilcox as a reference location. –dlthewave ☎ 17:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 17:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Google Earth doesn't show any remnant of a train station today. There's one farm house 1/4 mile away. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Google Earth, nor in any other sources. If there ever was a train station there, there certainly isn't now. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Wilcox train robbery per WP:V - no source cited to show the subject is a populated place as claimed. There are lots of mentions of it as the location of the robbery, but none identify it as a settlement, or anything other than a very small facility for the railroad. Hut 8.5 16:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wilcox train robbery, where I have spliced in the coordinate information from the Wilcox article. Ultimately the bare fact of the location seems to be the only information that this article is ever likely to be able to provide, and that can be provided more usefully in the robbery article. It seems illustrative that the Historical Atlas of the Outlaw West has a full entry on Wilcox -- but that article, too, is almost entirely about the robbery, with only the brief mention of a "trackside sign" that apparently still marked Wilcox's location in the 1980s. -- Visviva (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous comment above - nothing there. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benchmark, South Dakota

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

GNIS spam. Although the name appears on topo maps, I could find no evidence of a community or notable place at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 17:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Dakota. –dlthewave ☎ 17:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete This looks like a mistake at some point where someone converted the benchmark which is there into a place name. I can find no evidence at any era that there was anything else here. Mangoe (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like places, but this isn't much of a place. Google Earth shows there's not even a cross-roads or a house at this location; I wonder if there's a mistake in the coordinates. There are several dozen homes on dirt roads scattered over about a square mile 3/4 mile to the northwest.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see the consensus here as against Deletion of these articles but that editors are open to Redirection or Merger of some of these pages if the nominator or another editor would like to pursue those options. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Envy & Other Sins

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

Band and associated articles do not appear to be notable. Couldn't find any coverage beyond the NME article sourced in the band's article. Only one single charted, but it was only in the bottom half of the chart for one week. Could merge/redirect what little is here to Orange unsignedAct, though the notability of that series is also questionable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:BAND#2 applies as WP:CHART is top 100 and they hit #65. Band#5 doesn't apply as they only had one major label album.

I was almost at delete because I did a series of searches and can't find anything other than the NME article. It could be this content could be merged into one of the other band articles for Jim Macaulay the drummer, but only The Stranglers mentions him and he was a replacement drummer which means he's not really fundamental to their history. So this article is the place, and they squeak through with that charted single. Oblivy (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it appeared on a weekly chart for just one week, and not particularly high. Just because it placed on a chart at all doesn't necessarily mean it passes. And even then, that's one song that charted, not the album. It could be a keep for the song (though I still disagree with that) but that doesn't necessarily transfer to the album or band. Remember that notability is not inherited. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make a WP:Inherited argument. If an article satisfies a notability criterion, it satisfies it. There's no time-on-the-chart requirement in WP:BAND. Oblivy (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looking again I see you've nominated everything relating to this band in one fell swoop. The single does apply to the band, per WP:BAND#2. The album, fair enough, although it's more an argument for merging the album article into the band's page than outright deletion.Oblivy (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's some press from reliable sources about the band themselves: Gigwise Drowned in Sound The Line of Best Fit Channel 4 Hit40UK The Mag Yorkshire Evening Post Birmingham Mail God Is in the TV The Guardian Clash BBC

About the album: Drowned in Sound Gigwise Yahoo! Music Belfast Telegraph NME

And about the single: DIY Digital Spy NME Stuff

I'll admit that none of the articles is in a particularly good state, and I was probably more than a little overzealous when I created the "Songs recorded by" list, so that one can probably be redirected. But, personally, I think these articles' problems are not insurmountable and that the band meets the WP:GNG. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band article and merge or redirect the other articles to the band article. The Drowned in Sound review, Yorkshire Evening Post, Birmingham Mail, Belfast Telegraph and paragraph from The Guardian are enough for WP:GNG of the band in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welco Corners, Illinois

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

Sourced only to GNIS, there's no evidence that Welco Corners was ever anything more than a highway junction. My BEFORE search returned nothing that described this as a community, much less an officially-recognized one, and sources primarily use it as a landmark ("The highway was repaved from Welco Corners to the county line") which isn't sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google Earth shows this as another intersection in an area of sprawl in Metro Chicago. The Interstate exit sign says "Joliet Road", not Welco Corners. Today, there's nothing distinctive about this location. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no sourcing for this article and there is no reason to believe this place is notable enough to warrant an article.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rock, Yavapai County, Arizona

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

At its heart, this article is just another piece of GNIS spam. I couldn't find any coverage of a place called Red Rock aside from Red Rock State Park. "Red Rock Crossing" seems to be a simple road crossing of the river which is sourced only to a now-defunct special interest group which opposed a proposed bridge. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a populated place:

The community association gives a bit of history.
The historic cemetery lists the names of some of the early settlers.
History of Red Rock, although it does not indicate it was more than a ranch.
Another history of Red Rock, and of early settlers, the Schuermans. Also discusses the first school and cemetery.
The GIS for Yavapai County shows the community on its map.

Most important, go to Google Maps, or any map, and you'll see a community of many houses there, and one of the roads in the community is Schuermans Drive. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Magnolia677. Does appear to have been a recognised community. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Magnolia677's analysis. Passes GNG and GEOLAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources found by Magnolia677 this meets GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep, sources provided by Magnolia677 are sufficient to pass the general notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Last March, the Schuerman Homestead House, at 120 Loy Lane in Red Rock, was added to the National Register of Historic Places listings in Yavapai County, Arizona. In 1954, the movie Drum Beat staring Alan Ladd was filmed there, see [18]. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Senn (video game designer)

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

Fails WP:N, not independently notable, and no significant coverage from any reliable source OceanHok (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know his involvement with Sonic Xtreme is heavily documented in reliable sources in a general sense, but it would take reviewing to verify that the coverage is truly about him - much of it may be more in the context of the game rather than him. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current sources in the article are not suitable for establishing notability, and searches did not really turn up any coverage on Senn. There were some books and articles that have quotes from him, in regards to his work on Sonic Xtreme, but like Sergecross73 suggested, this kind of coverage is really on Sonic Xtreme, and not actual coverage about Senn, himself. I also took a quick look around for sources on his current company, Senntertain, and similarly did not find much coverage in reliable sources on it. Rorshacma (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keti Chomata

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keti Chomata's article only has 5 sources, one of them is inaccessible, another one is a blog, another doesn't even mention her and the other two are from two different Greek newspapers, one of them being a celebrity gossip newspaper so not reliable. This leaves a sole article from Lifo newspaper, definitely not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:NBASIC and all 12 criteria for WP:SINGER. No relevant newspapers articles and google results can be found online either. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 15:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You simply have to search in Greek (or whichever minor, in e.g. number of speakers, modern language you deal with) to find relevant stuff, it's as simple as that. So unless the real criterion is either Anglophones know about it or it doesn't exist, please refrain from such hasty proposals.
PS. I'm adding more and/or fixing refs now.
Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject might be more known in Greece but this is the English Wikipedia and it must be relevant to the Anglophone speakers which is definitely not the case. Furthermore after looking through the Greek results, Keti Chomata only has a couple of articles about her and most of them are quite short, just having 2 or 3 paragraphs or a video, the rest of the articles results are just mere passages of her name, the same applies to the books, just passages of her name and definitely not enough to establish notability. SpaceEconomist192 ✐
@SpaceEconomist192: this is the English Wikipedia and it must be relevant to the Anglophone speakers ← That is absolutely not how it works. All we care is that something is significant according to reliable sources—not that those reliable sources are in English. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it needs English sources, I'm aware of WP:NOENG. I already refuted the premise that the subject had reliable sources in Greek. SpaceEconomist192 ✐

