Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 29

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< July 28 July 30 >

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Fridman

edit

Globally blocked user User:Dorian Gray Wild, created the article in order to make public relationship to Alex Fridman and to promote him outside Israel. He completely owned this article, and prevented another wikipeds from editing it, by reverting their edits in such edit summaries like "A stable version" without explaining his revertions. Also: This article is of no encyclopedic importance.

Because of this, I'm asking the deletion of this article and also the deletion of related pictures and videos.

Your opinions? זור987 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, זור987,
This AFD is not in the correct format for an article deletion discussion. Please review WP:AFD and follow the directions precisely. Look at other AFDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 29 for guidance on how it should appear and be formatted. This AFD is not listed on the daily AFD log page either and no deletion sorting has been done so it is unlikely that other editors will even know this discussion exists. I'd tag this page for deletion and start over from scratch following the guidelines on the AFD instruction page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Liz: I tried this and non-stop failing to put the article in the daily AFD log page. Can you do this instead? זור987 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: just because user Dorian Gray Wild apparently had a problematic history for this page, it does not follow that it should be deleted. "This article is of no encyclopedic importance" according to which metrics exactly? The article seems in-depth, it is well sourced, it contains information that's relevant and recent. I don't understand why this needs to be deleted at all? Just improve the parts that Dorian Gray Wild allegedly prevented users from doing, not like that's a problem since he's blocked now. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well-sourced with notability established. Why delete?--Geewhiz (talk) 09:48, 30 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 Handball at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Dorotheou

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

I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability through a WP:BEFORE search. She competed at the 2004 Summer Olympics but didn't medal. Could be redirected to Handball at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters or Greece at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Suonii180 (talk) 15:02, 22 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! 22:58, 29 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. Editors remain closely divided on whether coverage of the subject is sufficiently sustained to establish notability. signed, Rosguill talk 01:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poast

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

Poast is a website running pleroma software. They are one of many websites where the webmaster allows shady stuff. The only sources (that count) are about the leak of direct messages from this website. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 04:57, 8 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! 05:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per Rlink2. The obvious counterargument to WP:PERSISTENCE for such a recent incident is WP:RAPID -- but of course both of those rather miss the mark, since this is not an article about an event. I think the better authority here is found in WP:NWEB and WP:NOTGUIDE to which it refers, according to which the question is whether we have the necessary sources to describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance. It seems to me that we have here the somewhat unusual case of a website that we are able to discuss in an encyclopedic manner because of a brief event, since that brief event (the breach) exposed (and led to widespread discussion in reliable sources about) a significant political enterprise. -- Visviva (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I may have misquoted guidelines, I get the timely ones confused still. I think the more applicable one is WP:SUSTAINED, if you have any thoughts on that. —siroχo 05:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry to have missed this, didn't intend to ignore. I usually avoid coming back to AFDs once I have said my piece, lest I get pulled in too deep. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability is a fair point, but is phrased in intentionally cautious terms. On balance, I would still lean on the rationale of RAPID here, since we are just a month and half out. (Although I'll admit, on reflection, that the speed with which any discussion of Poast faded away is rather striking.) On a gut level it seems unlikely to me that the networks exposed here will end up being of only momentary significance, but of course that's ultimately a question that only time and reliable sources can resolve. I would be happy with a merge if we had a good target, but I'm not seeing it here, as the relationships with Kiwifarms and Truth Social seem too attenuated to support a merger and the relevant lists don't really support this kind of coverage. If we're back here in a year and Poast has succeeded in remaining un-discussed in any reliable sources for that time, I guess I'll switch to a weak delete. -- Visviva (talk) 04:10, 24 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! 18:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I was going to file this RFD myself after seeing them on the Fediverse "See also". There isn't much notable about this, it's one of many thousands of fediverse instances, and the fact that they have a hate speech problem and got hacked doesn't make them particularly notable, there are plenty of fediverse with similar features, as well as a lot of fediverse instances that have gotten a lot more media coverage than this. Wesleyac (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there are plenty of fediverse" " one of many thousands of fediverse" name one . https://fba.ryona.agency/scoreboard?blocked=50 Baratiiman (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point is that they're the most defederated instance according to that page? I don't think that makes them notable. That list has a bunch of other instances that are similarly defederated (if not quite as much), and almost none of them seem notable enough to have an article (Gab and Pawoo are the only ones there that I think have had significant coverage in places Wikipedia cares about, and Pawoo doesn't even have its own article, just a section in the Pixiv page). Wesleyac (talk) 06:17, 27 July 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! 22:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I wrote a long justification to delete, saying how I favoured keeping articles about media that can be a source on wikipedia, but could only find one reliable source (the USA Today one). Then I looked into the reliability od Daily Dot and found no consensus (better than I expected) This article seems good enough to use as a source and combined with this one that gives us enough source to make an article. I read WP:NWEB while formulating this !vote and think the existence of this article is a benefit to the project. CT55555(talk) 04:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Rlink2 and Visviva. The events generating the existing coverage makes me think there is potential for future coverage to maintain notability and we shouldn't be too hasty in deleting it. Circle back in half a year. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:40, 31 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. ✗plicit 01:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collective Phase One

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

WP:REFBOMBing with WP:FICTREFerences to conceal lack of notability. One source cites only as a passing mention. It also fails WP:ORG as a production house or organisation. The Doom Patrol (talk) 18:51, 22 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! 22:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The references are an odd mix of interviews, profiles and movie reviews which have no reference to the apparent subject of the article, despite their claimed involvement in some of the films. Weak delete because I cannot read Malayalam, so I cannot assess potential sources in that language, or read the organisation's Facebook page which is also linked. Obviously the FB page wouldn't be a valid indicator of notability, but it might help establish what else there is out there about this group. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwill Entertainments

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

Fails WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources about the company itself. No inherent notability. The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 29 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! 23:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield, Edinburgh

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

Westfield may not be accurately described as a neighbourhood; rather, it comprises only two streets known as Westfield Avenue and Westfield Road. As such, it does not fulfil the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. 1keyhole (talk) 21:48, 29 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. but a further discussion focused on a possible Merge can occur on article talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalvan series

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

Seems like a non-notable book series. Effectively unreferenced (one footnote to an article by the books author) entry about a fictional universe - the book series gets a single sentence, 99% of the content is plot summary WP:FANCRUFT. My WP:BEFORE failed to locate anything, pings on the talk page also failed at producing anything useful. At best I can recommend redirecting this to Paratime series (although that page is no better and will likely end up here shortly, after I do my BEFORE for it), or safer, John F. Carr or H. Beam Piper. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might this be the occasion to split out an H. Beam Piper bibliography article? It seems to take 2/3rds or more of the present author's article. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE -- On Talk:Kalvan series, the deletion proposer has consistently refused to say what his plan is for closely-related articles which would be affected by the deletion of this one. It seems that he doesn't want to bother to devote any thought to the matter, which as far as I'm concerned, indicates sufficiently that this deletion proposal was not done for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia, or deletion process. Removing fancruft that fails WP:GNG improves the project. The few articles that link here will get the link removed by a bot (some of them likely need to be deleted too as part of the same fancruft series). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not use the word "fancruft" on Talk:Kalvan series, and you refused to even consider the idea that content was split between closely-related articles, and that there might need to be some rebalancing if this article were to be deleted, with no reason given for this refusal. I drew my conclusions accordingly. AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this were to be redirected, I would think that John F. Carr would be the appropriate target. While the first book in the "series" was written by H. Beam Piper, there was no actual "Kalvan series" until Carr started writing the sequels twenty years later. The actual list of books, which is pretty much the only part of this current article that would be worth keeping, is already present at Carr's article as well. Nearly all of this current article is overly detailed plot information, and I am not finding any real coverage on the series as a whole (or even much on the individual books I did quick searches on). But, as these are older books, I'll wait to see if anyone can dig up some paper sources discussing it before "officially" recommending a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is what I was referring to. I did not mean it was entirely plot information as in "its a summary of the events of the books in chronological order", I meant "its entirely in-universe descriptions of plot elements from the franchise", which would be considered "summary-only descriptions of work" at WP:NOTPLOT. Rorshacma (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the fact that you didn't even visit most of the closely-related articles and aren't willing to devote any mental effort to the closely-related articles to be tantamount to bad faith in the context of this deletion nomination. Your nonsensical gibberish "fork" allegation certainly did nothing whatsoever to persuade me of your good faith, nor did the most recent tendentious biased comment you added to Talk:Kalvan series discussion page. AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Major, Joseph T. (August 1993). Lovisi, Gary (ed.). "Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen" (PDF). Paperback Parade. No. 35. Gryphon Publications. pp. 72–99. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

      The article notes on page 73: "As his legacy to science fiction, he left a just completed novel, Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen. Fans were gratified to see Piper returning to his established "Paratime" series, his tales of the Paratime Police who protect their time-line from discovery of the means by which they exploit other time-lines for the resources necessary to sustain their exhausted resource-sparse home. This story of a policeman from Rambo country ... quickly became famous; then as contracts expired and the book fell out of print, a lost classic."

      The article notes on page 74: "Control of the Piper estate fell into the hands of Jerry Pournelle, who, back when he was actually writing his own books, wrote very much in the style of Piper. It's not surprising, therefore, that Pournelle should want to continue the stories. ... The continuation of the Lord Kalvan story, however, was passed to Pournelle's associates John F. Carr and Roland Green."

      The article notes on page 78: "We now fast-forward some twenty years, to the year of 1985. Heartening and joyful news came from Ace Books: they released Great Kings' War by John F. Carr and Roland Green, the long hoped-for sequel and continuation to Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen. There had been hints that the things to come to Kalvan after the events of the earlier book might not all be good, above and beyond the requirements of having enough conflict to make a worthwhile novel. Not only does Kalvan's introspection at the end (Chapter 19, Section 2) give some hints of problems to come, but in a letter he wrote to Campbell Piper himself said as much ... Great Kings' War begins with a nasty description of a nasty winter, but the nasties tossed Kalvan's way by Lytris the Weather Goddess are nothing as to the nasties tossed by Styphon the Gunpowder God. Or, anyway, his mundane followers."

    2. "Piper, H Beam". The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. 2023-01-16. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

      The entry notes: "A second distinct sequence, the Paratime Police/Lord Kalvan tales, most of which were published originally in Astounding, are assembled as Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (November 1964, November 1965 Astounding as "Gunpowder God" and "Down Styphon!"; fixup 1965; vt Gunpowder God 1978) and Paratime (coll 1981). The series was continued in Great Kings' War (1985) and Siege of Tarr-Hostigos (2003), both by Roland Green and John F Carr; the latter also edited The Worlds of H. Beam Piper (coll 1983) and presented his work in other contexts. As a series of Alternate-History variations linked by the eponymous Time Police, the sequence showed Piper in perhaps excessively argumentative vein, the alternate-world structure allowing him great latitude to express his political feelings. Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen remains the most successful and enjoyable of all these tales."

    3. Silver, Steven H (2004). "Kalvan Kingmaker". SF Site. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

      The review notes: "John F. Carr has set himself a difficult task with the novel Kalvan Kingmaker, and it is one at which he is only partly successful. The novel is a continuation of the Lord Kalvan stories written by H. Beam Piper. These tales, which grew out of Piper's Paratime Police stories, follow a Pennsylvania state trooper into a world in which North America was colonized from west to east and only bears a geographical resemblance to the North America of our own world. Carr does an excellent job of capturing Piper's style and stories in his world, but... ...but Kalvan Kingmaker is not just a sequel to Piper's widely-read stories. It is also the sequel to Carr's own continuation, Great King's War (written with Roland Green). Because Great King's War sets up the action for Kalvan Kingmaker and has been out of print for more than a decade, much of Kalvan Kingmaker is spent providing some of the information readers need in order to follow the labyrinthine plots in the novel."

    4. Hellekson, Karen (2001). The Alternate History: Refiguring Historical Time. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. pp. 52-53. ISBN 0-87338-683-3. Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "H. Beam Piper's Paratime sequence of stories is collected in Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965) and Paratime (1981), both of which are made up of short stories or novelettes originally published in science fiction magazines from the late 1940s until 1965 (Piper killed himself in 1964). John F. Carr and Roland J. Green wrote several sequels to Piper's Lord Kalvan stories, including Great Kings' War (1985) and "Kalvan Kingmaker" (1989). I do not discuss these two texts. Paratime is simply Piper's term for parallel worlds. Lord Kalvan tells stories about Calvin Morrison, a police officer presumably from our world who accidentally gets caught in a Paratimer machine that dumps him into a parallel world, where his superior knowledge and abilities allow him to quickly become an important ruler. The Lord Kalvan stories are about an unsavory theocracy, Styphon's House, that controls the manufacture of gunpowder and thus rules a low-technology world; Piper tells how Kalvan beats the theocracy. The stories in Lord Kalvan and Paratime all take place in the same reality: one time line has discovered the secret of moving from one parallel world to the next, and these Paratimers exploit all the other time lines to support themselves."

    5. D'Ammassa, Don (June 2001). "Kalvan Kingmaker". Science Fiction Chronicle. Vol. 22, no. 6 #213. ISSN 0195-5365. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

      The review notes: "Considering the comparatively small amount of work that he produced during his lifetime, H. Beam Piper has an enviable following. Among his more popular creations was the Paratime series, and more specifically the adventures of Calvin Morrison, a one time police officer who becomes a ruler in an alternate reality. Now John Ford returns to that universe and that character for a new chronicle, a direct sequel to Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen. Although the armies of the theocracy have been defeated, the church remains a powerful force."

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

    Cunard (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Hmmm. Interesting. That said, at minimum, a merger with Paratime series would makes sense, unless you think the sources sugges those two series both have stand-alone notability? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to a merger of Kalvan series and Paratime series as there is a lot of overlap but am not familiar enough with the two topics to know whether there are good reasons to keep them separate. Cunard (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard Since right now it looks plausible this article (Kalvan series) will be kept, could I trouble you to do a source review for the Paratime series and present the findings on the talkpage of that article, to inform us if merge is a good idea or if that other series has stand-alone notability separate from this one? Right now I still feel that one page about those two series will be enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard -- Much thanks for adding solid facts in place of Piotrus's sometimes problematic and tendentious edits. Unfortunately, my skills are simply not in the area of bibliography, but I can appreciate the work of those who do have such skills. I'm not absolutely opposed to merging this with "Paratime series", but it should be kept in mind that the Kalvan timeline is just one world within the Paratime multiverse (though since the 1980s, I guess it could be said that the Kalvan tail has been wagging the Paratime dog). AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph T. Major in the linked PDF file really didn't like the Kalvan sequels, but he mentioned a "Hostigos Con, held in Lord Kalvan Country at Penn State on June 10-12, 1988" (which I never knew about), that might add to the series' notability... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as the Kalvan series is a clear and distinct series of books by several authors over several decades, but it is separate enough from the Paratime series, focusing specifically on one timeline in particular. The page could certainly be improved (I took the liberty of merging a condensed version of Kalvan (Calvin Morrison) into a new "Characters" section of the page), but that doesn't justify deleting the page when the series exists and has been referenced in independent, reliable sources as listed above. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources in the discussion and also the suggestion of Merge that was buried here in the comments. It doesn't look like there is support for straight-out deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Responding to Piotrus (talk · contribs)'s request above, the Paratime series has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Both the Kalvan series and the Paratime series are notable. I express no opinion about whether Paratime series and Kalvan series should be merged or kept separate under the "editors should consider how best to help readers understand it" standard from Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages. The guideline notes:

    When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.