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the Lifo article the first three references in the Greek wikipedia article here show significant coverage directly about her. It also states that she had a number of hit singles from her 18 released albums. There is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regents' and Chancellor's Scholarship

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

Subject is not notable ElKevbo (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable subject failing NLIST. Might be a viable category however. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't really seem to be a coherent topic; sources, such as they are, talk about one or the other but not both together. It's possible that the Regent's Scholarship by itself could be a notable topic, but I'm not seeing much evidence of it. If there is anything of encyclopedic significance to be covered about that scholarship, it could probably be addressed in the Regents of the University of California article. -- Visviva (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Agapov

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only sourced to databases. Non database coverage is only this routine namecheck that has one sentence about him and player roster listing. Kges1901 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Kges1901 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Agapov had two useful seasons in the Russian second division with FC Fakel and one good season in Kazakhstan with FC Shakhter, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage (the sports.kz article linked above and a sovsport.ru article make very brief mentions, and there are several match reports with even less coverage). Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Regardless of whether it's a hoax or not, we're lacking in reliable source coverage. Star Mississippi 17:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talkan and Curcan massacres

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

Sourcing and tone leave a lot to be desired. A few of the sources seem to be unreliable fringe publications, others are inaccessible. With an alleged death toll of over 100k, I'm finding it hard to pull up any reliable academic sourcing that would even establish the existence of the massacres. Mooonswimmer 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I couldn’t find any reliable source in google books or any recognizable academic institution or publisher showing anything as “Talkan and Curcan massacres”. Almost all the cited sources are inaccessible, unreliable or unrecognizable sources, quotes like quoting al-hajaj saying “he is an enemy to muslims, kill him without any mercy” can’t be found in any accessible reliable source or anywhere in general, it seems that the page is made for nationalistic and/or propagandistic purpose and have nothing to do with history and meets wp:HOAX criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chafique (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Islam, and Central Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing, appears OR, or HOAX. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax. The place is Taloqan (also spelled Talaqan). You can read al-Tabari's account here. These events took on great significance in Kemalist historiography, so I'm sure there some unreliable stuff out there. However, it is not a hoax. Srnec (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, al-Tabari isn’t a reliable source per WP:RS. Second of all it’s not al-Tabari reporting here, he is mentioning a report by an anonymous source (note also that the word “massacre” is never used and there is no mention for Curcan). Finally there is no single academic or any reliable historical secondary source mentioning anything about a such massacre or incident, whether some kemalist politicians or propaganda promote hoax or not for political reasons it’s not relevant here. Chafique (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote in al-Tabari refers to Gibb, which is freely available online. For a brief survey of the contradictory traditions mentioned by Gibb, see Andrew Marsham, "Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and its Late Antique Context," Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–136, at 131 (also available freely online). It isn't a hoax and that is not a valid grounds for deletion. For a Kemalist textbook treatment, see Başar Ari, "Religion and Nation-building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50," Turkish Studies 14.2 (2013): 372–393 (quoted at 380). Srnec (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote in al-Tabari refers to Gibb. again, you are missing the main point, Al-Tabari himself is not a reliable source and a wikipedia article can’t be established based on his writings per WP:RS. You need a reliable secondary source to establish the topic’s notability and prove it’s existence (check WP:PST).

just a side question relatively unrelated to the discussion, can you tell us who is Gibb ?

For a Kemalist textbook treatment, see Başar Ari, "Religion and Nation-building in the Turkish Republic: Comparison of High School History Textbooks of 1931–41 and of 1942–50," Now regarding kemalist political propagada textbooks, they are not reliable sources neither, they are heavily criticized by A LOT of academic and reliable sources for genocide denial and promoting propaganda and poor to no reputation for facts checking facts or with editorial oversight, there is an entire wikipedia article with tons of sources called Turkish textbook controversies, they are not reliable sources per WP:QUESTIONED. Aside from that, can you send us the quote from that source where the author (himself) says “talqan massacre” or “talqan people were massacred” or mention anything about curcan ?, because I can’t find it.

"Public Execution in the Umayyad Period: Early Islamic Punitive Practice and its Late Antique Context," Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 11 (2011): 101–136, at 131 (also available freely online). no mention for a massacre nor for anything about curcan. Chafique (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, I'm amenable to restoration to that namespace or User space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List countries by Bengali speakers

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

WP:UNSOURCED, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH (WP:CIRC). Created 4 days ago, apparently from arbitrarily WP:copying within Wikipedia without mentioning sources. Article states: Some numbers have been calculated by Wikipedia editors by mixing data from different sources; figures not attributed to sources and given with a date should be treated with caution. In most sources, the results shown are of people who say that they can speak Bengali, while that was not verified; which means the actual number of Bengali speakers could be higher or lower. This means the creator has not taken up the basic WP:BURDEN of providing WP:RS and Wikipedia:Attribution, and expects other people to fix the problems he caused. This is in line with a common pattern of disregarding policies and guidelines by creator User:Marxist Economist ever since he began editing Wikipedia 2 months ago, and has been repeatedly warned about from day 1, but seems to ignore. As this is a theoretically potentially legitimate topic, I say we WP:TNT this, and wait for someone else to start over properly. (I would recommend a standardised article title like Geographical distribution of Bengali speakers per established convention in such a case). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Geography. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Mccapra (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article needs fixing, but there is no need to start over. This article is not nearly bad enough to be deleted per WP:TNT. It is OR to some extent as it copies from other Wikipedia pages, but someone can update the page with references and fix any grammatical errors without much difficulty. WP:TNTTNT explains my reasoning well. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is calling for violation of Wikipedia's fundamental contract with contributors, that they are credited with their contributions by the page history of an article. That is exactly what the creator of this article has done by explicitly admitting he does not attribute any figures to any sources whatsoever, plus copying within Wikipedia from other contributors without giving credit where it is due. If this "fundamental contract with contributors" is regarded as significant, then the first thing we should do is delete this copyvio and punish the creator for his violation of the contract. As noted (and can be seen on his talk page since day 1), this is not the first time he is violating many of the Wikipedia community's rules. As for what is here, it is so small with such a short history that it's not even worth saving. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this is mainly an issue caused by ME's behavior, maybe a better solution would be to take up his behavior at ANI and draftify this article? Iseult^Δxparlez moi 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, looking over WP:TNT more closely, I'm not opposed to a deletion either. This article plainly falls under the TNT argument mentioned there: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. I'd like something along the lines of ANI to address the root cause, though. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No opposition to draftification. I'm not sure there's a strict copyvio issue here, as the bare numbers in the table seem highly unlikely to be eligible for copyright; but there really doesn't seem to be anything salvageable here, just a small pile of unverified and possibly unverifiable numbers. It's not even clear if the list description's reference to "Wikipedia editors" refers to the editor(s) of this page or other pages. But either way that just isn't an acceptable way to source information. -- Visviva (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic-speaking world

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problems:

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sections are largely WP:COATRACKs of tangentially related stuff and WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTHed (e.g. Germanic-speaking world randomly combines bits and pieces of Germania/Germanic peoples history, then an WP:UNSOURCED list of speakers of Germanic languages, then another WP:UNSOURCED table, and then two WP:SYNTHed tables about two Germanic languages in particular).

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which deleted

following a very, very long series of precedents which established that language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries.

Indirectly, this AfD is linked to:

ongoing Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables;
other follow-ups including "Comparison of the Baltic states" AfD;
- Update 20 June:

Comparison of the Baltic states has been deleted.
Comparison of the Benelux countries has been deleted.
Comparison of the Nordic countries has been deleted.

It's also worth noting that List of Austronesian regions was found to be "OR nonsense", and redirected. Germanic-speaking Europe already redirects to Languages of Europe#Germanic, and Romance-speaking Europe to Languages of Europe#Romance. So redirecting rather than fully deleting is perhaps also an option. But it is not my preference, because those articles usually have their own problems with sourcing, OR/SYNTH and whatnot. Before deciding we should redirect/merge articles, we should make sure we aren't just moving the problems to somewhere else without actually solving them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Geography. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while there might be language topics that merit articles, creating articles from broad groups like "Germanic" or "Romance" is, as mentioned, trivia or OR. Iberophone could be deleted or redirected to the actual topic of Organization of Ibero-American States. Finno-Urgic countries seems a plausible search, so I would redirect that to Finno-Ugric languages. CMD (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the reasoning given. We've seen over and over that people making these articles are either adding nothing to the articles we have about language families, or else what they are are adding are implied racial folk-theories. (The classic discussions we always have about how Afrikaners should be included, but not Jamaicans or Irish.) I think it is easier to source ways of dividing up Europe based on which alcoholic drinks they drink, or whether they cook with butter or olive oil, and I don't think we have articles on those. Language families are certainly discussed in Wikipedia as language families, but not as types of people. Correlations between languages and ancestry or cultures are for careful discussion within articles (if there are good sources) and not just things our editors may assume to be "obvious" without sources. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have said it better myself. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iberophone and delete the rest. Unlike the other nominated articles, Iberophone is referenced to sources that deal with the concept, http://isdiber.org/paniberismo-e-iberofonia-2/ and https://escholarship.org/uc/ssha_transmodernity and https://oei.int/ rather than to sources that deal with a specific language rather than a language family. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you boil it down to the essentials, Iberophone doesn't really amount to much. The article does not advance much further than a dictionary definition (WP:NOTDICT) plus some WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTHed "country comparison" data dumps, which are currently being considered for total deletion/removal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. It's either a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Iberian Romance languages (=language sub-family, a branch of the Romance languages family), or just + Hispanophone + Lusophone. There is nothing more to add beyond 'Hey, did you know that Spanish and Portuguese are closely-related Romance languages that originated next to each other in the Iberian Peninsula, and also sit next to each other in South America? There's even a neologism for it: Iberophone. What great fun!' That's all there is to it, really. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the http://isdiber.org/paniberismo-e-iberofonia-2/ is very telling: it advances a certain political agenda by advocating for a geopolitical approach called pan-Iberism. It mixes supposed facts ("this reality") and opinions ("this proposal"): [There is a] substantial affinity between the two main Iberian languages (...). This reality means that, in geopolitical, geolinguistic and cultural terms, it is possible to speak of a large multinational space of Iberian-speaking countries that covers all the continents and is made up of more than thirty countries and more than 700 million people. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that we have been needing to delete and remove in recent years/months, in which language families and countries were mixed up to produce lots of WP:CROSSCAT generalisations and oversimplified framings of countries and territories (and their populations) in terms of the language family to which the native languages - which the majority of their inhabitants speak - belong. That's just a plainly WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NONDEFINING fact (which has no bearing on any native speaker's career per WP:OCEGRS, as precedents have repeatedly confirmed). And Wikipedia shouldn't play along with anyone trying to advocate for a certain political agenda based on - encyclopedically speaking - WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NONDEFINING facts. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on Iberophone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as original research. The other four are transparent synthesis and I'm convinced by Nederlandse Leeuw's analysis of Iberophone. – Joe (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom; unacceptable combinations of OR and synthesis. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 15:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Rani 2 (Tamil TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 is a routine update on the serial's ending
Source 2 is a routine update on the serial's ending
Source 3 is a routine promotional update on the serial's starting, and is mainly Instagram posts with cast views
Source 4 is on the cast getting a tattoo
Source 5 is tabloid news with pictures of the shooting spot
Source 6 is a routine entertainment promo that describes an Instagram post
Source 7 is an interview with a cast member Karnataka (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Tamil Nadu. Karnataka (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:more value source added, WP:GNG have added references from News18 India [19], www.medianews4u.com [20], The Times of India [21]. sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think these sources explain the notability of the topic:
- Link 5 is routine updates on the casting (news18)
- I'm not sure about Link 6's reliability as a website. however regardless it seems to be a routine entertainment news that states generic information about the source available everywhere else (mn4u)
- Link 7 is a routine update on an actress leaving the serial (ToI, which is unreliable anyways.)
Karnataka (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilash Shetty

AfDs for this article:

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

NN filmmaker UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. UtherSRG (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Article. Article have the major references & enough coverage from the media. Trident 1289 (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC) — Trident 1289 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No significant coverage except a movie Koli Taal, Which is also not much notable.PARVAGE ^talk! 05:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Koli Taal is a notable film in India. It got screened at various international film festivals too. I see you are from Bangladesh so probably you are not aware of this. Please check the film. Trident 1289 (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Koli Taal has got 131 reviews in IMDB, 1 review in Rotten Tomatoes. And it hasn't received any notable awards. Especially, not matter what the movie is but Shetty hasn't done any notable things at all. PARVAGE ^talk! 10:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are more than six full-length articles already cited that meet notability of this person. There is enough coverage from the leading newspapers, magazines of India. And the person has more than five credits on IMDb with 3 wins & 19 nominations at the Awards central. Trident 1289 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC) — Trident 1289 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per WP:DIRECTOR.3, and the developing consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koli Taal —siro χ o 22:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanakkam Tamizha

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of women killed fighting for human rights

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

The criteria for this list is not clear, and "fighting for human rights" is a very vague motive. There's also no good reason to limit it to women. Songwaters (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason to delete is not policy based. We make lists based on how reliable sources group things and the first citation shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women.