    Here are sources about the Paratime series (which I am also copying to Talk:Paratime series):
    1. Hellekson, Karen (2001). The Alternate History: Refiguring Historical Time. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. pp. 52-61. ISBN 0-87338-683-3. Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "H. Beam Piper's Paratime sequence of stories is collected in Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965) and Paratime (1981), both of which are made up of short stories or novelettes originally published in science fiction magazines from the late 1940s until 1965 (Piper killed himself in 1964). ... In "Time Crime," the Paratime Police investigate a cross-belt Paratime slave trade, fixing the home time line of the slaves by close hypnotic questioning of the captured slaves, ferreting out which slaves came from a world where a woman killed herself and which came from a world where she was captured alive. ... The stories in Paratime do not focus on any one alternate world but explore a number of them; my favorite is "Last Enemy," which takes place in the Akor-Neb civilization, a Second Level civilization in which reincarnation is a fact. ... Piper's Paratime works, like Poul Anderson's Time Patrol works discussed in chapter 7, create worlds policed by a force charged with protecting its own identity and keeping that identity secret. The culture that created the Paratime Police exploits the alternate time lines it can reach, treating these other worlds as endless sources of raw materials and other resources while upholding strict codes that do not allow anyone to reveal the secret to others. ... Piper discusses the simultaneity of the people inhabiting the worlds only briefly; in "Police Operation," a guard examines Verkan Vall's blood under a microscope to make sure he is the right Verkan Vall. ..."

    2. Fletcher, Marilyn P.; Thorson, James L., eds. (1989). Reader's Guide to Twentieth-century Science Fiction. Chicago: American Library Association. p. 461. ISBN 0-8389-0504-8. Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "The Paratime series has for its settings some parallel time-line to Earth in which a civilization is based on Mars. The Martians are descendants of terran colonists who have had to survive after a nuclear war destroys Earth. The survivors discover the "Ghaldron-Hesthor Transposition Field" which facilitates travel between parallel time lines (hence the name para-time, or paratime). This leaves a lot of room for playing "what if" history, in which Piper shows himself to be an expert, recombining historical events and coming up with new and fascinating variations of what might have happened if.... Whether a story is part of the Paratime or Future History series, Piper's plots rely on the self-sufficient human."

    3. Barron, Neil; Barton, Tom; Burst, Daniel S.; Hudak, Melissa; Meredith, D. R.; Ramsdell, Kristin; Schantz, Tom; Schantz, Enid (2002). What Do I Read Next?, 2000: A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction, Volume 2. Detroit, Michigan: Gale. p. 813. ISBN 0-7876-3392-5. ISSN 1052-2212. Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Summary: All of the stories in Piper's Paratime series lare collected in this omnibus volume. The Paratime Police travel through time to prevent anyone from changing the course of history. Generally they find discrepancies and have to act to restore the original time track. The stories were originally published between 1948 and the 1960s."

    4. Rogers, Alva (1964). A Requiem for Astounding. Advent:Publishers. pp. 163–164. ISBN 0-911682-08-2. Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes on pages 163-164: "H. Beam Piper, in the July issue, began his popular Paratime series with a novelette, "Police Operation." ... "Police Operation," and the other stories in the series had to do with a highly organized and complex police force operating in paratime, across probable time lines. The primary purpose of the paratime police is to police the multidinous probable time lines at all levels in an effort to keep them separated and unknowing of each other and if, as occasionally happens, something or someone from one time line appears in another the Paratime Police show up to take care of the problem as quietly as possible, and to take corrective action to restore reasonable normality and to provide an acceptable explanation of the event."

      The book notes on page 164: "The Paratime Police stories were entertaining tales not intended to be taken too seriously which provided one possible answer to such Fortean mysteries as unexplained disappearances, strange visitations, apparent violations of natural physical laws, etc. Piper admittedly got his idea for the Paratime Police from Charles Fort: "...there may be something in the nature of an occult police force, which operates to divert human suspicions, and to supply explanations that are good enough for whatever, somewhat in the nature of minds, human beings have-or that, if there be occult mischief makers and occult ravagers, they may be of a world also of other beings that are acting to check them, and to divert suspicions from themselves, because they, too, may be exploiting life upon this earth, but in ways more subtle, and in orderly, or organized fashion." (Charles Fort: Lo!)"

    5. Espley, John L. (Summer 1980). "H. Beam Pipier: An Annotated Biography". Extrapolation: 172, 175–177. Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive.

      The article notes on page 172: "The majority of Piper's stories are represented in the Paratime Police series and one Future History series. The Paratime Police stories have the theme of parallel worlds. Piper used this theme to answer some of the unexplained phenomena described by Charles Fort. The Future History stories are the description of the rise, fall, and rise again of galactic civilization. Using this background, Piper wrote some of his most memorable stories and books."

      The book notes on pages 175-176: ""Last Enemy." Astounding, August 1950, pp. 5-60. The last enemy is death. A Paratime Police story in which Verkan Vall has to rescue a scientist investigating reincarnation. Since reincarnation is a proven fact, death holds no fears and assassination is an honorary profession. ... "Police Operation." Astounding, July 1948, pp. 8-35. The first of the Paratime Police stories. There is a large amount of explanation about the Paratime theory with a minor plot concerning Verkan Vall hunting for an extraterrestrial animal in an alternate world where it is unknown. ... "Temple Trouble." Astounding, April 1951, pp. 6-34. A Paratime Police story in which the exploitation of the alternate world is controlled through the organized religions. The plot is concerned with conflicts created by the decline of the Paratime-supported religion."

      The book notes on page 177: ""Time Crime." Astounding, February and March 1955, pp. 8-49, 85-131. A serial concerning the Paratime Police discovering the existence of a large criminal organization of their own First Probability Level people. 1053"

    6. Foote, Bud (2003). "Escape into Paratime: H. Beam Piper's Alternated Pennsylvanias". In Slusser, George; Barricelli, Jean-Pierre (eds.). Genre at the Crossroads: The Challenge of Fantasy. Riverside, California: Xenos Books. p. 172. ISBN 1-879378-48-5. Retrieved 2023-07-22.

      The book notes: "In the very next year, however, Piper began work on a concept of multiple presents which was totally to dwarf the modest trilineal system of "Time and Time Again." Though he was to work at the paratime concept through four short stories and a novel fixed up out of three others' over a period of sixteen years, the scheme seems pretty thoroughly developed in 1948 in the first paratime story, "Police Operation." Some 75,000 to 100,000 years ago, Piper's scenario has it, the Martians, having exhausted their planet with overpopulation and over-industrialization, colonized Earth, which was occupied by no life higher than ape-men. All the possible results of this colonization have come to pass, on one level of probability or anther; and all these levels of probability, the number of which Piper fixes at 10100,000, are equally real."

    7. del Rey, Lester (1979). The World of Science Fiction, 1926-1976: The History of a Sub-Culture. New York: Ballantine Books. pp. 112, 172, 324. ISBN 0-345-25452-X. Retrieved 2023-07-22.

      The book notes on page 112: "In July, H. Beam Piper began a series of stories with "Police Operation," based on an assumption that time not only goes forward and backward but also sidewise; beside our world are an infinity of other worlds in which events have not proceeded quite the same. Those nearby are almost identical, but those farther away differ greatly. One world has learned to traverse through this "paratime" and to exploit other worlds and cultures. But in doing so, the rulers must police all the worlds and prevent any accidental discovery of the secret by others. This permitted Piper to use almost any setting or culture for his background without step- ping out of his basic situation, and the stories were usually excellent."

      The book notes on page 172: "And in August, H. Beam Piper had a Paratime story, "Last Enemy," in which a world gains positive proof that any man can be reincarnated. It is one of Piper's best stories."

      The book notes on page 324: "Paratime: H. Beam Piper's universe in which time extends not only forward and backward, but crosswise, with many earths lying side by side, like pages in a book. Each earth differs slightly from the others; thus a panorama of histories is available for exploiting by those who can travel through paratime."

    8. Thesing, William B. (1981). "H. Beam Piper". In Cowart, David; Wymer, Thomas L. (eds.). Dictionary of Literary Biography. Volume 8: Twentieth-century American Science-fiction Writers. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Gale. pp. 70–71. ISBN 0-8103-0918-1. Retrieved 2023-07-22 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "In about half of these short stories Piper develops the "paratime" concept with special emphasis placed on the necessity of policing across alternate worlds. Piper's paratime idea is based on the imaginative conception that there are at any given instant (not in the future or in the past) lateral time dimensions-worlds of alternate probability parallel to our own. Although there could conceivably be an infinity of such worlds, in his stories Piper posits the existence of five, which he calls Time Levels. Lateral time-travelers, then, make corresponding shifts in time. "Police Operation" (1948) alternates between descriptions of an adventurous hunt for an elusive monster and explanations of the various levels of time-travel. In "Time Crime" (1955) the paratime police search out criminals who attempt to meddle with the timetracks. Alternate historical outcomes during the Napoleonic Wars are the focus of "He Walked Around the Horses" (1948). The two stories "Gunpowder God" (1964) and "Down Styphon!" (1965) were expanded to form 'Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen (1965)."

    Cunard (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cunard Thank you. Looking at the first set of references and quotes you provided here few days ago, each and every singe one of them mentioning the Paratime series, I think merge and redirect to Paratime, which we could then expand with the sources you found, would make the most sense. @Rorshacma, as you commented before most refs were posted here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no objection with Paratime series being the target for the Redirect/Merge. But any actually Merging from this article would be pretty light though, as, again, almost the entire bulk of this article is just in-universe plot information. The information from the sources found by Cunard in this AFD can be integrated into that article, though, of course. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard -- Thanks again. However, the person who wrote the following sentences was rather confused, or didn't even bother to read the book, so that source should definitely not be used! -- "The Paratime Police travel through time to prevent anyone from changing the course of history. Generally they find discrepancies and have to act to restore the original time track." -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (still holding previously-stated position of keep) Regarding the similarities/differences between the Paratime series and the Kalvan series, I think it's fair to compare their relationship to the relationship between the Nantucket and Emberverse series – both are related series, with several overlapping elements, but each tells a distinct story with a different primary focus. Similarly, the Paratime series focuses on the Paratime Police at large, while the Kalvan series focuses on one particular timeline. Both the Nantucket and Emberverse series have their own pages, so there is precedent for related series to still have separate pages. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am okay with keep or merge to Paratime series. It's clear that both series meet GNG, but also that Kalvan is heavily dependent on Paratime. It seems likely a merged article could serve readers better, but someone with more knowledge may know better. I'm willing to use Cunard's sources to add a proper "reception" or similar section near the top of each, perhaps followed by heavily editing down the in-universe description, or at the very least updating the tagging. —siroχo 07:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo That would be great (improving articles). My reading of the sources found by Cunard suggests that they are primarily about the Paratime series, with only passing mentions of the Kalvan subseries, hence my preference for a merge. I don't mind being proven wrong, if one's (yours?) reading of the sources suggests both entities have stand-alone notability and it can be shown in their respective reception series. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors appear to be cohering around merge, but relisting as consensus could be clearer and there has been very recent discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without merging. As Imperator3733 has noted, two series in the same semi-shared fictional universe can have their own articles. As someone who has read stories in both series, IMO they are sufficiently distinct enough to keep separate. The Lord Kalvan series is set in one specific alternate universe, while the Paratime series ranges all around. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Paratime series. The sources listed here establish the notability of Paratime and Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen, but the Kalvan series just seems to ride on their "fame"; the in-universe differences are irrelevant here. Condense to provide WP:DUE weight, then it can certainly be covered on WP as part of a larger article. – sgeureka t•c 14:11, 4 August 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! 23:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Andrews (physician)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate. Not notable as either a physician or a politician, and all the coverage is routine for a candidate. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 29 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 speedy keep‎ with a side of IAR. A brand new user doesn't just find AfD and declare "information manipulation". Any established user is welcome to nominate this if there is merit. Star Mississippi 02:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gayane Umerova

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

information manipulation, and no significance to have wikipedia page Garrymove1 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Page clearly made for advertising purposes, it has posted fake information such as person educated at Oxford etc. Unclear significance of a living person to create a biography on Wikipedia. Will be more relevant to include bio on the official websites of the organizations the person is associated with.

This woman several times was Commissioner of the National Pavilion of her country at Venice biennales, plus is Director of the Art and Culture Development Foundation under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, and the Secretary General of the National Commission of Uzbekistan on UNESCO Affairs under the Cabinet of Ministers. I believe it is quite a position. --Shakko (talk) 21:13, 29 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! 06:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olancha Earthquake Sequence (2009)

edit
Olancha Earthquake Sequence (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:EVENT. This is a non-notable event. The article lacks encyclopedic value and it cannot be re-shaped into something that is. At the time its occurrence, this probably wouldn't even have been appropriate for Wikinews. Dawnseeker2000 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 29 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! 23:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David V. Politzer

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Politzer has not had a large influence in his field (digital media), and there is largely unsourced material in the article. The New York Times source in the article which is prominently featured only mentions Politzer in a passing mention of an otherwise minor art exhibition. The Houston Center for Photography Carol Crow Fellowship Award, which is the only award mentioned in the article, is not enough to make the case for WP:ACADEMIC. GuardianH (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I found some passing refs from reliable sources but insufficient to establish notability. What might do it per WP:ANYBIO is his residency at Yaddo -- that's a very selective honor. One of the qualifying options at WP:ANYBIO is:
    • "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"
For now, I'm assuming that Yaddo's not enough but I defer to any more knowledgeable editors that show up here. I'll also leave a note at Talk:Yaddo.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:34, 30 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! 23:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jono Pandolfi

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

Fails the notability standard; WP:GNG (WP:ARTIST). No widespread sources in WP:RS. A search of sources doesn't find much beyond Paddofi's personal websites. The article was created by a WP:SPA. GuardianH (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. @GuardianH, thanks for keeping an eye out for articles that may have been spammed! That said, if the subject turns out to be notable, we keep the article and fix it. I have to remind myself that we "don't want to cut off our own nose to spite our face" since it can seem like the spammer wins. But our goal is building content, not punishing spammers.
When looking at an article for potential deletion, use the search tools listed at the top of the page to check for sources. Some people refer to this as "WP:BEFORE". Anyway, I used some of those links and quickly found a ton of stuff:
Anyway, thanks for your work and i hope this helps with your next AfD.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to various additional occupation-specific criteria, such as WP:ARTIST, the policy also states, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."
Thus, even if the subject does not the meet WP:ARTIST standards, this alone is not valid reason for deletion, if WP:NBASIC is still met. I believe it is, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. Here is a source assessment table:
Source assessment table prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New York Magazine (https://nymag.com/guides/summer/2010/66749/) Yes Story is written by a journalist at New York Magazine based on several interviews and original reporting. Yes New York Magazine follows established journalistic standards. Yes The entire magazine article is devoted to Jono Pandolfi. ✔ Yes
New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/dining/jono-pandolfi-ceramics.html) Yes The reporter is not affiliated with the subject. Yes The New York Times is an highly reliable source. Yes While brief, an entire article is dedicate to this man. This should cut it per logic of WP:100WORDS. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panama Canal fence

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

There limited evidence that a full fence along the border existed, although there was a clear separation, furthermore, components of this article should be moved to either the Martyrs' Day article or the Panama Canal Zone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Nonymous (talk • contribs)

(above text rescued from the edit summary of creation, after Allan Nonymous confirmed they intended to go through with the nomination. The seven-day countdown starts now.) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article appears well sourced and well documented, even if the importance of the fence may be not even remotely compared to the Berlin Wall (although such a comparison is understandable at the local level), I think the article as it is is fine. I don't see why the information presented here also shouldn't be added to the other articles without needing to delete this one. --Dynamo128 (talk) 20:32, 29 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! 23:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Rose

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Couldn't find any mention of him in RS, only press releases. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE. Over the next few days, asap, I will be removing references that do not comply with those standards, as well as any content that does not, and including appropriate references throughout. Kindly allow time to make the necessary updates so that the article does not need to be deleted Srose39 (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Rose, please refrain from editing the article about you. Please stick to one account, and please check whether you're logged in before editing. Several editors here have put the time needed into looking for reliable sources for a biography. More time won't help; it hasn't since 2009. That said, closing admin, please note the subject/author's own implicit !Keep vote, and his rationale. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I replied on the article's Talk page. I'm new to this, not a regular editor, and have no interest in editing. Was naively trying to be helpful. Found another article that is more focused on me directly, but will leave it to others to consider:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/529144177/?terms="Stanley Rose" CEO &match=1
The Capital Times,
22 Apr 2004, Thu · Page 56-57
I'm a scientist and entrepreneur who has started, grown and sold multiple businesses of note in the fields of DNA analysis and genomics, but have never sought personal publicity. I greatly appreciate everyone's help in trying to improve this article so that it is factually correct and compliant with your standards Srose39 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the subject has used at least two accounts to author/edit the article. He also sometimes just doesn't log in. It's textbook COI but not (yet) disruptive editing or intentional socking. JFHJr (㊟) 20:35, 30 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! 06:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chit San Maung (footballer)

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

Now that WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:FPL are no longer used for notability, I'm struggling to see a case for keeping this article. The match reports provided do not address Chit San Maung in any significant detail and my own WP:BEFORE searches in both Burmese (ချစ်စမ်းမောင်) and English are not finding anything about the footballer of this name but plenty about Chit San Maung (guitarist) instead. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jogurney is correct. If anyone wishes for this to be kept, please provide sources showing significant coverage of this footballer. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 18 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! 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've just read WP:NOTTEMPORARY and the relevant part is Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. How does this support the keeping of this article? There is no evidence of any significant coverage and nobody is suggesting that it meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 20:16, 29 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muamar family detention incident

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

Non-notable incident, no sustained coverage. Thousands of Palestinians are arrested by Israel yearly.

The information the IDF extracted from the two was that Palestinian militants were planning to infiltrate Israel through tunnels so they could take IDF soldier captives. This indeed happened the next day, leading to the notable abduction of Gilad Shalit, but the detention of the Muamars arguably had nothing to do with it, so there is nothing that sets their arrest apart from the hundreds/thousands of other similar arrests each year. Mooonswimmer 12:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Israel. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the triggering incidents of the 2006 Gaza-Israel conflict per a well-established researcher and it was considered significant by Al Jazeera English and BBC News. One of the fundamental flaws in judging WP:NOTABILITY in terms of media attention is the quantitative evidence of the Herman-Chomsky empirically supported model of the media. While we normally expect to have wide media coverage to consider an event notable, this incident is notable due to the fact that one of the world's best-known researchers brought attention to it as a triggering event, and due to his reasonable inference that some or more of the five filters of the model were massively reducing media attention to the incident despite its significance: Chomsky correctly says that arbitrarily arresting civilians is a human rights violation while detaining a member of the opposing military forces is legal. I've adjusted the lead to clarify this. There's nothing in the article about "extracting information" (information the IDF extracted from the two) from the Muamar brothers, so that's currently WP:OR.
    In any case, WP:NOTPAPER. The long-term significance of the event may only be known in another 20 or 50 years when the Arab Spring 3.0 or 6.0 has led to more thorough historical analysis based on the evidence. There's no point hiding this from the encyclopedic record. Boud (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Chomsky source you liked (“Exterminate all the Brutes”: Gaza 2009), there is only one mention of the brothers, which is:
    "One day before Hamas captured Shalit, Israeli soldiers entered Gaza City and kidnapped two civilians, the Muamar brothers, bringing them to Israel to join the thousands of other prisoners held there, hundreds reportedly without charge. Kidnapping civilians is a far more serious crime than capturing a soldier of an attacking army, but as is the norm, it was barely reported in contrast to the furor over Shalit."
    Could you point out where he states that the detention was one of the triggering incidents of the 2006 Gaza-Israel conflict?
    "There's nothing in the article about "extracting information" (information the IDF extracted from the two) from the Muamar brothers, so that's currently WP:OR." My apologies for not linking my source.
    If there are sources that note the incident as a triggering incident of the 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict then notability may indeed be argued. Mooonswimmer 16:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: by "triggering" event, I didn't mean a claim of an established causal connection; I only meant one of the events immediately prior to the main outbreak of the war that is seen by a prominent, objective observer of events in relation to human rights violations, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and their media coverage, as having a high enough probability of having a causal effect to be historically significant. Research to establish the decision-making by Palestinian and Israeli military and human-rights-violating forces depends on information that may not become available to researchers for decades to come. Since the International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine only covers events starting from 13 June 2014, we're unlikely to get legally confirmed data on this from the ICC. The popular narrative is that the detention of an Israeli soldier by Palestinian forces was a "cause", and we already have that popular narrative documented. This encyclopedia should not purely be an amplifier for media narratives, even if it is unavoidably strongly influenced by them. Boud (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a linguist and polemicist, Chomsky's WP:SPS is not an WP:RS here to establish WP:GNG or to make a judgement about whether this was an event that triggered the 2006 Gaza-Israel conflict. Even if so, this wouldn't need its own article, vs merging into the 2006 Gaza-Israel conflict article. This was a routine detention by the Israeli military that likely happens hundreds of times per year. Longhornsg (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Polemicist" is misleading: Chomsky does not aim to create controversy, he just follows basic academic principles of looking at the evidence and aiming to apply principles consistently based on the most reasonable interpretation of the data. (He has missed several pieces of key information in the case of the 2022 full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, but at his age, it's unsurprising that he cannot judge the validity of a lot of high-quality online information; valid reasoning that is missing key information leads to different conclusions than valid reasoning based on fuller information.) You omitted the fact that Chomsky is one of the authors of the most solid model of how the Western media operate, in particular in relation to human rights violations and war crimes. As for "routine detention", Israel is the occupying power, so no matter how "routine" the illegal detention is, if it attracts some media attention and the attention of a well-known researcher as this one did, then it's notable. Boud (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the definition of WP:GNG on Wikipedia. It's not based on the opinion of editors or some concocted definition of notable of what should be notable. Please keep opinions out of this and stick to WP policy and rules here. Sure, Chomsky is a more reliable source on the propaganda model. That doesn't mean his opinions hold the same analytical weight on geopolitical matters as WP:RS. Chomsky's interest in a specific event does not give it notability, but WP:SIGCOV does. He is not the determinant of what is notable/ Longhornsg (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Chomsky is a well known political commentator, even though it isn't his field of expertise his opinion is still notable. Crainsaw (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Boud pointed out, it has notable coverage, it also has sustained coverage. "Thousands of Palestinians are arrested by Israel yearly.", notability, if those arrests aren't notable, they can't have an article. If they are notable, then create an article rather of deleting another article on the grounds of "Well, the other article doesn't exist, so let's delete this one rather than creating the other article" Crainsaw (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the point. How is this arrest notable compared to any of the other arrests? Is it notable because Chomsky made a brief mention of the arrest in an article of his? Mooonswimmer 23:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It happened, and a pundit commented on it. That does not establish notability. There's no notability exception for "the mainstream media is covering it up". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have given this a lot of thought as even the first of mondane events may carry some weight and Chomsky is a famous, for this purpose, activist. Still, it remains an extremely minor and routine event in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and little can be/is being said about the event other than time and again that Chomsky thought it was neverthless important. Fortunately no one died during the arrest. The Palestinian claim that the detained are not Hamas militants does not help the notability either yet should be taken into account. Just another day in a sad environment. The bar for a redirect, on the other hand, has been met. gidonb (talk) 23:16, 30 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 Upstairs, Downstairs episodes. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Board Wages

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

Non-notable episode, sources in article are IMDb and a database website with plot summaries. BEFORE searches give where to watch and a few passing mentions when describing the TV series this stems from. Karnataka (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 20:14, 29 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sivakumar Vijayan

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

All passing mentions. Video interviews do not count towards notability if not transcribed. Was nominated for an award at 8th_South_Indian_International_Movie_Awards#Film but did not win it. DareshMohan (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable citation are been given for each actions mentioned and it's genuine. There are many articles mentioned about Sivakumar Vijayan by press and reliable news paper articles. They aren't passing mention. Kindly reverse from deletion as Sivakumar Vijayan is an important figure and we'll known personality in Indian cinema and Tamil Film Industry. John pascal (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable citation are been given for each actions mentioned and it's genuine. There are many articles mentioned about Sivakumar Vijayan by press and reliable news paper articles. They aren't passing mention. Kindly reverse from deletion as Sivakumar Vijayan is an important figure and well known personality in Indian cinema and Tamil Film Industry. John pascal (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/that-moving-image/article6969417.ece Cathode bench (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Struck sock comments Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Withdrawn but can't be closed since someone !voted delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:10, 29 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. I understand that it is likely there might be some disagreement about this closure but I see a consensus to Keep this article. Suggestions of changing the scope of the article can be discussed on the article talk page or by BOLD edits. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Beales

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

As a general rule, losing candidates in elections are not regarded as notable. I suspect this article was created with the expectation that he would become an MP. PatGallacher (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if the article is made primarily about him as a councillor. He is notable as a high-profile councillor with significant coverage of him in that role. I oppose the logic above that he should have an article as a candidate in Uxbridge which seems to be speculation. So if the article is kept about him as a councillor, which I can help with, then keep it. Fosse1884 (talk) 12:14, 4 August 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 23:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Kolbe

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

Fails every aspect of WP:ACADEMIC. No widespread coverage in WP:RS, not too different from a regular university professor. GuardianH (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that much in the grand scheme of things. More helpful is the H-index; hers is 10. I'm not intimately familiar with the index, but this says that's typical for an associate professor, and that tracks with my experiences. NACADEMIC's threshold for notability is a named chair, that probably corresponds to an h-index above 30. These are rough numbers that depend a lot on the academic field, but I think we can't demonstrate notability just based on citations here. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:43, 5 August 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 Doctor Who items. Note that it may have been more appropriate to discuss this in a merger discussion on article talk pages per Wikipedia:Deletion_process. The nominator or any involved editor may implement the merge per Wikipedia:Merging#Merge_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix (Doctor Who)

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

While generally notable in universe, I couldn't find any sources that cover the Matrix in any depth. The article already cites no sources to begin with. Thus, the article doesn't seem to meet GNG or SIGCOV. Given some of the information may be worth retaining, the best alternative to straight deletion would be to merge it with the List of Doctor Who Items article, where the Matrix is already listed, though it lacks relevant information there. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:43, 29 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Keyser

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

Fails pretty much every single standard in WP:GNG. No coverage widespread coverage in WP:RS. This article was created by a WP:SPA. GuardianH (talk) 19:41, 29 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar Kergil

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

Fails the notability standard; WP:GNG. As of 2023, Kergil is a YouTuber with 110,000 subscribers on Youtube. This article was created by a WP:SPA in 2014, and the case for notability at its creation was essentially nil, with him having an even smaller platform then. Not much has evolved since its creation. This article is saturated with unsourced material and possible WP:NOR; it reads as a WP:PROMOTION. Outside of one Boston Globe article, it relies entirely on primary sources/sources that are exclusively local. A search does not reveal any widespread coverage in WP:RS. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 29 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 23:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Diederich

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

The subject played 18 minutes of professional soccer. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was really the only piece of real coverage I found, and it's from a school newspaper. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 29 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! 23:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Mattison

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

Fails the notability guideline; WP:GNG (WP:ARTIST). Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. A search of WP:RS sources doesn't find much beyond Mattison's personal websites. The article was created by an IP and WP:SPA. GuardianH (talk) 19:06, 29 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 Peeragarhi metro station. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peera Garhi Chowk

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

This India location is unreferenced since 23 December 2013. After Proposed deletion removed, unable to find references to verify this place and to establish notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:05, 29 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 23:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Manning (photographer)

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

Non-notable photographer. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Sabih omar 17:13, 29 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! 23:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Astha Agarwal

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

She is a television actress since around 10 years playing character roles. Does not satisfy GNG or NACTOR, and the closest to a significant role is for the show Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? where it is of one of the five wives of the titular character.

She is also a beauty pageant winner. But while we have two articles on the Mrs. India pageant (Persona, Haut Monde), the one that she won in 2014 - Gladrags Mrs. India had its article deleted in 2015 with no assertion of notability.

The actress article was created and majorly edited by an SPA who may have a COI, or may be AUTOBIO. I did ask at the user's talk page but got no response. The image at the article was uploaded and linked by a sock (see investigation) whose first edit was also to the actress page.

I would recommend deletion. Jay 💬 16:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is certainly an interesting story for an article. Based on the lack of GNG sources and failure to meet the thresholds of NACTOR, I think it's a fair (lack-of-)notability delete. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:50, 5 August 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 Battlestar Galactica characters. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Keikeya

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

I was unable to find any good sources on the web, and there are currently no sources in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:08, 29 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. I don't see a resolution here in a dispute on whether or not a source should be considered local or regional. Before considering sending this article on a return trip to AFD (that could easily be a repeat of this discussion), I encourage a discussion on an appropriate policy talk page that can hash out the prime sticking point which is whether or not newspapers that are not national in scope can be considered adequate sources to establish GNG for an article subject. Does it rest on the circulation numbers? The size of their coverage area? Come to an understanding about this first before nominating similiar articles which will start another repeat unresolvable dispute that wears out the main participants. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Askatu Bakery

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

All the coverage supplied and what I found in a gnews search is local Seattle coverage. Fails GNG due to WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop targeting me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. Do you say the same thing for an Australian restaurant article I recently nominated for similar reasoning? LibStar (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also nominate a lot of Indian school articles, am I targeting their creators? LibStar (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate a large variety of articles on various topics, the article creator is not a consideration when nominating, the only consideration is notability. I know you wish I would disappear off Wikipedia but I've been here over 16 years. Plus the deletion process is a valid part of Wikipedia. If you don't want "your" articles deleted perhaps create your own wiki of every restaurant and cafe that existed in the USA. You could even design it where it would be impossible to delete an article. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me alone. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me alone and stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. If you choose to reply, I will take it you wish to continue discussion. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one non-Another Believer article you nominated has no sources. This and the other pages do. Deletion editors may not be taking into account the extremely wide international regional area that the major Seattle newspapers cover. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "international regional area"? I also nominated this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cityfields another targeted restaurant deletion nomination, I guess? LibStar (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMWT said above "there are fairly extensive articles in local media, but I doubt that these really suggest wider notability." So they have assessed if the sources are "wide". LibStar (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every source is local except for a bare mention in Portland Monthly. Fails NCORP. If someone !voting K would like to point me at the three sources they feel demonstrate notability, happy to take a look. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to focus on sources and policy. There seems to be an ongoing disagreement in these AFDs about regional vs. local sources, one being sufficient and the other not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on regional coverage, the major Seattle newspapers, which are sourced on the page several times, actually are sold and cover a wide international regional area within the NW United States and into Canada. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there seems to be enough coverage in my opinion. @User:Valereee, Wikipedia should just allow local referencing in my opinion, but in any case the sources are probably varied enough per Randy Kryn. @User:LibStar, I agree that many of the Indian school noms for deletion are valid but Another Believer seems to be very experienced and good at making articles (see their profile for a list of examples) and each of these cases increasingly makes precedent for similar restaurant articles, so why not just skip them and save the hassle? - Indefensible (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I checked couple of the sources [2] [3] [4] are all listing of restaurants around seattle, with this bakery only having a passing mention. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:AUD seems to be the bone of contention here, and it is met, as Seattle Times meets the criteria for regional coverage: (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) satisfying AUD. Portland media coverage is a nice added bonus. —siroχo 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This would imply that everything local the Seattle newspaper covers is notable, though, which would be a really weird exception. SportingFlyer T·C 09:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't imply that. There is basically never a circumstance where coverage in a single source confirms notability. General notabiilty says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources..." which uses the plural "sources" very specifically and intentionally. A major newspaper covering a topic exclusively plus 22 other sources like this article is enough. Steven Walling • talk 16:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition the many smaller mentions, there are in-depth references from The Seattle Times (i.e. the largest daily newspaper in the state) and reliable sources like the local NPR affiliate. The vast majority of restaurants do not get dual coverage from real, reliably fact-checked news sources like these (as opposed to how basically every popular restaurant or bar in a major city gets covered in Eater). This obviously passes WP:SIRS criteria. Steven Walling • talk 06:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis and stop personalising the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FatCat96 (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is required is widespread coverage in independent, notable WP:RS. I don't see any of that here. The majority of the sources concerning this bakery is primarily from local sources. GuardianH (talk) 19:19, 29 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 14:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Beucler