The "no reason to limit to..." concept could be applied to any list. Why limit it to just those killed? Why limit it to only ones killed for human rights? The answer is always because WP:NLIST handles them in this collective way. CT55555(talk) 01:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides failing WP:NLIST (more on that in a second), the inclusion criterion is hopelessly vague -- killed fighting for human rights? Even "human rights" is a slippery term without a widely agreed upon definition, let alone the difficulty of trying to determine if someone was killed fighting for them. As expected, this article is just going to have unfixable WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. Take for example the case of Shifa Gardi. She appears in the Guardian's list referenced in the list's lead with the following text:
"Shifa Gardi was a reporter for the Kurdish channel Rudaw. She had been credited for breaking the “stereotypes of male-dominated journalism”. She was killed by a roadside bomb while covering the battle for Mosul on 25 February."
How is being a wartime reporter fighting for human rights? Including her on this list for that reason is a stretch and a half; indeed even the articles listed as refs by her entry in the list (one BBC, another in Arabic, so I had to use a machine translation) say nothing about "human rights".
But wait, I hear you say, we have reliable sources that discuss this topic as a set. Just look at the references in the lead! Okay, the first one, from The Guardian is "supported" content -- supported by "Count Me In!", a consortium of groups with a clear agenda. That's not really a value judgement, but it does count against the independence of the source for demonstrating notability. Not to mention that the Gardi example I mentioned above calls into question the reliability of this article due to it's unclear inclusion criteria. The other source is from AWID, an activist organization. This again, disqualifies it from establishing notability on independence (and probably reliability for that matter) grounds. Not only that, but it's simply a memorial list of women activists, regardless of how they died.
That was a long !vote, but this one deserved a closer look. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct to note that Count Me In! support the content, but if you click through, it says "The site is editorially independent of any external support, and the Guardian is solely responsible for all journalistic output."
Other sources that deal with the killing of women human rights defenders:
1. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/mar/02/more-human-rights-defenders-murdered-2021-environmental-indigenous-rights-activists (not the primary subject, but discussed in 2 paragraphs)
2. La Lucha (2015 book) Preface speaks about women human rights defenders who were killed, giving examples.
3. Protecting Human Rights Defenders at Risk, 2020 book: Page 108
CT55555(talk) 00:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source is about all people and not about women specifically. And as you argued above, "... and the first citation [in the article] shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women." You can't have it both ways. The third source similarly seems to be discussing all people, whereas the page number you mention is talking about one specific incident. The second source doesn't seem to be discussing women specifically at all...you're just throwing words into a search box and parading around any hits you get as some sort of magical potion to justify a list, but it doesn't work like that. The very sources you bring up are, if anything, evidence against this particular list. And really, at best, what you're doing here is starting to show notability of the overall topic of "violence against human rights activists" or something along those lines (which might even exist already...I haven't looked). But just because we might have an article about that doesn't mean that we should create a list of every incident. Lists like this are beyond problematic due to the unfixable OR/SYNTH issues that I mentioned above. They also smack of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:RGW to a lesser extent. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is about all genders, but then groups by gender and talks about women: "A larger proportion of murdered defenders were women and transgender women, 18% of the total killed compared with 13% in 2020. We’ve seen the horrific killing of women human rights defenders in Afghanistan, including Frozan Safi..."

The second one groups the defender as women in the preface.

The third one groups four women on the page cited.

I am not "just throwing words into a search box" nor am I "parading" anything. I'm doing the normal thing to justify keeping a list, showing you examples if reliable sources grouping the subject of the list.

If you don't find that persuasive, that's OK. Please do assume good faith.

I think a careful reading of the WP:NOTMEMORIAL will make it clear why this does not refute my point or support deletion, I don't think there is any credible claim that anyone is writing about "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances..."

Let's agree to disagree and leave more space for others. I've made my point, I don't wish to bludgeon. CT55555(talk) 16:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Human rights" is too broad (and vague) per WP:SALAT. (Also, Emily Davison did herself in.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally thought I'd find myself in favor of keeping this, but it's absolutely just way too broad and too vague. This one fails the WP:NLIST requirements, so it should be deleted from Wiki. Some content might be able to merge to other articles, but having a dedicated list isn't feasible here. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to the editors who think that "human rights" is a vague term, it does seem to work fine for List of human rights organisations and we seem to be able to deal with the topic without trouble at Human Rights. We manage to categorise XCategory:Human rights by country, XCategory:Human rights abuses and dozens of others. So what's the problem exactly? CT55555(talk) 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “human rights” is well defined, more or less. “Fighting for” human rights is not, making this WP:SYNTH. This might as well be retitled “list of women who I think should be considered martyrs” Dronebogus (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thalattu (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Source 1 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo
Source 2 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo
Source 3 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and is entirely based on Instagram posts supporting the serial
Source 1 is routine entertainment coverage on serial starting and summarises the promo Karnataka (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Karnataka (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have noteworthy coverage in both English ([22], [23], [24], [25]) and Tamil, judging by the corresponding Tamil article. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponni (TV series)

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Soft Delete: there’s a source from The Times of India [26] and News18 India [27]. There may be important updates in the future because the show is still airing.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both these sources listed (source 1 and 3) are just routine coverage of the show, they both contain the exact same content with the layout:
- Introduction, which includes a list of actors
- Plot summary
- Interview from the protagonist
- List of other serials going to premiere
Source 2 is just a Tamil version of source 1, source 4 is a self-published source, and its expertise is unknown, and and source 5 does not mention Ponni at all. I cannot see how this is notable at this moment. Karnataka (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pandavar Illam

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Longest running Tamil serial, WP:GNG have added references from The Times of India [28]. and Sun TV Website [29] and more Episode coverage in Tamil language.[30], [31].--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Source 1 aka the Times of India source on this reply is routine promotional coverage on the serial hitting a certain milestone and quotes from the actors
- Source 2 is routine coverage on the promotional video and repeatedly states that something detail about the serial is unknown
- Source 3 is a self published source, and its expertise is currently unknown. The entire body of this source is "Serial story coming soon..." with a list of actors
- Source 4 is also a self published source, and its expertise is currently unknown. It just lists the serial cast (taking from this archive because the source isn't loading for me)
- Source 5 is routine coverage about the cast receiving their COVID-19 vaccination
This reply links to the show's page on Sun TV (the channel airing the serial which is not independent), which is not a source and none of this proves how this serial is notable for Wikipedia. Karnataka (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Longest running Tamil serial. most of people know about this series. you nominated this is actually a well known one. It does cite it's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:12CA:3C7B:C5A3:1C9A:2FB9:C004 (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 14:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Jaamour

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

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. is what WP:SPORTBASIC tells us is a requirement for any footballer to have their own article. I've revived the Syrian Soccer article but it's only a trivial squad list mention. Kooora merely lists his goals in the Syria Youth League and is only a database source. I found some Arabic coverage on Facebook but that's not a WP:RS. The only other source that I found was ZAMANALWSL, which is another trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to OpenAI. ✗plicit 14:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Triton (programming language)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, better to redirect to OpenAI, or merge if it's worth mentioning Artem.G (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. Artem.G (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BASIC and has minimal content. If kept, it should be merged with another article. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenAI Anton.bersh (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al Hamwi

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

Article has been tagged for multiple issues for many years and I cannot find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The Psyrianp source has a quote from him and, other than that, just confirms his age, position and former club. On its own, this won't be sufficient, especially since quotes directly from the player are not considered to be WP:SIGCOV at AfD, by consensus. Aside from that, I found Al Rai, which is only a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Griffin (philosopher)

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

~~Not notable. Seems promotional Very Average Editor (talk)~~ 07:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Delete As nominator. Also worth noting, most of the contributors are a sock master and his socks. Very Average Editor (talk)07:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Canada Research Chair in Philosophy" should be an automatic pass of [{WP:NPROF]]. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is outdated, as he has retired [32]. The reviews of his solo-author books tip me in the direction of a "keep" by WP:AUTHOR. For Relative Identity, we have at least [33][34][35][36], and for Russell's Idealist Apprenticeship there's at least [37][38]). For The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell, which he edited, a quick search finds [39][40][41][42]. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many published reviews of his authored books. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was leaning in this direction, but now there's even more in the article than what I found, so I'm content to say that WP:AUTHOR is met. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ironically, the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Maybe this is cause for a speedy close? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - nom. was from a sock, and consensus clear per WP:SNOW. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Zakaria