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

Does not meet WP:NSPORT, WP:NGYMNAST or WP:GNG. No secondary sources found in the article or elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 15:27, 29 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 23:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cafu Engine

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

Fails WP:GNG. Two potential sources are listed in the article text from a German tech/software magazine, but both are inaccessible (see Gleich and Nebelo et al). Gleich appears to be a very brief (2-paragraph) review, evidently of the product under a previous name. Nebelo et al. appears to be a list of 125 pieces of software with very brief descriptions of each as part of an article celebrating the publication, based on the preview, which would not constitute significant coverage. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is a glorified advertisement for the engine; no currently notable games use this engine and it isn’t notable enough to have its own article in the first place; it should be deleted as soon as possible. NanaOn-Sha (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not notable, and its secondary sources reflect niche technical applications that do not establish general notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:GNG, and I don't think there's any SNGs that would apply. Maybe WP:WEBCRIT? But it also fails that. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:45, 5 August 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. In retrospect this could have been kept before. Spartaz Humbug! 17:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo (programming language)

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

Programming language, with no serious claims to notability. Was sent to draft by NPP, banged back into mainspace with the claim of multiple RS. I don't see them here and WP:BEFORE shows no record of enduring influence or prominence/notability as a language tool. And the article's promotional, to boot. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. InfoWorld seems fine. Others do not seem to be independent. Definitely has the feel of a promotional article, too. —siroχo 14:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, I am fine with draftify proposed below as well —siroχo 20:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge (see comment below). The sources are in the front: 2 infoworld, the register, and analytics india magazine. As far as I can tell they are all independent, reliable, and cover the language in depth, as required for WP:GNG. The fact that infoworld wrote about it again shows there is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage. There is more coverage too, they're just blogs and stuff that's not really reliable. But what is there seems sufficient, and I'm sure if something interesting happens, e.g. it goes out of beta, there will be another round of news coverage, allowing improvements in the article's tone and quality to make it less hype-y. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with @Mathnerd314159. A quick news search of "Mojo programming language" will show a number of reliable sources including Medium, Adafruit, and yahoo!finance. Additionally, the project lead for Mojo, Chris Lattner, is the creator of several widely used projects including the LLVM, Clang, and MLIR (co-founder) compiler frameworks, as well as Swift, Apple's de facto programming language. If Lattner's record holds, Mojo has a high likelihood of being widely adopted among machine-learning researchers and systems developers alike once it is released to the public. I will look into revising the page to reflect the wider range of sources available. Zramsey11 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Medium is not considered reliable per WP:RSP. - Indefensible (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The article may seem iffy to some now but there will only continue to be more sources on the topic. Not to say I think the current sources are bad though.
Rlink2 (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like WP:CRYSTAL though, I agree it might become notable but right now feels somewhat premature. - Indefensible (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 18:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Even treating this as a corporate product (which I agree is the best approach at this stage), this seems to meet WP:CORPDEPTH based on the InfoWorld and Analytics India articles. Both appear to provide hundreds of words of in-depth independent analysis that provides source material for a decent article, or as CORPDEPTH puts it they make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub. This in-depth review from The New Stack, a source I'm not familiar with but which is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles, also seems fine. At least on the surface all three of these appear to meet WP:SIRS. And there's certainly nothing surprising about such an initiative attracting this level of attention in the current environment. That said, if there are genuine and substantial problems with the sources, I'd suggest merging to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo. -- Visviva (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a skeptical of the independence of Analytics India source due to their "branded content" program: [5] "Syndicated brand material or custom featured stories are great ways to share your viewpoint."
    I'm very skeptical of The New Stack, they seem to be the "journalism" arm of a tech investment firm: [6][7]. And the author is referred to as a developer marketing writer[8]
    Currently the only source I trust is InfoWorld, and to be fair, it's a good article. —siroχo 05:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't seen WP:CORPDEPTH, but looking at it now there is a line about discounting "any material that is substantially based on press releases (churnalism), even if published by independent sources". The register article is substantially based on quoting the Modular blog post announcing Mojo and the non-independent fast.ai article, so I think would count as churnalism. And maybe the first infoworld article, it doesn't cite any sources and the talking points ("Full compatibility", "low-level control", etc.) are suspiciously similar to the blog post. But I think the Analytics India is independent - the author is on the staff, not a contributor, so it's not syndicated material, and the comparison with Julia seems out of place for a corporate piece. And the second infoworld article seems like a legitimate "I read Mojo's documentation" kind of piece.
    I did see the New Stack article but I think it's a contributed article (as described in [9]), as the author is not listed on the staff, (although, she has many more posts than 1 per 3 months, so maybe she does have a close relationship with TNS?). But, regardless, from the colloquial language like "Advertising, amirite?" I don't think it went through much of an editorial review, let alone fact-checking like a reputable news source. I think it just counts as a blog post hence unreliable.
    So that leaves us at 2 reliable sources. I like the merging idea, certainly in this discussion Zramsey11's primary argument for notability was that the team is led by Chris Lattner and he has a good track record of releasing languages, so discussing Mojo in the context of Chris Lattner seems warranted. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo. I agree with other participants that Infoworld is IMO SIGCOV by GNG standards (though I'm neutral on whether it meets the mark using the stricter corporate product standards) and is a RS. However, I'm not especially convinced by the other sources. NewStack has an about us page but no clear editorial policies and the author does not appear to be a subject-matter-expert (developer marketing writer is very questionable), so I don't think it's a reliable source. Likewise, Analytics India lacks a clear editorial process and the branded content program and other info in the abouts/advertising section doesn't give me much confidence. I would be more inclined to think it's reliable had there been clear subject-matter-expertise among its stuff or widespread USEBYOTHERS that I'm not seeing here, though I am not 100% sure whether this is unreliable or not as I'm not especially familiar with Indian technology-related sources. Otherwise, my search on Google mainly found blogs and developer sites that doesn't seem to meet the requirements of GNG or NPRODUCT, so to me (albeit weakly) this doesn't meet GNG. However, there's some sourced info from RS (Infoworld) that would warrant a merge/redirect to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo as an ATD. VickKiang (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I heard about it recently. As a software developement project it has a space on Wikipedia, per long consensus. Coverage on three continents. scope_creepTalk 10:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:55, 29 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 (non-admin closure). Suitskvarts (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Erich Petsche

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

No apparent notability apart from an award Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Righteous Among Nations" is indeed a big deal, and not just "an award". There is also adequately sourced biographical information. Thanks to Curbon7 for their work on improvement. Ingratis (talk) 08:20, 30 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Puzzle Hunt

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

This has been marked as needing sources since 2013, and it has none at all. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep A major event at one of the largest companies in the world that's been going on for 23 years and has inspired events at other companies (Amazon, Google, Facebook, and many smaller companies, etc.) belongs in Wikipedia. One spinoff is Microsoft Puzzleday, one of the largest recruiting-related events at Microsoft (and probably any company). MSPH has been written about in, among other places, WIRED and GAMES magazine. The word "puzzlehunt", coined for Microsoft Puzzle Hunt 1, is now the word used to describe any event with a series of puzzles and meta puzzles (the word has even appeared in the NY Times). On the comment of needing sources, I think the reason is that it's nobody's job to add sources and this is not an incredibly important article. Here's one piece in WIRED (https://www.wired.com/2011/09/trains-of-thought-inside-the-microsoft-puzzle-hun/); I believe there was another. I don't have a reference to the GAMES article handy, but it was 2002 or possibly early 2003 (GAMES articles are not available online, so somebody with physical copies would have to find it). Note: I was part of the founding team of MSPH 1, but I think that is irrelevant here. RoyLeban (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a reference to the Tableau Puzzle Hunt, also inspired by MSPH. https://www.tableau.com/tableau-developer-puzzle-hunt Not only shouldn't the article be deleted, but it should be expanded to discuss it's inspiration (the MIT Mystery Hunt) and what it inspired. Of course, that takes somebody who wants to spend the time. RoyLeban (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete [changed from 'delete' per discussion with Soni] A Google Books search pulls up a few passing mentions, and there are those two articles User:Let'srun mentions, but the first is hardly substantial. The second, from WIRED, is the best source for notability I can find, but I don't think that alone warrants GNG. I see no reason this can't be folded into a sentence or two at Microsoft#Corporate culture. StereoFolic (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @StereoFolic The first article is indeed substantial. Perhaps you are paywall-blocked, and so did not realise there's a larger article beyond the one paragraph mentioned?
    I have been following this discussion but have not yet participated because I cannot yet locate the GAMES magazine article discussed above. I currently believe the two articles linked might be enough to meet GNG already. If I find the GAMES article/it's reliable and significant, that will definitely be enough to meet notability. Soni (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yeah, I missed that paywall, thanks for pointing that out. Having read the article properly now, I'm still unsure if this meets GNG. I agree the GAMES article would help answer this more clearly. I will defer to editors with more AfD experience than my-new-self. StereoFolic (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have been unable to find the GAMES article yet. But based on the two sources we currently have, the notability seems marginal but sufficient enough to be there. Full disclosure, I am aware of this article from my other communities/discussed this article there in the context of finding more RS. Soni (talk) 08:06, 5 August 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. ✗plicit 14:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents Leadership Class

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

Fails the notability standard; WP:GNG. I found no widespread evidence of significant coverage by WP:RS. There is only one source; most of the article's actually relevant organizational information is unsourced with a large amount of WP:NOR. It reads as a promotional showcase to a minor college program. GuardianH (talk) 13:42, 29 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. North America1000 13:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Young

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

The page was created and has been significantly edited by a user who is likely to be the subject of the article. Their username is the name of the subject, and the article fails WP:NPOV, as it is not written from a neutral point of view. The article has a small number of independent references, but the majority are from the website of the subject and the article also fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, as the subject has only competed in championships of minor notability without much success. Sizewell (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the WP:SPA and the WP:COI concerns, most of the sources are primary or exclusively local, which doesn't exactly satisfy for widespread, reliable coverage in secondary sources. GuardianH (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. The article looks like pure advertising by someone who is hoping for fame. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 29 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! 06:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Lombardo

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

I think that this is a borderline case for notability per WP:NPROF Mason (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Psychology. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no opinion at the moment re: whether Lombardo qualifies per WP:NPROF, but I do think the article about her completely missed the mark. Her notability is based on all the coverage about her as an author, media personality and "celebrity" (pop) psychologist. I have been trying to fix the article accordingly but this strikes me as a writing problem (wrong focus) rather than a notability problem. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. Per WP:NPROF, Lombardo (who is not a faculty member and not known primarily for her "academic" achievements) should not be subject to the notability requirements for academics):
    Many academics have been faculty members (such as professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics have held research positions at academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article.
    Cielquiparle (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks that's helpful. My understanding was that they could meet either the general notability OR academic notability. Do you think that she meets the notability under general notability (or another specific type)? Mason (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an overview of sources in the article and my search for sources:
  • I have only found one review of one book (The Library Journal review in the article)
  • The 2017 American Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology interview has an intro paragraph describing her as "one of the nation's most high-profile psychologists," noting television appearances and one of her books
  • I found 3 appearances on the TODAY show on ProQuest: ProQuest 1786545857 (Apr 29, 2016); ProQuest 1821507272 (Sep 15, 2016); I added the one focused on her to the article: "Interview with Elizabeth Lombardo" ProQuest 2159772523 (Dec 19, 2018)
  • The 2017 interview-based coverage from her alma mater is not independent
  • I removed a source labeled "Ad" [16] and a source described as "a marketing-friendly program dedicated to offering businesses the opportunity to showcase their company/products" [17]
  • Gurus magazine also appears to be promotional - I found no 'About' page or editorial standards, and it is mostly an interview and pictures of her
  • David's Guide is mostly an interview and pictures, and while it has an About page, this also appears to be a promotional vehicle
  • there is an interview-based piece in Social Life magazine (which describes itself as "the premier luxury publication for the Hamptons" and appears to be advertising-focused)
  • a WP:FORBESCON source - I did not remove it because it seems possible the author is a subject matter expert; this source is based on interviews
  • Lombardo is quoted in e.g. Bloomberg in 2013 (..."says Elizabeth Lombardo, a clinical psychologist who works with athletes such as Shaquille O’Neal"), the NYT in 2015 (..."said Dr. Elizabeth Lombardo, a clinical psychologist in Chicago"), and apparently in 2016 (..."said Elizabeth Lombardo, a wealth psychologist in Chicago"), TODAY in 2016, ABC News in 2016 ("Psychologist Elizabeth Lombardo ... said today on "GMA.""). There are also a few news sources quoting her on ProQuest, e.g. "6 tips to help relieve stress that builds at the workplace" South Florida Sun - Sentinel (Tribune News Service) 06 Mar 2016 ProQuest 1772053621 ("Elizabeth Lombardo, a psychologist who wrote the book "Better Than Perfect: 7 Strategies to Crush Your Inner Critic and Create a Life You Love," suggest stressed-out workers consider ways they can help themselves...")
Delete seems appropriate because WP:BASIC/WP:GNG or other notability does not appear supported by sufficient independent, reliable, and secondary coverage at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides her brief authorship, Lombardo doesn't seem too different from a regular university professor. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. GuardianH (talk) 19:50, 29 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. ✗plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge School (Kandivali)

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

Barely any coverage, fails the notability guidelines for schools and organisations . Ratnahastin (talk) 11:12, 29 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. ✗plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sahyadri School

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:NSCHOOL . Ratnahastin (talk) 11:09, 29 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. ✗plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizon Scholars School

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

Completely unsourced and fails WP:NSCHOOL Ratnahastin (talk) 11:05, 29 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. ✗plicit 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal English School

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

Completely unsourced, no indication of notability. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:04, 29 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. ✗plicit 12:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Vidya Mandir

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL ,overtly relies on primary sources such as school's own websites for citations. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:03, 29 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. ✗plicit 12:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhgad Public School, Lonavala

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

Fails notability guidelines for schools, see WP:NSCHOOL. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:00, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Cebu

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG Ratnahastin (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this school has 61,000 students. I don't know about your country but in my country, that would be a very big school.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how a university this big gets nominated for deletion.
The Philippines has 1,975 higher education institutes. The University of Cebu is one of only 68 that have been granted autonomous status by the government.[18] Quoting our Higher education in the Philippines article:
"In an effort to rationalize its supervision of institutions of higher learning, CHED has also prescribed guidelines for granting privileges of autonomy and deregulation to certain schools. According to the guidelines, the general criteria examined by CHED are an institution's 'long tradition of integrity and untarnished reputation', 'commitment to excellence', and 'sustainability and viability of operations'."[19]
A Google Scholar search indicates several hundred papers that discuss the school or were written by someone at the school.
This lengthy article from last month is just a sample of news coverage that's out there:
So this school is a strong keep based on Google Scholar, government documentation, WP:SCHOOL and most of all, obviousness.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:25, 30 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 12:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of left-wing terrorist attacks

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

This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanStalk 09:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Terrorism. AlanStalk 09:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the original creator of the page List of left-wing terrorist attacks. In my opinion, I believe that the page List of left-wing terrorist attacks should remain up if the page List of right-wing terrorist attacks is not deleted. A lot of the problems existing on the page List of left-wing terrorist attacks also exist on the page List of right-wing terrorist attacks (such as not explicitly left\right attacks being listed on their respective pages). I should mention that I am a newcomer regarding Wikipedia. I had not fully finished the List of left-wing terrorist attacks page by the time it was submitted for creation (as the page was full of bare URLs). There are many problems with the page List of left-wing terrorist attacks, I do think that it should be improved, or even deleted. However, I believe that if List of left-wing terrorist attacks is deleted, so should List of right-wing terrorist attacks. Micheal Sieger (talk)10:01, 30 July 2023
@Micheal Sieger, I have nominated both List of left-wing terrorist attacks and List of right-wing terrorist attacks. So far it appears that people who vote on one are voting on the other so I imagine whatever the result is it will most likely be the same for both. AlanStalk 13:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Michael Sieger (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it seems to be an OR mess, and possibly a mass BLP violation. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blow it up. While reliable sources routinely publish lists of left-wing terrorist attacks, this article does not reference these lists and is basically original research. Left wing terrorism does not mean terrorism carried out by people who happen to be left-wing, but terrorist attacks carried out in order to achieve left-wing objectives, specifically, the replacement of capitalist rule with socialist government. It specifically excludes anarchist, eco and nationalist terrorism, each of which have different characteristics.
I would not preclude someone from recreating the article, but in my experience list articles of this type quickly become exercises in original research. TFD (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left-wing objectives are much more broad than just replacing capitalism with socialism. It includes any attack done to further a left-wing political message. As such, attacks with Anarchists, Eco-Terrorist, or nationalist motives would be considered if there are reliable sources that refer to the attacker’s motive as socially or politically left wing. Jaboipizza22 (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument to me seems to come from a position of original research or WP:SYNTH. I don't think it's justified. AlanStalk 13:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources use the definition I provided, not the one that you have. They are concerned about the motivation for terrorist attacks. Having a list of terrorists who happen to be left-wing is prohibited by policy as Wikipedia:Synthesis. TFD (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Note that List of right-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

  • Delete per above. OR mess. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfC reviewer comment: if this is to be deleted as OR/TNT, please salt it. This is what it looked like when accepted. All of the attacks on the list at this point were carried out by socialist, Marxist-Leninist, etc organizations (though personally I think there's an argument to be had about some of the Palestinian lib/nationalism ones). There may be some in the list that I missed and which actually fail verification, in which case mea culpa, but you can see from the article history how quickly the rest of it was added, and how a few editors have been continually trying to hack it back to something that isn't a solid wall of WP:OR. Personally, I think lists like this are a huge editorial timesink and non-npov magnet and I would not be sad to see it go. But since the topic "left-wing terrorism" is notable in itself, this list will be continually recreated and then immediately drown in the same problems the article has now. TNT will not fix this one. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering, I personally disagree with any assessment that sees Palestinian lib/nationalism as necessarily left-wing. While the Palestine Liberation Organization can be characterised as left-wing (with the wiki page showing its member organisations being so), I think a lot of left-wing people would not think that Hamas is left-wing by any stretch of the imagination and I've never seen anything where they characterise themselves as such. Those on the left generally support national self-determination as a principle, however that doesn't necessarily mean that they always identify with the actors that are leading the push. This highlights perfectly to me the amount of OR that is going on in that article. AlanStalk 09:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlanS I definitely don't think Palestine lib/nationalism is necessarily left-wing, and already removed a few of those myself in a sweep of the article. I personally agree with you about Hamas, etc, but I'm not an expert in this area. I left the ones that were attributed to orgs that claim some degree of socialism/communism/etc according to their Wikipedia articles, since deciding those aren't "left-wing enough" seemed to me to be too much of a departure from existing editorial consensus. (ie, I am taking the contents of the current articles as a standing consensus, and my own sense as the sense of just one editor.) If the article were to survive I would encourage discussion on the topic to clarify the point. -- asilvering (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: mainstream sources do not normally use the joint term "left-wing terrorist", probably because the term "left-wing" is ambiguous and means different things to different people and in different countries, and instead use a more precise term to modify "terrorist", such as "Palestinian terrorist" or "eco-terrorist" or "white-supremacist terrorist". NightHeron (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this information was actually valid, it could be included in a column at List of terrorist incidents. Dream Focus 16:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even after the effort to clean up the list there re still entries where left-wing politics is not mentioned in the relevant article. This is just going to be a massive time sink to maintain against POV editing. As Dream Focus says anything useful can be included in List of terrorist incidents. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides this and List of right-wing terrorist attacks, it may be worth noting that we also have List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks (and maybe more). TompaDompa (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: per asilvering. Content of this article should be covered at List of terrorist incidents or Left-wing terrorism#History. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of LISTN is that even if there are multiple examples of X (e.g., people who played baseball for two teams and got injured on each one), we should only have a "list of incidents of X" if sources consider "incidents of X" to be a category which could be listed, yes? and that instances of "more complex [...] cross-categorization" like this are even less surely includable. Well, I do not find that many sources that talk about "incidents of left-wing terrorism" as a general category of incidents, although there are several; it is even less clear to me that sources exist which would regard Operation Nemesis and the Pheasant farm raid as groupable into a single category of thing that could be listed, i.e. sources which would support the scope our list currently has; and there is a general List of terrorist incidents that any non-OR incidents could go in. So, it seems reasonable to me to move anything that would be left here after pruning the OR to List of terrorist incidents as proposed above, and salt this page. If anyone wants to bring to bear RS that do have "lists of left-wing terrorist attacks" that would include the kinds of things this page includes, I will reconsider. However, it seems clear that if kept, this page is likely to need at least Fascism-level protection to stop OR, and is likely to be a POV magnet and timesink. -sche (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your reading of LISTN but the list AfDs I've seen have been all over the map, with "the general topic is notable, and it can be written in list form, so keep" coming up extremely often. However, I do think "list of left-wing terrorist incidents by country" is notable per your definition. I don't think that would be any better, though. It would just give editors even more work to prune, and bring up additional categorization questions. At least in my view, I don't think the issue with this article is a notability one. It's "do we, as editors, want to put the work into maintaining this list" and "is this list useful and informative to readers in a way that justifies keeping it". I think I'm a no on both, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt A POVfork filled with original research. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Note that List of Islamist terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Information icon Note that List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

  • Keep. The topic is notable and encyclopedic. However, strongly enforce WP:DUE on the page; as I have raised previously we have an issue with items being included in lists without meeting core policies of WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Correcting that broadly is a difficult task, but hopefully we can correct it here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt since those building the article appear clearly intent on POV-pushing the inclusion of incidents far outside the obvious scope of left-wing terror and simply by any nationalist group that may incidentally have a left-wing leaning. BilledMammal's suggestion of simply vigorously enforcing WP:DUE might be the ideal scenario, but who's going to enforce it, especially if the page's main contributors clearly have no interest in doing that? Pages that are simply disruptive, POV-pushing magnets are just a community time sink. And here the main contributors are clearly only interested in WP:OR. Hence delete. And salt, to stop this going round in a circle all over again as it clearly has already before. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. "Left-wing" is clearly being defined here as POV OR. I'm ambivalent about the existence of "right-wing terrorist attacks", as it likely better-defined and less OR-ish in that definition though I would suggest "ethnonationalist terrorist attacks in the Global North" is probably a more-appropriate description of what I assume that means. "Islamist terrorist attacks" is also better defined. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt; BM's suggestion is appealing in theory, but in practice it will never work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the context that the term is bandied about in this case, "left-wing" does not exist. It is a conservative pejorative, bordering on a neologism, for things they do not like, a one-size-fits-all lump of everything from Marxism to Antifa to Barack Obama. Zaathras (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is this a mess of original research (as others showed above), but even if the contents were perfect, I still see no value in such a contextless list. We're mashing together a bunch of different attacks of different kinds, done for wildly different goals, and the list has no educational value. DFlhb (talk) 14:36, 4 August 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 12:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of right-wing terrorist attacks

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

This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanStalk 09:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Note that List of left-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

  • Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. By the way, I think a lot of OR is happening here. For example: this article lists several attack's motivation as "incel", but Incel is a general online subculture, and research claims that this subculture is "not particularly right-wing or white".
I think, for this subject, at most a category is needed, instead of an explicit list like this. To quote User:TFD from the AfD of List of left-wing terrorist attacks, "list articles of this type quickly become exercises in original research." --TheLonelyPather (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have observed a recent flurry of editing activity that seems to indicate how hard it is for editors to come to a consensus on what amounts to a right-wing terrorist attack. While right-wing terrorism is a serious matter, especially after the Capitol and Brazilian Congress attacks, I agree that neither articles have a solid criteria, resulting in a lot of OR and tit-for-tat POV activity, as we have seen with List of left-wing terrorist attacks (AfD discussion). --Minoa (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Note that List of Islamist terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Information icon Note that List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

  • Keep. The topic is notable and encyclopedic. However, strongly enforce WP:DUE on the page; as I have raised previously we have an issue with items being included in lists without meeting core policies of WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Correcting that broadly is a difficult task, but hopefully we can correct it here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think BilledMammal is right the topic is notable and encyclopedic. But I've also spent hours on this page removing entries and checking for sources in good faith. I can't bring myself to vote delete since I know the article is fixable, but at the same time I think it's important to note that the editors pointing out this page needs, if it is to exist, some editors willing to copyedit it regularly to remove OR and UNDUE content are correct. I'm uncomfortable voting delete on a page because I think it's unmanageable, but I'm also uncomfortable voting keep for the same reason. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Same, basically. I think they'd at the very least need extended-confirmed protection forever. -- asilvering (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Keep per BilledMammal and per my comment at the "left-wing terrorism" AfD — this is more clearly-defined and less-obvious POV or OR. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt; BM's suggestion is appealing in theory, but in practice it will never work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike "left-wing terrorism", this actually does exist, but IMO it is not important or useful to maintain lists of terrorist attacks broken down by supposed ideology. An all-encompassing list would be better. Zaathras (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at the "List of left-wing terrorist attacks" AfD. Same exact issues apply. On these topics, a list has no value compared to a proper conceptual article, setting aside the OR, its nature as a POV-fork, and other issues. DFlhb (talk) 14:39, 4 August 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. While POV-forking can be a concern with such a topic, there is consensus here that this constitutes a legitimate spinoff of the broader article on Political terrorism. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing terrorism

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

This is a POV fork of Political terrorism. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other political terrorism material. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to Political terrorism. This has been previously discussed at AfD and the consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. AlanStalk 09:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Terrorism. AlanStalk 09:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a fork of political terrorism. As pointed out in Terrorism#Types, it is one type of political terrorism. The article is referenced to reliable sources that define the topic, and it is used as a category by reliable sources such as the Brookings Institute,[24] the Council on Foreign Relations,[25] the Guardian,[26] and many other sources.
Right wing terrorism is distinguished from other types of political terrorism not only by its objectives, but also the its organization, types of targets chosen and other factors.
While the original article was deleted in 2006, it was a stub article that was original research.
TFD (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, but the problem with calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing" is very much issue of perspective, a point of view. For example if you're in the United States most of the population might refer to the Republicans as "right-wing" and the Democrats as "left-wing", whereas a lot of the rest of the world (the other 7.5 billion of us) would probably say that both US parties are very definitely hard-right. It's all a matter of perspective. So when you start calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing", whether you like it or not you're taking a perspective. There is no objective position on this. AlanStalk 15:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a fine WP:SPINOFF given content length of related articles, does not appear to be a POVFORK. If you do notice NPOV issues like UNDUE weight, it's worth bringing them up in the article talk page. Note previous AFD is more than 15 years old. —siroχo 10:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons elaborated above. I appreciate the difficulty of maintaining NPOV given the level of controversy both around xxx-wing and "terrorism," but the controversies should be discussed in the article rather than glossed over. Leifern (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets all criteria for a separate article. Addressing the AFD rationale, this is a "sub article" (rather than a POV fork) on a topic that is so huge that it needs sub-articles. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given the difficulty in pinning down the specific meaning of "right wing" or "left wing" it is easy to misidentify the motivations, goals, or even actors. I am aware that this article is regarded to be well-developed, but I am also supporting the destruction of the Left Wing Terrorism article for the same reasons (though that article does not seem to be held in the same regard). It seems to me that deleting left wing without deleting right wing would harmfully bias the project of creating an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. commie (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Defining left or right wing is not an issue for these articles because the books and articles that discuss these topics define what they mean as part of their definitions. It's like wanting to delete Southern American English because southern can mean different things to different people. But it's not an issue because books about Southern or American English define what they mean by Southern American. TFD (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i also have major reservations about identifying any particular act as terrorism, since, as the main article states, it's a charged term. commie (talk) commie (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Note that Left-wing terrorism also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

  • Delete - Let's take this for example, which is one of the items listed - 2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers. I don't see how an incident stemming from an argument over a dog urinating in a house has political ramifications. There's also no sources listed for either of these on the list: Murder committed by John Ditullio, Murder of homeless man by Aryan Soldiers, Tri-state killing spree by white supremacists David Pedersen and Holly Grigsby, Murder of MeShon Cooper-Williams, Murders of Danny and Deanna Lorenzo and Black man burned by White supremacist. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having checked the first three of those cases, all are included in the cited source. They're all listed in the chart under the header "Number of People Killed in Deadly Attacks in the Post-9/11 Era, by Ideology". It's possible to dispute whether that source's assessment that those people are terrorists with far-right ideology is precisely the same as being a far-right terrorist, but that seems like the sort of thing which should be solved through our normal mechanisms. At any rate, the fact that it's possible to dispute whether some entries on the list really should be included is not really a compelling argument that the article as a whole needs deletion. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with Left-wing terrorism, merge both into Political terrorism. If the latter needs to be split, do it by geography, not left-right, which removes context. I've made my case at greater length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism (2nd nomination), but the case is essentially identical here. - Jmabel | Talk 15:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a widely discussed concept, and the article could and should include discussion of how the term is used - what acts are described as right-wing terrorism, and by whom? We shouldn't be shy of having articles on controversial or contested concepts, so long as there is appropriate context. Warofdreams talk 20:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as this is focused on the broader aspect of the term with a few well-agreed on examples from academic sources, this is a reasonable article. Google scholar gives tons of hits so it is a clearly notable term. Now, whether this should be merged into Political terrorism is another story, which is a fair option, but that should be discussed separately. --Masem (t) 13:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There can be no doubt that the subject is notable. I don't see any point in merging it as it's a notable subject in its own right. I agree with those suggesting it should not be used as a list but just include a few notable examples. It needs to be sourced on multiple clearly reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Some topics are complex and have many subtopics, so you need different articles about related things. It wouldn't make any sense to marge this into political terrorism. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It is well cited and for reasons stated above it seems to be an insightful article that maintains a general NPOV. To force the mountains of context and citations for left and right wing terrorism into one space, "political terrorism", could lead to more disputes about prominence, pecking order and so forth. Not to mention it would be a pain to read if you are only looking for one or the other. DN (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid spin-off of larger topic, complete with ample sources describing the sub-topic in detail. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SPINOFF. Does not appear to be a POVFORK. The argument that you can't define left- and right-wing would mean TNTing a huge swatch of articles because, like it or not, that split is ubiquitous in modern sources and has been for roughly two centuries. Most of the other valid arguments are opportunities to improve this article, Political terrorism, or Terrorism itself, not for deleting the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not see any policy based reasons for deletion for the two articles on left and right wing terrorism. The topics' notability is established by the academic sourcing. Some of the delete voters seem to think that the articles' content is based on what editors consider to be left or right wing. But the sources say the perpetrators' objective must be establishing a socialist/communist state or a fascist/rw authoritarian state respectively. The literature explains how ideology determines the types of participants, their choice of targets and other features. While the terms left, right and terrorism may be ambiguous, it is an etymological fallacy to assume that means terms using those words must also be ambiguous. TFD (talk) 21:32, 4 August 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. While POV-forking can be a legitimate concern with such a topic, there is clear consensus here that this is a valid spinoff about a subtopic of the broader article on political terrorism, and as such there is no strong argument to delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing terrorism