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

Fails NCREATIVE. Non-notable creative professional with no significant coverage. I also cannot find coverage of the subject’s creative works. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 10:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 10:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I took a look myself and I'm not seeing anything that would suggest they meet NCREATIVE either. I also couldn't find any detailed secondary coverage of their films. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus here is to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FountainVest Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 05:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one from the SCMP is a portrait of FountainInvest. The sources are independent such as Reuters, the company has majority stakes in household names such as Wilson(Basketballs), Atomic (Skiing), Salomon. It has acquired (together with others) majority stakes in two of the best known ski manufacturers in the world and that's just one of their investment. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. And they are not household names. What it looks like is a brochure advertising article similar to the ones created by Tim Templeton. scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me one of Tim Templeton to compare? I tried to find him over UserːTim Templeton, but he doesn't exist. And if you ever went Skiing or have played or watched Basketball or Tennis, you'd be rather familiar with those names. The outdoor clothes (Arc'terix) they also partly own are really popular as well. Have you ever gone past a Papa John's Pizza restaurant? In China its theirs as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked and most of his stuff has been deleted. But the type of article that being created are identical to the type of stuff he used to create. What they own is not a definition of notability. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle. He's referring to User:Timtempleton. I think I now get why I have multiple articles flagged. One that user's latest drafts was on Stone Point Capital which I have tried working on today so he may think I am that guy. Maybe I should stop thinking of even trying to recreate articles of drafts that were previously deleted since I have gotten into bigger messes doing so. - Imcdc Contact 16:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, China, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets examine the references, looking at the first block of 14:

Ref 1 [43] Profile. WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 2 [44] Company report. Non-RS.
Ref 3 [45] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 4 [46] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND
Ref 5 [47] Taken from Tang speaking at a conference. Fails WP:ORGIND
Ref 6 [48] Press-releasse. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 7 [49] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 8 [50] Interview. Fails WP:ORGIND
Ref 9 [51] Comes from a press-release. Same news in multiple locations. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 10 [52] Monied raised. Fail WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 11 [sdcera.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=328&meta_id=36781] PDF. FountainVest Introduction, SDCERA Board Meeting. Fails WP:SIRS. Not independent.
Ref 12 [53] Press-release. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 13 [54] Company deal. Not idependent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 14 Same press-release as ref 13

There is not a single genuine source that confirms that the comany is notable. It fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. All the coverage is generated from company news sources, the founder and the a conference, as with any other ~~small private~~ company. scope_creep^Talk 19:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small private company? FountainVest was involved in the largest company buyout in Chinese history and co-owns three to four major and very well known sports companies that also have their own article. I believe you can watch any World Cup Skiing race and you will see their skis in the very vast majority of events if not all. They have Salomon AND Atomic. The current champion of the Ski World Cup Marco Odermatt uses Salomon shoes. And you can walk into any better sports wear store and you'll see their Arc'terix clothes. At least where I live, you see them all over and it is the well established class who wear such clothes.

And then you can watch any professional tennis tournament and you will see their rackets.

On the sources, of which you withhold their names... .we have

Wall Street Journal, on the establishment of its first fund of ca. 1 Bio.

Reuters (FountainVest declined to comment),

Reuters, (you call it interview, I call it notability, why does the founder get interviewed?),

South China Morning Post on the largest company buyout in Chinese history, which was Focus Media

FinanceAsia (no interview),

Bloomberg News (Paywall, but Bloomberg News) on the purchase of Papa John's China branch (Non-paywall link)

South China Morning Post On the eventual IPO of the sports companies Arc'Terix Atomic, Wilson etc.

Thats just some, in the references are more. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about this analysis. Ref 3 (the Reuters piece) says "FountainVest declined to comment" – you're saying they declined to comment in their own press release? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of that seems to be branding and advertising. How does that make the company notable, exactly? Companies advertise their products, that is what they do, to make profit. Society, modern civilization is soaked in advertisement and its never been cheaper in history to advertise on a global scale. Its very easy and cheap to do. I can't see how that is a criteria for being notable. When you look at these references, for example, taking the Bloomberg "FountainVest to Buy Papa John’s Pizza China Franchisee From EQT" It states in the headline "FountainVest to Buy Papa John’s Pizza China Franchisee From EQT". When you do a search on that term, it comes up in multiple locations, with the exact same text, indicating its a press-release from the company. Press-releases are the lingua franca of company's. So its not unique, some journalists doing the hard of going out and find the facts. Social media did for them in their business in big way from 2008 onwards, although paywalls are enabling real journalism to take place now, but not for this lazy way of reporting. On the WSJ one it is a similar outcome. Its a press-release. The WSJ that has been comprehensively debunked for showing it takes advertising dollar as much as anybody else. And it the same with all the rest. They are poor. Lastly, notability is not inherited. I may have made a mistake on size, for which I apologize for (I'll score it out), but there is nothing of real quality in the sources here. They're mostly generic second-hand information from the company news desk. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources are authored articles from perennial reliable sources not random press releases like from Reuters Staff or from the company itself. Then per the Establishing Notability linked by Imcdc below, FountainVest has way larger funds than 750 Million Dollars and closed its first around 1 Bio, and its fourth in 2022 at 2.9 Bio Dollars. It also holds by far more assets than the 1 Bio mentioned there. Besdie the aformentioned assests, it invested in 2009 in Sino, that launched Weibo the same year and which in 2017 overtook Twitter in market capitalization and by now is worth about 25 Bio. Dollars. FountainVests founder is Member of the Board at Weibo. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. The amount of money that organisation has hasn't been a criteria for notability since at least 2008. Your completly ignoring the type of references. Per WP:SIRS, they must be independent from the company. It is another debunked argument, that for example, if it comes from Reuters then its cast in platinum reliable. It is not and hasn't been for a long time. The quality of the references matter, where the information is coming from, whether or not its independent. If its coming from the company, then its not independent. A simple search shows the same. The same headlines appear in multiple locations, on multiple news sites, with the same wording, indicating its comes from the company and is not independent, failing WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 11:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are they not authored.

The Wall Street Journal is authored, by Nisha Gopalan and Ellen Sheng

The Wall Street Journal again by John Stoll on the purchase of the Auo Industry supplier Key Safety Systems

The first Reuters in authored by Kane Wu

The second an interview by George Chen

The Bllomberg news on the Papa Johns China branch purchase by Vinicy Chan und Cathy Chan

The Finacial Times on the largest buy out in Chinese history by Josh Noble

Variety by Patrick Fraser in 2022

The Hollywood Reporter by Rebecca Sun in 2016

The New York Times by Neil Gough on the Sale of Focus Media for 7.4 Bio.

On that next one I am not sure if they are a perennial reliable source. But the Financial Review and three authors seems a fairly researched.

The Australien Finance Review on a purchase and eventual IPO of the Australian Loscam has even three authors, Anthony Macdonald, Sarah Thompson and Kanika Sood.

Every each one is written by authors of agency, outlet known to be independent to FVP. If FVP bought shares of any of those it can be mentioned in Perennial sources as it is done in the case the South China Morning Post which is owned by Alibaba Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have not responded to my point about ref 3, which does not seem to be a press release as far as I can tell. I've also checked the second ref you labeled as a press release (ref 6) and cannot find any evidence that it's a press release either. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Private Equity#Establishing Notability. For further reference. - Imcdc Contact 01:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources listed above. I've checked a few, which seem to be independent reporting, not press releases. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here are three of the sources discussed by Paradise Chronicle that establish notability:
1. Wu, Kane (2020-12-17). Feast, Lincoln (ed.). "China's FountainVest reaches first-close in new private equity fund - source". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.
  The article notes: "Founded in 2007, FountainVest has been an avid investor in China’s media and entertainment, sports and consumer-related sectors. In June, it led a $750 million fundraising of online tutoring startup Zuoyebang as the COVID-19 crisis spurs investor interest in education technology. In 2018, the firm teamed up with China’s ANTA Sports and internet giant Tencent Holdings to buy Finland’s Amer Sports, which owns a range of sports brands including Wilson and Arc’teryx, for $5.2 billion."
2. Rovnick, Naomi (2011-06-11). "Picking China's next winners". South China Morning Post. EBSCOhost 875105615. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.
  The article notes: "Frank Tang, chief executive of FountainVest Partners, a US$1 billion Hong Kong-based private equity fund, has bet the farm on China making its long-heralded transformation from the world's workshop into a consumer-driven economy. Tang founded FountainVest Partners in 2007 with a group of former colleagues at Singapore's sovereign-wealth fund Temasek Holdings, which was an anchor shareholder. Today, FountainVest Partners holds stakes in nine mainland companies, most of which Tang believes will profit from Beijing's plan to retool the economy."
3. Gopalan, Nisha; Sheng, Ellen (2008-11-14). "FountainVest launches China fund". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.
  The article notes: "FountainVest Partners raised around $950 million for its first fund, a China-focused private-equity fund, despite the turmoil in financial markets. In addition to Singapore's state-owned investment company, Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., FountainVest's backers include the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and other investors from Asia, Europe and North America."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FountainVest Partners (traditional Chinese: 方源資本; simplified Chinese: 方源资本) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verition Fund Management