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

This is a POV fork of Political terrorism. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other political terrorism material. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to Political terrorism. This has been previously discussed at AfD and the consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. AlanStalk 08:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If all the political terrorism articles (there are seven) were merged into Terrorism, the length of that article would require new articles be created for them.
Left wing terrorism is distinguished from other types of political terrorism not only by its objectives, but also the its organization, types of targets chosen and other factors.
TFD (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, but the problem with calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing" is very much issue of perspective, a point of view. For example if you're in the United States most of the population might refer to the Republicans as "right-wing" and the Democrats as "left-wing", whereas a lot of the rest of the world (the other 7.5 billion of us) would probably say that both US parties are very definitely hard-right. It's all a matter of perspective. So when you start calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing", whether you like it or not you're taking a perspective. There is no objective position on this. AlanStalk 15:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, in the case of left-wing terrorism, scholars do not consider it to be a matter of perspective at all: left-wing terrorism is typically defined as terrorism with the specific aim of overthrowing capitalism. Action Directe, Baader-Meinhof, etc. You could also list various nationalist movements that intend to overthrow a colonialist/imperialist/etc government with socialist/communist rule, like the Official Irish Republican Army or the FLQ, though these mostly tend to be discussed primarily as nationalist groups. -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terrorism studies, left wing terrorist refers specifically to revolutionary socialist or communist groups who intend to use terrorism in order to start a revolution. That is clearly explained in the article and its many sources. It's unfortunate that terrorism scholars use concepts that some Americans might find confusing, but that's not a criterion for deletion.
Americans indeed use the terms left and right as slurs on their opponents. They also call each other socialists and fascists. It doesn't mean that those terms have no meaning. TFD (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a fine WP:SPINOFF given content length of related articles, does not appear to be a POVFORK. If you do notice NPOV issues like UNDUE weight, it's worth bringing them up in the article talk page. Note previous AFD is more than 15 years old. —siroχo 10:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons elaborated above. I appreciate the difficulty of maintaining NPOV given the level of controversy both around xxx-wing and "terrorism," but the controversies should be discussed in the article rather than glossed over. Leifern (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i think this is a well-reasoned AfD proposal, and, as was said in the previous AfD proposal's comments:

    The problem isn't the content per se, but that the topical description begs the question. The editors should consider restructuring things and either folding it into other articles on terrorism or creating a new one around "political pretexts for terrorism" or some such title. While I appreciate the effort of creating balance, I don't think it'll work here.

    commie (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Note that Right-wing terrorism also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

  • Keep Meets all criteria for a separate article. Addressing the AFD rationale, this is a "sub article" (rather than a POV fork) on a topic that is so huge that it needs sub-articles. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with Right-wing terrorism, merge them back into Political terrorism. If Political terrorism needs to be split, split it by continent or country or some other geographic basis, not by left-right. The result of this current split is inevitably to remove context: to show terror acts by each side of the left-right spectrum independent of what the other might be doing. Also: there is a great deal of political terrorism where it may be very difficult to categorize it objectively as left/right, especially where it remains controversial exactly who were the perpetrators (the assassination of Malcolm X being a clear example of this). And what about times when those who might best be characterized as centrists used terror tactics (I'm thinking of the consolidation of the royal regime of Carol II in Romania in the late 1930s. And is it really still "leftist" terrorism when you had the factional fighting of the last months of the rule of the Committee of Public Safety in the French revolution, especially when René Hébert was executed? - Jmabel | Talk 15:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article needs some work, but there is much more worth keeping than when discussed in 2006. This is a fairly widely discussed concept, and the article could and should include discussion of how the term is used - what acts are described as left-wing terrorism, and by whom? We shouldn't be shy of having articles on controversial or contested concepts, so long as there is appropriate context. Warofdreams talk 20:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as this is focused on the broader aspect of the term with a few well-agreed on examples from academic sources, this is a reasonable article alongside the "right-wing terrorism" article. There's a large number of Google Scholar hits so it is a clearly notable term within academics. Now, whether this should be merged into Political terrorism is another story, which is a fair option, but that should be discussed separately. --Masem (t) 13:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not sure what bias the nominator is implying. I'm also concerned by the nom's comment that the problem with calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing" is very much issue of perspective. We're not talking about whether or not offering free school lunch or expanding Medicare is left- or right-wing. We're talking about whether Marxist-Leninist terrorists are left wing. This is only a matter of perspective if you're a) further left than Marxist-Leninists, an already quite far left position, or b) simply ignoring how "left-wing terrorism" is defined by academic sources. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering do most of wiki's editors who reside in the US get that? Fully a third of the population in the the US considers Bernie Sanders and AOC to be communists when by what you and I consider to be objective standards it's questionable if they even rate as socialists. This is the same population that are mostly editing these articles. AlanStalk 00:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AlanS so what you're saying is, because some Americans aren't experts on a topic, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it? I don't see how this makes any sense. When we edit Wikipedia we're supposed to write using what reliable sources say about a topic, not what a clueless minority thinks or doesn't think about a topic. -- asilvering (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering I can find sources from the US, which consensus says are reliable sources, which refer to Bernie Sanders as a communist. When everything and anything can be either left-wing or right-wing given the POV that someone is willing to push we can end up with messes. I think it best to have an article about political terrorism and remove any POV forking. AlanStalk 11:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide a reliable source that describes Sanders as a communist, because I have not seen any. TFD (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Washington Times has referred to him as a Communist here. WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists The Washington Times as a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Might not be the best source but is still listed as a reliable source. I didn't even search that hard. I hope I've highlighted the problem. AlanStalk 13:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an opinion piece in a paper listed as "marginally reliable". That does not highlight the problem with consensus or reliable sources. Also, again, we are talking about left-wing terrorism here, not whether it's communist to eliminate private health insurance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "marginally reliable" is still reliable and the page we're currently discussing is a page to do with politics which the Washington Times has numerous coverage on. There can be issues with reliable sources and the way in which people selectively look for them in order to suit their POV. I selectively looked for one that called Bernie Sanders a communist and I found it and I don't hold that POV. AlanStalk 00:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the publication, it fails rs because of Wikipedia:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
    The editorial is by Tim Scott, former governor of Wisconsin.
    Not every fact claimed by every politician in an editorial is true. Some politicians for example claim global warming is real, others say it isn't. They can't all be right. And reliability of course means that we can assume their statements are correct. TFD (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It says something about the rest of the material for the whole of the publication (opinion piece or not) if they publish rubbish like that. AlanStalk 04:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that probably accounts for why they're listed as "marginally reliable". -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There can be no doubt that the subject is notable. I don't see any point in merging it as it's a notable subject in its own right. IIt needs to be sourced on multiple clearly reliable sources. Ignorance of some editors is never a reason to delete an article. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is a very clearly defined subtopic that shouldn't be merged. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:SPINOFF. Like the right-wing article, this does not appear to be a POVFORK. The argument that you can't define left- and right-wing would mean TNTing a huge swatch of articles because, like it or not, that split is ubiquitous in modern sources and has been for roughly two centuries. The argument that you can't always discern the motive in a left-right fashin is a superb reason for keeping the two articles as spinoffs from Political terrorism. Most of the other valid arguments are opportunities to improve this article, Political terrorism, or Terrorism itself, not for deleting the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not see any policy based reasons for deletion for the two articles on left and right wing terrorism. The topics' notability is established by the academic sourcing. Some of the delete voters seem to think that the articles' content is based on what editors consider to be left or right wing. But the sources say the perpetrators' objective must be establishing a socialist/communist state or a fascist/rw authoritarian state respectively. The literature explains how ideology determines the types of participants, their choice of targets and other features. While the terms left, right and terrorism may be ambiguous, it is an etymological fallacy to assume that means terms using those words must also be ambiguous. TFD (talk) 21:31, 4 August 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 12:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Beck

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

The subject has made one appearance for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 08:21, 29 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 Gungrave. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Grave (Gungrave)

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

Another article being sourced properly and written well, but was build up with trivia articles/sources like passing mentions from games reviews. It has zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:20, 29 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! 06:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raqib Hameed Naik

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

Moved by NPP to draft more than once, restored to mainspace by its SPA creator, this article about a Kashmiri journalist does not pass WP:GNG, sourcing is to subject's own journalism or incidental mentions. Journalists journalling, regardless of the circumstances of their work, are not inherently notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Jammu and Kashmir. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe that Raqib Hameed Naik is a notable individual deserving of a Wikipedia page based on the evidence provided by several reputable sources. The deletion rationale stated that the article does not meet the WP:GNG (General Notability Guidelines), but I strongly disagree with this assessment. Allow me to present the following compelling evidence from reliable sources that demonstrate Raqib Hameed Naik's notability:
    1. The Washington Post: In an article published on here, a renowned international newspaper reported in-depth on Raqib Hameed Naik's work as the founder of HindutvaWatch.org. The article highlighted the importance and impact of his organization in tracking hate crimes committed by Hindus against Muslims, Christians, and lower-ranked castes in India. It emphasized the real-time data collection and the substantial number of instances cataloged, solidifying the significance of Raqib Hameed Naik's contributions.
    2. American Kahani: Another reliable publication, American Kahani, featured an in-depth profile of Raqib Hameed Naik on here. This article shed light on his journey as a Kashmiri Muslim journalist who had to flee India due to threats and harassment. It highlighted his activism, reporting on the rise of the Hindu right in America, and his work as the founder of HindutvaWatch.org. The piece underscored the challenges he faced and the importance of his mission to preserve evidence of human rights violations.
    3. Newslaundry: A statement issued by the Al Jazeera Media Network, condemning the death threats and harassment faced by Raqib Hameed Naik, was reported by Newslaundry here. This further attests to the attention and controversy surrounding his work, demonstrating that he has garnered recognition and support within the journalism community.
    These three sources, among others, exemplify the impact and notability of Raqib Hameed Naik's contributions as a journalist and activist. It is evident that his work has attracted significant attention both in India and internationally, emphasizing the importance of documenting his achievements on Wikipedia.
    There are many more coverage he was interviewed on various crucial occasions like on The Siasat Daily here, The Intercept here and more.
    As a respected platform for disseminating reliable information, Wikipedia plays a crucial role in sharing notable individuals' stories with the world. Raqib Hameed Naik's work in tracking hate crimes, his personal experiences, and the threats he has faced deserve recognition, as they highlight important issues of human rights, journalistic integrity, and freedom of expression.
    I think his notability is well-supported by multiple reliable sources, meeting the requirements of WP:GNG.
    Thanks and Regards. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete [27] Washington Post story about him, but that's all I could find. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. That's a relatively solid WP:THREE presented above.
  1. The Washington Post article relies a decent amount on subject interview, but there's enough reliably independent sigcov in it, a very rough estimate, after reomving attributed information and some "tangential" background would put it at 1000 words of SIGCOV.
  2. The Newslaundry piece seems mostly independent, with a couple choice quotes from subject/related entities. Call it 200 words of SIGCOV
  3. The American Kahani source does not seem to check the independent box it sources both the subject and the above Washington Post article too heavily.
So the strength of the first two sources along with other background from pieces like [28] seems to give us a good case for WP:BASIC
—siroχo 08:02, 22 July 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! 07:56, 29 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 13:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love Sex Aur Dhokha 2

edit
Love Sex Aur Dhokha 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF. Should be in DRAFT, but was moved there and then was moved back by the creator. Creator also removed PROD. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't soft-delete or re-draft because of the move back to mainspace by the creator, so relisting to establish clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:00, 22 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! 07:56, 29 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. North America1000 13:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Poker Rules

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

Nothing in the article suggests that this set or rules has stand-alone notability. BEFORE (GScholar) yields zero results, the article is referenced solely to the non-notable organization that created the rules and has just a single footnote. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't find a single notable tournament that has used these rules. —siroχo 11:48, 29 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. There are several various ideas herein regarding how to move forward with the article. Discussion about the article's focus, organization, rename ideas, etc. can be further discussed at Talk:Organizations of the Dune universe. North America1000 12:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations of the Dune universe

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

This is effectively a WP:ALLPLOT, WP:NLIST/WP:GNG failing plot summary of a fragment of the Dune universe (franchise), poorly defined as well (Fremen are not an "organization", nor are Mentats or the "Thinking machines" - likely those are artifacts from prior AfDs closed as mergers, pushing the problem down the road...). There is some content here that is off-topic but might be mergeable elsewhere, such as the sentence from the lead that "Herbert's concepts of human evolution and technology have been analyzed and deconstructed in at least one book, The Science of Dune (2008)" , but overall this is a fancrufty mess that at best can be SOFDELETED and redirected to Dune (franchise). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag – This article is fully sourced and provides a good overview to the series background and their universe. I think it would be good if it was trimmed and tagged for notability/real world info, such as what critics/audiences/readers/the authors and producers etc thought about it and the development and the reception. Also just making it seem less in universe would be a good idea in order to make it more relevant to the real world and more in line with notability standards. At the very least, this could be merged and redirected to the main series page under settings and context/plot, or draftified until it is cut and more Real world context is added. But I absolutely do *not* think it should be deleted.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and I'm amenable to replacing "organizations" with "factions". This list is the redirect destination for most of the listed topics, and was created as both a consolidation of smaller articles and a more detailed explanation of certain topics beyond what could be adequately covered in Dune (franchise) or Glossary of Dune (franchise) terminology. The factions listed here are pretty key to the franchise and can be complex to understand. I think any sourcing or notability issues will be easy to resolve, because with the advent of the Villeneuve films, there is a lot more media coverage available on some of these topics than when the list was created.— TAnthonyTalk 18:57, 29 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 List of Dune characters. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Wensicia

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

Nothing in this article suggest the notability of this character. Following a description of the character (plot summary), there is some discussion of how the character was portrayed in the 2003 miniseries. The latter part could be merged there, perhaps (our article here suggests her role was very well received and might even deserve a subsection the article about the series), while this could be SOFTDELETE redirected to the List of Dune characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 29 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 Dune characters. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dune Bene Gesserit

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

There is no reason this is seperate from the List of Dune characters. Prior AfD ended with a weird close that implied we should merge this, but that hasn't happened. Let's try this again - I suggest merge or SOFTDELETE redirect with no prejudice to folks merging what they like from the article's history. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 29 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 Dune characters. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dune secondary characters

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

A common problem with lists of secondary characters is pure OR in determining who is "secondary". In the spirit of WP:SOFTDELETE, the OR issues can likely be solved by merging this to List of Dune characters. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objections to merging... but merging should never be an excuse to eliminate certain characters as "non notable" (the list is notable, the characters need not be). Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the relationship between the two lists is problematic, in that List of Dune characters really doesn't give any descriptions at all, and there is definitely overlap. I suspect that the list under discussion was constructed as a merger of formerly independent articles, and simply omits the "major" characters not merged. If there's to be a change, adding the rest of the characters into this list in a WP:SS fashion, while renaming the nominal "main" list into a List of Dune franchise appearances or something similar in that it does not serve the purpose most would expect from a Wikipedia characters article. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article seems to be primarily character bio / plot summary, with a bit of secondary analysis, and essentially no tertiary analysis. It's pretty in-depth and curated, and I don't know if we are able to transwiki it anywhere but it doesn't really belong here. If there is secondary coverage from which we can construct tertiary analysis, tagging or draftifying would be an option. At the very least let's redirect as an ATD because we don't need to delete history. I do wonder if the article as it stands would fit at Wikibooks, as it's a pretty well done version of what it is (but not an encyclopedia article) —siroχo 07:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a common problem for many lists of characters, which are nothing but plot summaries. An issue overdue for Village Pump or a major RfC or such, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how best to organize these, but the list articles seem useful to bring together the various individual characters that have a bit of coverage but don't need a stand-alone article. The main list contains little actual information about the characters, and the Dune universe strikes me as one of a relatively small number of fictional universes that could sustain more detailed sub-lists. I take the nominator's point about determining "secondary", but a merge into the main list would start to make it unwieldy. Having only read the first of the books, I don't know the universe well enough to propose an alternative. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a reformatted List of Dune characters. Jclemens is correct that this list is a merge/consolidation of individual articles for notable characters that at the time weren't quite substantial enough to warrant standalone articles. I'd like to boldly reformat List of Dune characters to something like the featured List of The Mandalorian characters (and similar lists), and merge in the content from this list and List of Dune Bene Gesserit. Unwieldiness is a concern because over time I've already pared down the entries in both lists, but I really think it can work (I've considered doing it in the past). Plus with the advent of the Villeneuve films, there is also a lot more media coverage available on some of these characters than when the list was created. I'm ready to start working on this immediately. I will begin the reformat of the main list today (that should be done anyway), and will hold off on any major merges until I have some confirmation here that I won't be disrupting the AfD. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 18:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus, are you willing to withdraw this nom to allow TAnthony's proposed work--without prejudice to immediately refiling a future request if that doesn't happen? Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would conclusion of the AfD as merge not be the same? I'd be happy to close it as such (or see anyone else do so). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge based on discussion above. I understand the concern about starting the work before the AFD has concluded, but Wikipedia isn't a WP:BUREAUCRACY. I'd encourage an expansion of the main article regardless, and hopefully a consensus will emerge to support that. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:59, 31 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. ✗plicit 01:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. Q. M. Zainul Abedin

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

Searches of the usual Google types and a dozen WP:TWL databases, in English and Bengali, found only the reliable sources already cited. There are two brief obituaries (67 and 72 words). How much weight should the obituaries be given with respect to notability? There's a brief mention that he was detained overnight on charges of defamation, a brief quote of him, and a link to one of the two newspapers he edited, showing his name on the masthead (the other, Dainik Kishan, had a circulation of 3,000 in the late 1970s, neither appears notable). We have inclusion criteria because enough people need to have written about a person for a full and balanced biographical article to be constructed. If the subject were notable, then he would have been written about in greater depth. Worldbruce (talk) 05:01, 22 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! 05:40, 29 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! 07:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica–Turkey relations

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

Created by a now blocked editor. Most of the actual diplomatic relations in the article isn't specifically about relations between Turkey and Jamaica. The only thing noteworthy is a bit of trade but that is minuscule compared to the size of the Turkish economy. Lastly the banned editor had a habit of adding extraordinary long reading list none of which refers to Turkey. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. No good refs.
More importantly, there just doesn't seem to be much of a relationship. The countries recognize each other legally but neither has an embassy. Turkish Airlines flies to 124 countries; Jamaica is not one of them. Jamaican imports from Turkey <2% of total imports. Jamaican exports to Turkey were minuscule: $500,000. On the Turkish side the percentages are infinitesimal.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:33, 29 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! 01:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yonatan Goitum

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

There is no independent, significant coverage on this football player. Fails wp:gng. By the way, according to the external link, the last name is Goitom, not Goitum. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:25, 22 July 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! 04:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little coverage to meet Wikipedia:NSPORT. Only two pages of sources, all I'm seeing is name on name lists and minor references that won't be SIGCOV. Karnataka (talk) 07:15, 29 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. North America1000 14:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musk family

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

After having done a quick scan through of this page and checking sources it seems readily apparent that this article shouldn't really exist. The only content is basically that you'd really expect to find on the "Musk (disambiguation)" page in terms of links to articles of people with the same surname with a short summary. Instead now all you see is only Elon Musk and then a link to this page, just complicating the process and in effect making other articles less prominent artificially.

So far, despite existing for more than a year, there has been little addition of content or subject scope that would necessitate the need for an article on a prominent "family", such as the Kennedys or Bushes for example where the detail of them as families stretches back into the 1800s in terms of family prominence in cultural/political life.

As a result I would suggest that this article be deleted and the list of "notable members" be instead moved to the disambiguation page. Apache287 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • So far, the Musks are only about the current generation. They are wealthy, but nothing suggests they are a dynasty. And other than Elon, their contributions really have no great affect on our culture. The Bush family are a political dynasty whose actions have had impacts on both our economy and our foreign relations, including the responsibility of putting us back on our feet after the 9-11 attacks. The Rockefellers, Kennedys and Roosevelts were dynasties whose individual and collective contributions re-shaped this country and its culture, and in the case of the Kennedys, are still at it. The Roosevelts, collectively and as individuals, changed our culture. It can certainly be argued that America was in such dire straits after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that the country was vulnerable to a political overthrow by a foreign government. FDR's four administrations put people to work and moved us forward. — Maile (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are actually two generations represented with articles, not just one. Jahaza (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. These are the times when I wish I could act on my own opinion but this discussion is clearly divided right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SWinxy, I have to be careful. When I first started closing AFDs, I could be glib in my closure statement and that got me brought to Deletion Review which is to admins what being called to ANI is to editors. I was accused of "super voting" so it's best to keep my opinions to myself. If I have a strong opinion, I participate in the discussion and don't handle closures. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 2 August 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. North America1000 11:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Masood Dakik

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

This article was deleted in 2020 per WP:GNG and WP:BIO [33]. It had been created by a notorious sockpuppeteer, whose sock now has recreated this article. See [34] for more information.

Although Sultan Masood Dakik has allegedly received Germany's Federal Cross of Merit (cant access the cited source to verify it), I still fail to see how thats enough to warrant having an article. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The source confirming the award[35] can be accessed freely, just select "RP Basic" on the subscription options screen. That said, the award may require confirmation in an official source, as this article alone feels insufficient. However, if the subject has indeed received the Federal Cross of Merit, then it may be enough for them to have an article on Wikipedia per WP:ANYBIO. — kashmīrī TALK 01:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC) The subject has received the lowest class of the Federal Order which, being distributed en masse (several per day), per discussion below does not translate into automatic notability for Wikipedia. Edited: — kashmīrī TALK 13:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. According to Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, 200,000 people have received this award which really deprives the award of its notability and distinction. Is that the only factor that establishes this subject's notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Darn. All right. I'm not thrilled at spending even more time trying to justify the retention of some sockmaster's bad-faith creation, but I think we still have sufficient article material here: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. All are bylined reports in respected German newspapers, entirely about the article subject and meeting WP:SIGCOV in that no OR is required in order to extract the content. Most contain a substantial amount of biographical information. Outside Germany, here is some English-language coverage from Pajhwok Afghan News: [41], [42]. There's more, but I don't think it adds much. Overall it seems to me that we have significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, thus meeting WP:NBASIC. -- Visviva (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN and WP:NOTPROMO, and also because creator and main contributor has engaged in long-time disruption of Wikipedia and article has been created in violation of socking policy. Primarily, I struggle to find any policy-based rationale to keep this poorly sourced biography. The articles offered by Visviva are without the slightest doubt promotional:
  • Dakik offering his COVID-19 vaccination slot to his employee[43]. The entire article is dedicated, you've guessed it, to a praise of Dakik, how selfless and noble he was by offering his vaccination slot to his employee. Yes, seriously.
  • A "royal" wanting to help refugees [44]. The whole article is about Dakik's expressed desire to "help refugees", and obviously about his Cross of Merit. It's not about any actual help; just about his desire.
  • Two of the remaining three articles again give no reason why the person should be notable; any of his achievements. They just start from the Cross and then try to present recipient's biography, which in itself doesn't feel remarkable. The fifth article is paywalled.
Worth noting that, to the best of my knowledge, the titles "royal", "prince", etc., have a different meaning in the context of Pashtun tribes than in Europe. There, they are commonly used by all people who belong to one of many Pashtun clans that claim royal ancestors of centuries ago. Such titles there are rather a family/clan tale than actual titles of nobility in the European sense. In this case, the Dakik family call themselves "royal" because they claim they have descended from Hasan al-Askari, one of Muhammad's successors in Shia Islam. But calling Dakik a royal in Wikipedia voice, or in news, is peacock; he's unrelated to the King of Afghanistan. — kashmīrī TALK 15:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmiri, "Soft deletion" is only possible is certain situations: When there has been low participation in an AFD discussion, when the article has not been PROD'd and when there have been no Keep votes. So it is not possible as an outcome in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, thanks for explaining, @Liz. — kashmīrī TALK 13:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'll leave it at this: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a rationale for deletion. If you really want to claim that six different reporters for four different media outlets in two different countries are all in the pocket of the article subject, you're going to need to come forward with actual evidence. If you want to claim that articles entirely about the article subject do not qualify as sigcov, then I guess that's an opinion you are entitled to have but it is definitely not supported by the actual language of the guideline. -- Visviva (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the lowest grade of the Verdienstkreuz, I don't think the Verdienstkreuz am Bande satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1. It's the equivalent of an MBE in British terms, which we have always considered to be well below the level required. About 1,000 crosses are given out every year, and it used to be as many as 4,000 every year. I would say that the Großes Verdienstkreuz would be the lowest grade to satisfy ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see no rough consensus, darn it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Visviva's excellent work digging up solid refs
(as well as his rejoinder to the implausible allegation that 6 independent journalists were in promotional cahoots).
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody suggested cahoots. It's just that the articles are all promotional, rising to the level of absurdity (e.g., title: "Royal visit to Sangerhausen"[45], when the subject has nothing to do with Afghani royalty), and so they are unreliable to establish notability. — kashmīrī TALK 08:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Positive ≠ promotional and admiring ≠ promotional when written by an independent journalist with editorial oversight at a reliable source.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Yet these articles are promotional, as there's no objective reason for such admiration. — kashmīrī TALK 09:31, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arupusu monogatari Yasei

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

Obscure film, on which there is conflicting information in Japanese Movie and Kinenote database, no further reliable sources could be found, also notability questionable. Robert Kerber (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have we checked for sources in the Japanese language? Chamaemelum (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese Movie Database and Kinenote are both Japanese language sources and the only reliable ones I found. Robert Kerber (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found a decent number of additional website sources (in Japanese), albeit not great ones to your point. However, I found many mentions of this movie in print in Japanese. Search for the shorter name, and then combine this with a name out of the directors/actors/etc. to narrow it down. Doing this yields lots of information about the film, which is my reason for keep. Print images of the film also sell for small amounts on occasion, for what it's worth as a "who cares about this" indicator. Chamaemelum (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chamaemelum Although I still vote for a delete, in case I'm overruled: can you tell me under which title the film is listed in the majority of sources you found? The JMDb and the poster on the MPPAJ site give the longer title, Kinenote the shorter one. Depending on which title version is more common, the article's title and intro section should be updated. Robert Kerber (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The shorter title is what I found more information on. My keep is weak; it's more like "there is a possibility of something here". I cannot do a good job of assessing Japanese print secondary sources, and someone more well-versed in Japanese could inform us if they are in passing, notable, etc. There were also search hits for encyclopedias of Japanese film which I couldn't read at all. Chamaemelum (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an author of the article I feel I need to write something. It does not matter to delete few articles for a good reason. It matter to delete article with such very vague reasons! It may became a very poisonous precedent with unexpected consequences. Decide wisely. I think, that all 48 films by Kaneto Shindo are notable in the same way as for example all films by Ridley Scott are considered notable. I created number of articles like this including posters. Poster did not just made article much more beautiful. Posters provided much more informative and cultural insight about the film. Unfortunately Copyright laws changed RECIPROCALLY and posters had to be deleted from Wikipedia. It has taken me much time and effort to create article like this, because I am not Japanese speaker. Would you be able to write and article like this without Japanese language knowledge based on Japanese sources only? It is very unfortunate, that there are virtually no English language internet sources. So we have to stitch to Japanese sources. I do not see the point why the article should be deleted when I see, that nominator himself is creating similar articles of the same number and quality of sources. Be a bit respectful to work of other cultures and wikipedians and tolerant to articles fighting cultural WP:BIAS and keep it. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I see, that nominator himself is creating similar articles of the same number and quality of sources" – A statement which I reject firmly, considering the fact that your articles have repeatedly been nominated for deletion for lack of notability, poor referencing and other reasons. Also, the reason why I proposed this article for AfD is anything but vague. Please stick to the facts instead of spreading polemics. Robert Kerber (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I think - I don't speak Japanese, but it's easy to tell the three blue-linked sources currently in the article are all database sites which don't pass GNG. One of them says through Google translate the movie has not been reviewed by anyone. I cannot access the fourth source. Granted it is an older film, but a database entry suggesting the film wasn't notable enough to be reviewed, combined with no sources which clearly pass GNG, combined with a maximum of one source that can even be assumed to pass GNG. I just voted weak keep on a different article about an older subject in a foreign language, and I don't mind draftifying this, but the other subject clearly demonstrated there were other sources out there besides databases, and this one hasn't. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with @SportingFlyer's reasoning; the sources themselves can't prove the notability of the subject. GuardianH (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a lost film, and as such, I have mixed feelings about using things like online film databases as grounds for its notability or lack thereof. There is information available, such as what the filming locations were in Gifu and who did the stunt work for Hara Setsuko, and the film has a listing in Jiji Tsushin's Eiga nenkan from 1952 (a very reliable source), but it seems like what's really needed here in order to show notability is things like box office returns and reviews from the time. Those sorts of things are all going to be in old print sources in this case. Notability is permanent and the film itself is likely to be notable, so I would suggest that recreation in the future is a realistic possibility here. Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete The article consists of a plot one liner and nothing else. Nothing significant in article. DareshMohan (talk) 18:09, 21 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! 00:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, I consider myself to be more an inclusionist than deletionist – I even had an argument once with a user who proposed the deletion of an article of mine on a documentary film about an important experimental music group (Throbbing Gristle) which had played several festivals and was aired on television.
What I see here is a film which is not only lost, but seemingly had no impact to speak of during its initial run (i.e. for being an object of debate for political, cultural or other reasons), did not touch a subject matter which was debated, saw no distinction by receiving awards, invitations to festivals or particularly positive or negative reviews (if at all), was not of importance for the careers of the people involved, and had no a re-run of any sort (as a re-release or part of a retrospective). As far as I can see, it has been mentioned retrospectively in one book by Jun'ichirō Tanaka (thanks to research by Chamaemelum), but without reviewing it (for obvious reasons); also, said source does not indicate any importance for Japanese cinema at the time per se, for a genre, a subject matter, or the filmographies of anyone involved in the production. All very sparse, in my opinion.Robert Kerber (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I don't see a good reason to delete this, as the movie doesn't fail notability enough to justify removing its page. It is currently way to "stubby" though, and should be expanded.
DarmaniLink (talk) 02:12, 26 July 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! 04:30, 29 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. ✗plicit 01:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainer (The Belle Stars song)

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

I do not think this meets the criteria for WP:NSONG as it appears to have virtually no coverage online from any notable sources. It also appears to have only barely charted in one country. Yellowfrog81 (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time to look through all of them, but the Internet Archive has a long list of potential sources which could be of use to this article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I looked through the sources on the Internet Archive and it seems that most of them only list very basic information about the song (e.g. "The Belle Stars came out with a new single called "The Entertainer"") and do not discuss it in depth. I only found one article which provides a description of the song's music video, but I do not believe that information would give the Wikipedia article adequate substance. Yellowfrog81 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed, no opinions have need voiced
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Analog coverage issue here, but signs point toward it meeting GNG.
    1. From the article, [46]
    2. A bit of SIGCOV about how the band was glad to work with a woman producer who let them play their own instruments resulting in this single. [47]
    3. Here is a blog quoting a review of the single in a magazine [48]. Here's another blog that suggest the issue of that magazine it was printed in.[49] Seems pretty likely this review exists.
    4. "Visual coverage" where where a youth magazine published the lyrics with a photo and some art [50]
—siroχo 05:02, 29 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. North America1000 11:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno PlayHard

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

YouTuber, Twitch streamer. Nominated for an esports Brazil award, didn't win it. Not notable, fails WP:GNG - coverage owned media, self-fulfilling platforms or passing mentions in gamer titles. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't create the article here, but I'm the original creator on ptwiki. It clearly meets WP:GNG with presence of significant coverage on [51] [52] [53]. Plus, he appeared on Forbes Brasil's 30 Under 30. Skyshifter talk 23:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With only one keep !vote I'd like a little more input before closing one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Loud (esports), though I would weakly support for deletion. There is enough for me to say that he passes GNG. That is, there seems to be enough interest in the Brazilian media from the refs in the article (WP:THREE: 1 2 3). They're not all great, but they demonstrate to me some notability. SWinxy (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete‎ as a copyright violation Whpq (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conserve Italia