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 05:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets look at the references:

Ref 1: [55] Signs office lease. WP:PRIMARY Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.
Ref 2 Form ADV" (PDF). SEC. Company docs. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 3 Moves its office. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent. Routine coverage.
Ref 4 [56] Press-release as its in multiple locations. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 5 [57] Hiring news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH routine coverage.
Ref 6 [58] WSJ article. About the last company. Not in-depth. Single paragraph. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 7 [59] Opening a new office. Fails [[WP:SIRS] Routine news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Ref 8 [60] hiring news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

These are the most routine news I've seen in a long time for supposed references. Hiring news, new offices, previous company and company docs. Not a single WP:SECONDARY sources that satisfies WP:NCORP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WPNCORP as nominator notes.

Let'srun (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cornish artists, architects and craftspeople

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Also, architects? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this list falls under "Lists of X of Y" and those guidelines are quite vague. This is a list of less than 50 names, mostly falling in the 19th and 20th century. The List of Cornish musicians and List of Cornish engineers and inventors are not robust either. I am unfamiliar with Cornwall, so can't judge the value of a list of Cornish people. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also List of Cornish philanthropists and List of Cornish geologists and explorers are sparsely populated. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete because categories exist and this is a glorified category. Dronebogus (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, architects are indeed artists, who are responsible for designing buildings. Builders and engineers actually construct them and deal with practical stuff. Dronebogus (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal interpretation. Few people would consider architects to be artists (except for the Frank Lloyd Wrights of this world), so there are no lists with such an unusual agglomeration. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I know I'll get flak for this but this article has existed for 14 years, I'd like to see more policy-based reasons and support for deletion before hitting the Delete button.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cornwall nowadays is just a region at the southwest corner of England. Briefly skim our constitutional status of Cornwall article for an overview why administratively it's been just another part of England for centuries and how the Cornish language faded from common usage in the 18th century. Attempts to gain autonomy for Cornwall like Scotland or Wales have fizzled due to lack of local support.

We don't have lists like this for other regions or counties of England and there's no reason to believe a Cornish geologist, philanthropist or architect is going to be different from their other English counterparts. The list serves no purpose.

In short, this list fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. In other words, Wikipedia is not "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". (Technically, this is a list, not a category but the notability discussion at WP:LISTN references WP:CROSSCAT and suggests the same rationale for deleting similar lists.)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athang

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

Fails WP:GNG, with one source being from IMDb (considered unreliable) and the other a blog. A draftification was contested. There are a few sources online, and I am personally unsure about whether or not the sources meet SIGCOV. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These [61][62][63][64] are some of the better sources online. I am leaning towards delete, but I'd like an evaluation from some more experienced editors. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this were a film it'd only need "2 reviews" to pass (WP:NFILM), but since it is a web show it will need 3 WP:GNG sources. I read the 4 sources mentioned in this AFD. The first source looks good, I think that passes GNG. The other 3 sources aren't great. 2 and 3 contain a lot of quotes so probably aren't independent. 4 is a bit too positive, could be based on a press release, so not independent. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Tipton

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

Non-notable musician. Sourcing is a list of performances and a biographical article. Gsearch only goes straight to streaming media sites. Has not had any charted singles or won major awards. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." I believe the Pitchfork Review covers this. I can add more sources Carolina Heart (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found another citation from Tiny Mix Tapes which is another reputable music publication Carolina Heart (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another from Alternative Press Carolina Heart (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another citation from Mixmag Carolina Heart (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found another citation from Paper Magazine and inclusion in a list from The Guardian Carolina Heart (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I believe I've provided enough sources from established publications to pass notability. Majority of publication sources are notable enough that they have their own pages of decent length Carolina Heart (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Pitchfork, Alt Press and other sources seem enough to establish notability. Rab V (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources presented above…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using WP:RSMUSIC to narrow to reliable sources, and excluding all interviews to keep independence there seem to be at least 2 sources the above discussion helped unearth for WP:GNG:
- Tiny Mix Tapes[65][66][67][68] - independent, reliable, sigcov (multiple reviews from multiple authors, some discussing artist's style in depth, and work in depth)
- Pitchfork[69] - independent, reliable, sigcov (discusses subject beyond work, and work in depth)

I stopped after finding 2, there may be more. There are also several interviews that are not independent but are otherwise reliable/sigcov

—siro χ o 05:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources are available to pass WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Feel free to create a Redirect to an appropriate article (no target page mentioned here). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wenche-Lin Hess

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Norway. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I could only find passing mention in one book, which mentions she finished 16th in a competition (the book discusses the athlete she knocked out, so very brief) Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added an article about her return to competition in 2019. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero independent sources containing SIGCOV. The newest source is just a couple passing mentions in an article about her partner's return to sport. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOLY and more broadly WP:BIO for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. but I'm hoping that these new sources mentioned in this AFD discussion can find their way into the article now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhu Singh

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

On Google search i found just two newspaper sources and that too talks about a single event of his death, definitely no important role. WP:ONEEVENT is applicable. Only source, used in article also have passing reference and nothing more about his biography is available in secondary sources. Hence it fails WP:GNG.Admantine123 (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Admantine123 (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs some love, but subject seems to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Here's some reliable sigcov [70]. Here's a book with some coverage [71]. These together may help [72][73]. There may also be a language divide here, these sources may not be reliable but point us in a direction: [74][75] —siro χ o 04:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sourcing provided by Siroxo - it's a bit light but it suggests a proper article can be written.

SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎ (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Sings

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

This is not separately notable from Colleen Ballinger. While the article is well referenced with reliable sources, these references do not demonstrate separate notability of the character from the performer. Given that this article is in fact longer than the article about Mrs. Ballinger herself, I propose that some content from this article should be merged into that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Clearly going nowhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, United States of America, and Fictional elements. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – already enough overlap with Colleen Ballinger that WP:SPINOUT does not apply. small jars tc 03:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This AfD may have a bit of unintentional recency bias, as an apparent recent controversy may have obscured the fact that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG/WP:WEBCRIT on its own. Note that many of the cited articles are about the character with only a passing reference to the performer's name, eg [76], or making clear a distinction of the character from the performer, eg [77]. Even if it wasn't notable on its own, it's an WP:OKFORK by content and length, (Overlap excluded, articles together are above 6000 words which would be the disqualifier), and also noting that this article predates the article on the performer. —siro χ o 04:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The character is independently notable, separate from its creator. It is the subject of thousands of YouTube videos, its own Netflix series and there are hundreds of WP:Reliable sources about the character rather than the creator. Compare Dame Edna Everage and Barry Humphries. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note:Ssilvers is responsible for most of the content on both articles) This is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. We don't have a separate article for Lily Savage for instance. Miranda Sings is her only notable persona, and her fame is deeply intertwined to the character, to a greater degree than Barry Humphries was to Everage. It makes sense to cover both topics in a single lengthy article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have numerous other articles about comic characters (Alan Partridge from Steve Coogan, Mr Bean from Rowan Atkinson, Pee-wee Herman from Paul Reubens - the list goes on and on). The character passes GNG, and there is enough distance between character and creator to keep them separate. - SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independently notable apart from its creator. As said above, there are many instances where a fictional character has its own article independent of its creator. Jack1956 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Genuinely surprised to see this nomination. I can't see any advantage to our readers in merging with the Ballinger article. Mentions above of the separate (and welcome) articles for the characters and creators of Dame Edna Everage and Mr Bean are very much ad rem in my view. Tim riley talk 16:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBC Balita Ngayon

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm unable to find GNG-level sources for this news show. Recommend Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Couldn't find any WP:GNG passing sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Shipyard & Slipways Limited

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

WP:ORGCRITE states that, A notable company should follow WP:GNG, but this company's page doesn't meet this criterion. Deletion recommended. M.parvage (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M.parvage (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The report is reasonable decent reference created by an group of academic. That combined with the other two sources is more than than borderlines for an established company. *Delete Of the three references, 2 fail WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:SIRS. The other one is a 404. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on three of the sources provided by Worldbruce below, the first two and the magazine. None are great but in my opinion are sufficient for the purpose of establishing notabaility. Delete I agree with above, none of the references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would these, Ananda Shipyard exports largest ship by Bangladesh, signalling industry revival (2022), Ship-builder eating away Meghna 2019, মেঘনায় ভাসলো আনন্দ শিপইয়ার্ডের তৈরি জাহাজ ‘রাঙ্গাবালি’ 2018, Ananda Shipyard looks to rent out two ships to foreign clients 2014, Ananda to export its eighth ship, 2008 be considered significant coverage?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Those reference appear to be based entirely on announcements/PR so they fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take the article, Ship-builder eating away Meghna, it is highly critical of the company. What would make you say that it is based on announcements/PR?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being highly critical doesn't mean it meets the criteria for establishing notability. The article relies on information and quotes provided by the company and their executives for some details but in general, there is next to zero in-depth information *about* the company (as required per CORPDEPTH). Most of the article is critical of the activity along the foreshore and the lack of proper enforecement. In my view this reference falls short of NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any search for sources is complicated by the facts that the company has changed its name, is sometimes refereed to by an initialism, the name is not always transliterated the same way, and discussion of it is most likely to be found in the Bengali language. The nominator has been accused of having a close connection to parent company Ananda Group. There's plenty of news out there that is critical (such as an Anti-Corruption Commission investigation). Participants should consider the possibility that the company may not want a Wikipedia article about them that they can't control. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The nominator has been accused of having a close connection to parent company Ananda Group." As User:WordBounce blamed that with a wrong evedence; it must go beyond Wikipedia:Respect privacy PARVAGE ^talk! 04:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a close connection: This was accused by User:WordBounce. However, I was previously stated that Shaif Zahir was my first article, and I was simply trying to improve it. Through my research, I discovered Ananta Group, then I found the founder of Ananta Group, Humayun Zahir, and a project of Ananta Group. As a result, I included those information to UCB and Madani Avenue.

Hope you understand. I would appreciate it if you would not mention this accusation again. Especially there is no connection with this topic. PARVAGE ^talk! 06:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the second-largest private shipbuilder out of hundreds in the country. It has built ships for the Navy, for the Coast Guard, and for export. Common sense tells us they are likely to be notable. In addition to the article "Ship-builder eating away Meghna" that Vinegarymass911 has put forward, other evidence of notability is:
- Abedin, A S M Arshadul (2007). "Warship Building in Bangladesh, Problems and Prospects: Analysis and Recommendations". NDC Journal. 6 (1): 91–111. ISSN 1683-8475. (when the company was called Ananda Builders)
- Iqbal, K. Shahriar; Zakaria, N. M. Golam; Hossain, Kh. Akhter (December 2010). "Identifying and Analysing Underlying Problems of Shipbuilding Industries in Bangladesh". Journal of Mechanical Engineering. 41 (2): 147–158.
- Zakaria, N. M. G. (October–December 2012). "Moving Forward with Export Oriented Shipbuilding Industries in Bangladesh". Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C. 93 (4): 373–382. doi:10.1007/s40032-012-0034-0.
- "Shipbuilding in Bangladesh". CPA News. Vol. 3, no. 1. April 2018. pp. 6–12. (Transliterates the company name without the final "a" and refers to it by its initialism, ASSL)
- Rahman, Sajjadur (29 July 2013). "Islami Bank stung by shipbuilder". The Daily Star.
- "ACC grills 7 bankers over Ananda Shipyard loan scam". Prothom Alo. 22 December 2014.
Keep based on the sources detailed in my preceding comment. If the community can't be convinced that it should be a stand-alone article, then at a minimum the topic should be merged to Shipbuilding in Bangladesh. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I note Highking has changed their !vote, relisting to consider sources presented by Worldbruce on 16 June.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Daniel's relisting rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide opportunity for expansion and addition of sources. Right now I can't even tell from the article how old this company is. BD2412 T 03:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, the company is 40 years old. One can find in Abedin's 2007 article (and other places) that it was founded in 1983. That information was also in the Wikipedia article until it was gutted of verifiable information, with inadequate explanation, by a 9-edit wonder just eight edits before it was nominated for deletion. The article certainly needs work, but Articles for Deletion is not cleanup, and the place in which the article is most likely to be improved is mainspace. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of stuff if you look for it.

As Worldbruce noted above, there are financial scandal(s) not mentioned in the article.^{[78][79][80][81][82]} Worldbruce also initiated this investigation:

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 198#Sharif Zahir

Many thanks to @Worldbruce

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Users may mess Ananda Group with Ananta Group PARVAGE ^talk! 04:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this! Just to add to the confusion, it looks like there are two very different companies named Ananda Group:[83],[84]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, all the links in my comment above are to articles definitely about this shipbuilding company and not a similarly named entity.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Ananda group is from Bangladesh and another one is Indian. But you rightly said that articles definitely about this shipbuilding company, a subsid of Bangladeshi Ananda group. PARVAGE ^talk! 05:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article using mainly sources found in this discussion. The article had at some point been cut back to a stub and needed to be rebuilt, and I've tried to do that. It could use an infobox but I've done what I can.

Commenting editors identified a number of articles that substantially discuss the shipyard, including the ones on scandal reporting from @Worldbruce like this[85], the TBSNews article[86] and the NDC Journal article[87]. I've also included some cites provided by @Vinegarymass911. The article about the Meghna river is also substantial coverage, and although I recognize that questions were raised above about its independence there's plenty of independent reporting in the article as well.

My main goal was to raise this beyond a draftify candidate, since it should have been beyond peradventure that this company met notability requirements. Not everything made the cut. If the tagged editors want to have a look perhaps they can find a place for other cites they identified. Comment added by user:Oblivy at 9:52, 26 June 2023‎ Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 10:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NeST (Nepalese Society in Trondheim)

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

Not notable. Tagged as such since creation without improvement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Nepal, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I added some more references but I couldn't find anything past mirror sites and promotional websites. Per nominator, not notable. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 14:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus turns out to be that this should be kept then the article title should be changed to the non-abbreviated name. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NORG by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to TV Mania. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bored with Prozac and the Internet?