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

Recently re-created after draftifying. As written, violates WP:NOTADVERT and would require WP:TNT even if sources are found. Current sources do not meet WP:NCORP. A quick WP:BEFORE shows a lot of routine coverage, nothing that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:SIRS. —siroχo 04:17, 29 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 do not find the keep arguments persuasive, especially in the face of the strongly-argued responses to them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Beranton Whisenant

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

No in-depth, significant coverage; this was a tragedy, but the encyclopedia is not an obituary page. There was some (mostly local) news coverage of the suicide in 2017. If you look at the revision history, the page was created to promote disinformation: namely, false claims that that Mr. Whisenant was murdered. As one short article briefly notes some far-right posters on "Reddit and 4chan" promoted this claim/innuendo. WP:PROD was declined a few years back by a user spewing the same innuendo. Neutralitytalk 03:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think one Newsweek article meets the "significant, in-depth coverage" criteria. And note that the quality of Newsweek took a nosedive since 2018. This 2019 article from the Columbia Journalism Review details how Newsweek fired most of its senior journalists and embraced clickbait, "viral headlines," and SEO. This article from 2020 called Newsweek a "zombie publication, whose former legitimacy is used to launder extreme and conspiratorial ideas." There are very serious problems using post-2017 Newsweek stories as hooks for notability determinations. Neutralitytalk 17:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newsweek is not the only Reference. I have just put all the Key Facts and References that have been deleted on the talk page, before they are returned to the page. This is very common, deleting all the References from the time of the event and then later someone asks the page to be removed.Telecine Guy (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Political cruft, non-notable individual except for theories of his death. When you read through all the sourcing, this was just one more unproven conspiracy theory that one political party tried to hang on Hillary Clinton and the DNC. In that place and time, and even now, the evening news is full of candidates labeling everything a conspiracy with a trail that points to anyone who is on the opposite side of the continuing political divide in the United States. It's the current thing, if you want to make the news, claim you are the victim of a conspiracy - and dead people can't complain when you drop their name into it.— Maile (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) One of few American federal prosecutors to die in office. 2) This deletion discussion ALREADY, happened in the past at the time the page was created in 2017‎ and 2021, and the vote was to keep the page (see #1). Wikipedia has a problem, if pages can be asked to be deleted over 4 years after they are made and many have edited. 3) The page needs to be fixed (not deleted), the "Conspiracy theory" lasted only till the causes of death was finalized. This fact was in the page, along with how it was found to be a Suicide, but these facts have since been deleted. Having facts and good refs here helps the conspiracy theory to go away.Telecine Guy (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This attracted some minor attention from mainstream news due to his job, but the overwhelming attention is due to conspiracist nonsense that didn't even last. Per WP:DUE, we have nothing to form a biography of this person outside his death & the conspiracies around it. And there is not enough for an encyclopedic article about this event, because it's not even a significant conspiracy theory, just another random attempt to draw lines towards whichever political figures certain people hate. That is not going to fly for an article here. Even the "Keep" argument above by Telecine Guy states the "Conspiracy theory" lasted only till the causes of death was finalized. That's the definition of a flash-in-the-pan, not a significant long-lasting event that would qualify for an article. The creation of the article suffered from recentism, and now we're stuck cleaning up the mess. The argument that it's a bad thing articles can be deleted over 4 years after they are made and many have edited is irrelevant. We still occasionally stumble across articles from Wikipedia's early cowboy days that wind up getting deleted because they're just not suitable. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On initial review this seems to badly fail SBST. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the few articles in TWL and Newspapers.com as well and in my opinion this article the creation of the article contravenes clearly established policy, some of which also touched on in our notability guidelines. Even if some of those policies may not necessarily apply any longer, I cannot see retention as justified. It is not clear that the subject even has any credible claims of significance, though I do not believe pursuing A7 would be worthwhile. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SENSATION, WP:ONEEVENT, etc. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag/conspiracy theory clearinghouse. jps (talk) 13:25, 4 August 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'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Game Boy Micro

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

Per similar rationale as this: [57] Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:48, 29 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. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Entertainment System models

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

merge to main NES article, as Variations of the Sega Mega Drive simply redirects to a condensed Sega Genesis#Variations, helpful if NES wants to gain GA status. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:35, 29 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. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Famiclone

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

Has very little notable stuff in it, better to merge it to the main NES article. A lot of cruft that few people in the general public that the encyclopedia serves would be interested in it. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:29, 29 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. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS Lite

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

Per similar rationale to this: [58] Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:27, 29 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. I'm nipping this in the bud. Multiple bad AFDs opened in rapid succession by a just unblocked editor. None of these are going to result in a delete or merge. -- ferret (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Game Boy Advance SP

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

The vast majority of article is just technical stuff that few would care about, I would suggest moving it to the main GBA article. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:26, 29 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. (non-admin closure) — Karnataka talk 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Prater (attorney)

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

Surely, district attorneys in individual counties of US states are not inherently notable. Surely. I mean, come on. HiDrNick! 02:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, should be about notable ones, wp is not indiscriminate information.--Grandmaster Huon (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Oklahoma. Kpgjhpjm 06:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There's no need to answer nom's Q about district attorneys to argue that this one is notable. The article is extensively sourced with many statewide papers and three national sources: two from AP and one from WaPo. It's hard to imagine a good reason or any reason at all why this ought to be deleted. Central and Adams (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG due to various coverage beyond the normal scope of job duties, including petitions to have subject investigated by a grand jury. Sources already linked in article. —siroχo 10:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nom is right that district attorneys in individual counties of US states aren't inherently notable, but in this case the subject has the coverage to meet GNG. Sources are already in the article. User:Let'srun 18:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough WP:RS coverage of Prater to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL (as a major local politician). Plus, Prater was the DA of Oklahoma County (the largest county in the state) for over a decade. The OK County DA handles things like corruption prosecutions and investigations since the capitol is in the county. It's the most prominent DA position in the state and he held it for a decade. He investigated Terry O'Donnell (politician) during his corruption scandal and is a major voice in Oklahoma's criminal justice debates. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:43, 29 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greer Barnes (soccer)

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

Former professional soccer player who played a total of 270 minutes of gametime. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This and this is not enough, and I believe this local piece fails WP:YOUNGATH. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 29 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. ✗plicit 01:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Olmi

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

Subject does not meet the GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Falls into WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:49, 29 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. ✗plicit 01:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Kentucky Teen America Organization

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

Does not meet WP:ORG or any WP:GNG. Sources in the article are either primary or are about individuals competing in beauty pageants, not the organization itself. Let'srun (talk) 00:38, 29 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. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged from this discussion. North America1000 11:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most visited websites

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

Non-notable list of websites, sourced to 1 company's rankings. Does not seem to be a useful list. Natg 19 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. Natg 19 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOR and WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajf773: Do you mind elaborating on how either one of those apply here? The article does not appear to contain original research, and even if it did that would warrant the removal of the original research, not the deletion of the article. As for WP:NOTSTATS, this not an unexplained listing of statistics and this article follows the advice of that page, which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. I don't see how either one of those applies, let alone would warrant deletion of the article. - Aoidh (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Alexa list was frequently cited by others. This is not an editor's original research, but a report of what two companies that are very good at measuring website audiences have learned. If you have ever told someone that Wikipedia is the world's seventh most visited website, you were probably quoting Alexa's data. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But Alexa is defunct, and this article makes no further mention of it, so how is this relevant? And it's not "a report of..." (one company now, not two...did you even look at this?), it's merely a copy of a list they provide. You say that they're very good at measuring website audiences, but how do you know that? There's no independent auditing of their methods, discussion of uncertainty, etc. This is the kind of thing you need for notability, and even then, it'd be about their list as a topic unto itself, not grounds to just copy its contents into a WP article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article absolutely meets WP:NLIST, as websites such as Digg, local news, specialist news and others regularly discuss "list of most visited website" as a group. The first time this article was nominated for deletion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular websites and I don't see anything new that would change notability of this as an article's subject. The article currently relies on a single source which is a potential issue, but it is a surmountable one that does not warrant deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the topic of the article isn't "most visited websites", it's "Similarweb's list of top 50 websites", which is very different. And just because a couple brief posts make brief mention of this does not mean it's worthy of an article. That's not how GNG (or NLIST) works. There needs to be significant, secondary, in-depth coverage. In this case, I'd expect such coverage to talk about Similarweb's methodology, possibly with criticism thereof, the usefulness of the rankings, etc etc. None of that seems to exist. This is an article about a single product of a single company...nay, not even about it, merely a copy of it...without any of the secondary sourcing it needs to sustain an article. Stuff like this is routinely deleted. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's subject unambiguously meets WP:NLIST, and your assessment of reliable sources covering this topic is not borne out by the sources themselves. This article for example does into quite a bit of detail about why the top sites are what they are and how AI might be affecting that. It is unquestioningly a secondary source, as per WP:SECONDARY A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, which this source absolutely does. Also, you don't need to respond to every single keep rationale presented; we get fully that you disagree, and that's fine. You've made your point, and for one I do not agree with any of the rationales presented in any way; the rationales you're giving are a surmountable problems that do not warrant deletion of the article. Neither WP:GNG nor WP:NLIST require the types of sources you're expecting with methodology and such; this is not a WP:GAN that requires broad coverage of each aspect of the subject, it is WP:AFD, and no part of the notability guidelines require those types of sources just to show notability of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The article's subject unambiguously meets WP:NLIST ...". No, it does not. As I stated in multiple places, the article's subject is not "most visited websites"; it is "copy of Similarweb's list of top 50 websites". If you want it to be the former, there is no sourcing, because we have no way to measure that other than this one company's opaque tallying. If the latter, then there's no way it can possibly pass any sort of notability guideline. You say the rationales I've given are surmountable. But a complete lack of sources and notability is not surmountable. There is no reporting on Similarweb's data collection whatsoever. This is not surmountable. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "But a complete lack of sources and notability is not surmountable" that is true, but also inapplicable to this article since it has both. Your response is very simply not borne out by the sources. The "coverage of methodology" standard you're trying to apply is not found in any applicable notability guideline. - Aoidh (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes. This is not a list of most visited websites, but a reprinting of one single company's such list. As far as I can find, they offer no information on their methodology, other than a snazzy diagram full of buzzwords. This is an automatic fail of WP:V, a core content policy. Nor is it clear what counts as a "website". Do pages at code.google.com count under google.com? They don't say. The top 50 merely contains main domain names (under either TLDs, or sub-TLDs, like co.jp, whatever those are called exactly), so it's unclear if it's actually counting sites, or merely conglomerations of pages under the same domain. Not only that, but this is primarily just a commercial venture...this fairly minimal free public data is just there as a free sample to sell richer analytics. Not only not only that, but this list is constantly in flux, since the only source updates its list (which this one is merely a copy of) every month. This has zero encyclopedic value, and fails the smell test by a mile. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Circumstances seem to be the same since the last nomination. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:LASTTIME. And this falls apart anyway, because, no, circumstances are quite different. Last time, there were TWO whole companies that reported top-visted websites that this article copied; now there's just one. One source does not an article make. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    May I refer you to List of Billboard 200 number-one albums? Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if I may refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also note that the Billboard list article is an article about the Billboard list specifically, not about a broad "list of top albums". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep News media covers this topic. Dream Focus 13:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they don't, and there is no topic beyond "Similarweb's top 50 websites". What few secondary sources were given were of passing mention at most. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Google news search and Wikipedia reliable source search at the top of the AFD show ample results for "most visited websites". And in these articles, they do state if they are one of the most visited websites in the world, any article about them would mention how popular they are. Dream Focus 01:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blow it up and start over. Dronebogus (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily meets WP:NLIST. IIRC for years it was simply a record of Alexa's rankings. Now it's a different company's (one which is also the standard to cite since Alexa stopped). Anyone can go in and add historical data from Alexa or try to find another service that does these rankings, but I see no problem here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the SimilarWeb rankings have caught on like Alexa ones did; there are a bunch of different services trying to be the next Alexa, and I don't see that any of them have risen to where Alexa was. [62], [63], [64]. Last two are not RS, but used to prove my point. CloudFare is trying, Similarweb is trying as are others. I can't see us using one site over another, could be construed as PROMO. To keep the article, we'd need some sort of synthesis of the new ranking alternatives and that's likely not ideal either. As it is, we're using one of a few sites to rank websites, that doesn't seem to have the notability yet. Until a clear winner/leader comes up, there is no point using any information from any of them. Oaktree b (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or I suppose we could discuss it at the Reliable Sources noticeboard to try and form a guideline/consensus, but that's outside the scope of this AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: still seems to be a split between delete and keep, both with valid arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obviously. We are an encyclopaedia, here to summarise multiple reliable sources. We are not a mirror site, here to mirror a single database. Further, do we actually have SimilarWeb's consent to do this? Their user agreement for those creating an account forbids "(iv) present or share the data or information received through the Platform without Similarweb’s prior consent". If we don't have consent, this should be speedied. Elemimele (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    post-script: just checked, it's definitely copyvio if we don't have permission, because of the extensive creative work that SimilarWeb put into creating the data.[65] But I'd guess they're quite happy we're copying their data because they know better than anyone that we're a high-traffic website, bringing enormous publicity to their organisation. So here we are, indulging in copyvio because it's commercially useful to the violated. Not a great situation. Put it this way, if the article had been created by someone from SimilarWeb, I doubt anyone would be !voting keep. Elemimele (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their user agreement for those creating an account forbids - That doesn't necessarily mean it's a copyvio. It does mean whoever copies it in breached the ToS but that's usually not our concern. extensive creative work that SimilarWeb put into creating the data What is the extensive creative work, though? They receive numbers from some places, scrape other places. "200 data scientists" doesn't mean they're involved in producing the top lists -- most of their efforts are going into their paid products. I'm not saying it definitely doesn't qualify for copyright, but it's not obvious that it does (based on what I've seen be kept/deleted in the past). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Aoidh and KatoKungLee. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Give Up (talk • contribs) 10:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTMIRROR. A rationale like notable and important is not a valid argument at all. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if we have to blow it up and start it all over. It's a good article to have even if the execution is a bit flawed and more reliable sources are needed. I would recommend incorporating old Alexa statistics if possible in some sort of way, like the 10 historically most visited websites by year similar to how our list on the busiest airports uses stats by year. Maybe even split out the Alexa rankings into their own list? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – In my view the article, which regularly gains over 2,000 views per day, meets WP:NLIST. The article could be improved with more sources, but my preference would be for editorial improvement rather than deletion. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources are there to improve this article? Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps some secondary news sources which report on Similarweb data could at least provide additional verification and some indication of the notability of the content in relation to the website data. An example would be this report in The Guardian.[1] Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Threads users decline significantly despite initial surge in sign-ups". The Guardian. 26 July 2023. Retrieved 3 August 2023.
  • Keep - It's safe to assume that people truly in the business of web analytics no longer have as much interest in these lists as they did 10 or 15 years ago, but the topic of these lists is still of interest to the news media and people in general. However, revise the article to include a bit more context about the significance (to website owners, advertisers, news media, etc.) of the topic of "most visited websites" and the brief history of entities that have compiled and maintained lists of such (e.g., that the Alexa Internet list existed from 1996(?) to 2022 and Similarweb currently publishes a comprehensive global list). As part of this context, the article should link to articles about related topics, such as web analytics. (I might try to do this, but I know too little about the topic as it exists today.) Orlady (talk) 19:19, 4 August 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! 23:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cachet Lue

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

Former college soccer player who has made at least one appearance for the Jamaica women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Grandmaster Huon (talk) 03:24, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_29&oldid=1168928749"