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The only source cited is the band's website. I couldn't find any secondary sources. JMB1980 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, England, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[88][89][90][91][92] is everything I could find on the album (the last is a passing mention but might be worth having if this gets kept). Personally, I don't think this is enough and the article should be redirected, but if more coverage is uncovered then that could easily change. As for a redirect target, I think TV Mania is also lacking and should probably be merged into Duran Duran, but that's a whole other discussion and TV Mania is otherwise the most obvious and appropriate target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources are focused on the band rather than the album. Consequently, a merger or redirect would make more sense. JMB1980 (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge. Currently it's borderline on WP:NALBUM/GNG. But, even if it turns out there's enough SIGCOV, the topic of TV Mania and this album are inextricably linked, and both articles would improve if handled as one. —siro χ o 07:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There is some coverage of the album ([93] USA Today, [94] Mxdwn, [95] Rolling Stone interview) but if TV Mania's only release is this album, it seems reasonable to cover this in context of the TV Mania article per points 2, 3 and 4 of WP:MERGEREASON. As an aside for the TV Mania article, looking through Google Books and News shows plenty of coverage from Billboard, the above USA Today article and a few other promising sources.

Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Majeski

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Miami New Times, KT Network is paid/sponsored coverage. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - so many low-quality references -- do 10 ten-percent refs add up to one good 100% ref?? I spent a lot of time looking at them and looking for more.

I am familiar with the local Princeton, NJ publications. They are reliable but so very locally-focused that I hesitate to consider them.

This person is working hard to become famous for being famous and has almost made it.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, Internet, and New Jersey. Skynxnex (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent & reliable sources in article (all coverage is paid or interviews or both), no luck on google. Beyond notes in nom, note that SFGate link is also labeled sponsored and attributed to "Ascend Media". —siro χ o 07:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue Bubblebath IV

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

Was PRODDED by User:Donaldd23 with the rationale "Appears to fail WP:NALBUM", and redirected to another article by Explicit after the PROD expired. However an IP restored the content, claiming that WP:NALBUM doesn't apply to EPs (it does), and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF. So now we have to come here. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 00:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 00:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NALBUM, and the rationale the IP used "Also if you delete this article there has to be consistency with other EP/single articles, inc others by Aphex Twin." is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and irrelevant. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xclusive Yachts

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

Routine coverage, KT Network of Khaleej Times is a paid article. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Arab Emirates. Skynxnex (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There is a bit more than routine coverage in this but I'm wary of it given what's stated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Entrepreneur. There's some other coverage I've been able to find that seems more like thinly veiled advertising and I haven't been able to find anything that'd make this article meet WP:NCORP. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to Day Trade for a Living

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

Paid coverage; no independent reviews of this book found. Fails WP:NBOOK. US-Verified (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks for the ping, Wikipedia:Notability (books) requires tow independent sources which Investopedia and Business Insider are not paid. Singularitywiki (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Singularitywiki - see Reliable sources/Perennial sources (a.k.a. "WP:RSP" -- it's a useful list especially when working with marginally notable articles may rely on iffier sources. Investopedia is listed as a bad source; it even gets its own Wikipedia shortcut: WP:INVESTOPEDIA.

I've seen Business Insider on my newsfeed and I've wondered about it. For this AfC, I started researching its reliability. Business Insider is listed at WP:RSP as "Insider" (the parent company), not "Business Insider"; it also gets its own shortcut: WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. It's been the subject of 2 lengthy RfCs which closed with no consensus:

and 11 other discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard - possibly a record. It's generally viewed as iffy and inconsistent.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the author's bio is listed at Articles for deletion/Andrew Aziz

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. Skynxnex (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. See table below. —siro χ o 09:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:siroxo
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
BI "license to print money"	interview with author	~ WP:BI	doesn't even mention this book, just links to amazon	✘ No
bi books		~	~ barebones, most significant note is "Aziz explains how day trading works, how to choose stocks, how to choose a day trading platform, and more." rest is less detailed repetition	~ Partial
investopedia classes			doesn't mention book	✘ No
yahoo gobankingrates		gobankingrates	small amount of data about ratings and rankings of book	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per siroxo's detailed source analysis above. I think that it is clear that the referencing except Insider are clearly not SIGCOV. For Business Insider, whether it is a WP:RS in this circumstance is complicated- the RSP section notes that There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: Insider (culture). This is a case that falls under finance instead of culture sections, so the reliability is iffy (I will disclaim that in the latest RfC a year ago, which is specifically for news reporting, I voted option 1/2). Moreover, I do no think that it meets SIGCOV per GNG or constitute as a full-length review per WP:NBOOK#1, as the content is very short at 130 words and part of a listicle. Overall, because there are reliability and SIGCOV concerns with Insider, the current sourcing very weak, even if one generously assumes it counts, that is still only one source. Unfortunately, my search on Google and other reviewing websites (Kirkus, PW, and Booklist) failed to find suitable sources and only unreliable ones like this. As other NBOOK criteria are also not met, I am at a delete. VickKiang (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like VickKiang, I checked the usual places, found nothing. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Aziz (trader)

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

Paid coverage in Forbes Councils, KT Network of Khaleej Times. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed KT and Forbes (was a profile page, not a paid source really), and added few recent rs. Should meet Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, having two independent rs. Thanks for the ping. Singularitywiki (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - one of the author's books is listed at Articles for deletion/How to Day Trade for a Living

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Iran, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG, currently article has no sources that fulfill needs see table below. —siro χ o 08:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:siroxo
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
business insider bio	~ largely interview	~ WP:BI		~ Partial
[96] marketwatch			very little about subject, it's about trading	✘ No
himalayan times	~ quote attributed to subject's expedition leader, photo credited to subject			~ Partial
style.yahoo		gobankingrates	~	✘ No
business insider books		~ WP:BI	snippet about a book	✘ No
yahoo finance money experts	interview	gobankingrates	~	✘ No
Investopedia coursees		~	about course	✘ No
yahoo finance day trading via benzinga	~ mostly quote		not ABOUT subject	✘ No
gobankingrates 100		gobankingrates	~	✘ No
gobankingrates 100 at yahoo		gobankingrates	~	✘ No
business insider Career tips	~ references other BI article	~		✘ No
gobankingrates 3 things				✘ No
Money Times	mostly interview		~ mostly interview	✘ No
SSRN paper	by subject			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per siroxo's fantastic source assessment table. I don't count interviews towards SIGCOV, so the Himalayan Times and Business insider bio sources fail in my books. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thanks to Siroxo's source examination. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Convent School, Prayagraj

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, with all sources being related to the school. There was an AfD discussion in 2013, which closed as keep, before the RfC on secondary schools that reached a consensus that they are not inherently notable. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, India, and Uttar Pradesh. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources cited are primary. Need SIGCOV in independent secondary sources. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one that fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linkme

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

Paid coverage (guest posts) in LA Weekly, KT Network of Khaleej Times, Vents, BI Africa, US Weekly. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read about 10 sources, and they all have problems. Some are way too positive and hypey, some are just flat out a sales pitch, and some are quite obviously written by a "guest contributor" or say things like "The content featured in this article is brand produced.". Unable to find any independent content, so appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot meet GNG --DH22 Mim (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. The references are all typical PR. scope_creep^Talk 08:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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