Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 09	October 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sellindge Music Festival

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three references to this article about a music festival, but coverage is mostly local or brief and I do not think it meets WP:NEVENT, WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. It has been tagged as possibly not notable since 2020. Tacyarg (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless sustained coverage is found - I agree with the nom. An article on a small music festival that went ahead only twice, with minimal coverage, is not needed. ResonantDis_tortion 08:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to BBC Radio Kent per WP:ATD. Given that one of the stages was operated by BBC Kent I see no reason not to include some content on the festival in the history section of that article.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did not find the significant coverage available to justify passing WP:NMUSIC nor any other notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is more support for a selective Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References fail to provide WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 11 October 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!} 22:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creativerse

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

Notability-tagged for almost two years. The Bleeding Cool review is substantial and a RS. The VentureBeat articles (1 , 2) are good.

The Softonic review is three paragraphs total, more of a description than a review, and not attributed to a specific author. QuietCicada (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...So, weak keep? Not gonna lie, this isn't exactly a compelling case as to why this article should be deleted. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It's a vague if sort of fair nomination given that the article only currently has one reliable review and is otherwise mostly citations from primary sources. The VentureBeat sources are helpful as a developer interview and providing release context, but they only very briefly assess the game itself. Given the Softonic review is not exactly reliable, it really would help if there are one or two more sources out there that independently evaluate the game. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually would be more critical about the sources than the nom themselves is. The deletion argument is weak, but it does not appear that there is sufficient WP:SIGCOV here that isn't in clearly promotional language. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 review and 2 promotional interviews is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG criteria. --Mika1h (talk) 15:28, 12 October 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!} 22:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senators of the 39th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage

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

The Civil Marriage Act was passed in the 38th parliament in 2005. This is an WP:OR attempt to predict how the senators of the 39th parliament would have voted in 2006, given the changes in membership between one year and the next. (There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senators of the 38th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage.) gnu 57 22:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be all OR. --Enos733 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speculative OR. The situation is that after Stephen Harper's Conservative Party won the 2006 election, there was speculation that they might try to overturn SSM — so this is basically an attempt to predict how such a vote might land once it got to the Senate. But the thing is that it didn't happen, meaning this page serves no enduring value. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTN criteria not met. Lightburst (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not some sort of backwards WP:CRYSTAL ball to imagine how things might have been if they weren't the way they are. Jacona (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: entirely OR, highly speculative, generally very much WP:NOT. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:34, 17 October 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!} 22:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hook, Line and Sinker (TV program)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV, with a complete lack of references. The PROD that I proposed, was removed by @Necrothesp, who said that deletion of a programme that's run for 22 seasons is hardly uncontroversial. I hope that someone adds additional references about Hook, Line and Sinker to the article. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 20:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 20:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Water, Rob Black Agnes (2009-04-24). "TV hosts fall for 1770 reefs". The Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "Popular television co-hosts Nick Duigan and Andrew Hart fell for the Town of 1770 and its offshore reefs, as their TV show suggests; Hook, Line and Sinker. ... Hook, Line and Sinker has become one of Australia's most popular fishing shows, with a bit of lifestyle and cooking mixed in with an irreverent blend of humour setting it apart from some of the more traditional programs. What comes through in the series is the boys love of fishing and all things boating, with a couple of twists that include; beefing up an old Bertram (boat) with a huge new 350hp outboard, catching fish using a remote controlled model boat, using Andrew as a live lure as he water skis behind the boat and entering an all-female fishing contest dressed in drag - until organisers twigged and they were booted out."
2. "Hooked in the Whitsundays: A crew from one of Australia's most popular fishing television shows 'Hook, Line and Sinker' recently filmed in the region". The Courier-Mail. 2014-09-07. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "A crew from one of Australia's most popular fishing television shows 'Hook, Line and Sinker' recently filmed in the region. Nick Duigan and Andrew Hart spent several nights on the outer reef with Sea Fever Sportsfishing's Ashley Matthews, and were able to capture footage for an entire episode. The boys caught fish jigging, on poppers and even dived in to grab crayfish."
3. Ellerton, Phillip (2007-12-20). "New Gear". The Mercury. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "Although some purists may not enjoy the Hook, Line and Sinker DVDs, they offer a fresh, exciting and often humorous approach to fishing."
4. Martin, Hannah (2012-03-04). "Tassie fishing show hooks big deal". Sunday Tasmanian. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "One of Tasmania's longest- running television programs has cracked the big time. Fishing series Hook, Line and Sinker has snagged a coveted television slot, with the show soon to be aired in national metropolitan areas. The move to 7mate this year is expected to double audience numbers to 600,000 a week for local fishermen Nick Duigan, 41, and Andrew Hart, 31. The milestone comes as the show prepares to film episodes for its 10th season."
5. "Backs to the wind works wonders as inland anglers score lion's share of luck". The Canberra Times. 2006-04-21. Archived from the original on 2023-10-07. Retrieved 2023-10-07.
  The article notes: "Keep your eyes peeled for a new fishing show, Hook Line and Sinker, running for the next 11 weeks at 6pm Saturdays on Southern Cross Ten. Described as A River Somewhere meets Russell Coight, it features two larrikin anglers, Nick Duigan and Andrew Hart, roaming Australia chasing fish. The first episode, shown last week, promises some great fun."
6. Wade, Rohan (2004-12-18). "Reeling them in". The Mercury. ProQuest 353181196.
  The article notes: " Andrew Hart and Nick Duigan, who not only present but conceived the Tasmanian television fishing program Hook, Line and Sinker, are about to embark on their third full season of a combination of fishing adventures and fishing misadventures. While not always madcap, the antics of Hart and Duigan are often more about good humour than good fishing, but it is a style that is winning over viewers as an alternative to the super-slick, highly produced interstate fishing shows that produce a steady stream of fish. Catching a fish for the Hook, Line and Sinker crew, while always the aim, sometimes doesn't happen. ... It is a recipe that has helped the show go from strength to strength since Hart and Duigan filmed two pilot shows in 2001."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hook, Line and Sinker to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment on these recently unearthed sources would be a welcome addition to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging @Happily888, in order to leave his opinion on this discussion. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 07:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great job by Cunard, not just here presenting sources that show the subject clearly passes the GNG, but also in their expansion of the article. Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 16 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein–Ukraine relations

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

I count one source in this article which isn't 100% actually about Russia–Ukraine relations, a topic on which Liechtenstein is 100% aligned with it's much larger neighbours. This is a WP:COATRACK article for things already said much better elsewhere. PROD removed by creator without improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Once again, as I stated on Talk:Liechtenstein–Ukraine relations I don't agree that either of your points that justify any kind of deletion are true. As far as I know, many of the things on this page are either not available elsewhere or covered with bare minimum facts which strongly justify it's own page. With that in mind, I fail to see how this meets WP:COATRACK criteria. Furthermore, the notion that only one source isn't completely about Russia–Ukraine relations is rather bogus, since all relevant sources there play into Liechtenstein's reaction and involvement with Ukraine. Several others just cover their relationship in general, as minimal as it may be. I can't be improve a page if you don't give any elaborate suggestion I'm afraid.TheBritinator (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Also agree this is not a coatrack article. Even though the topic isn't significantly large, it's valuable enough to keep centralised and has reasonable coverage. -- Primium (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article covering a valid subject. - Indefensible (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A valid subject does not necessarily mean notable. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jitesh Singh Deo

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

Another AfD pointed this particular individual out; while the Mr. India winner could be notable, but there is no sourcing to help. The Indian Express article is PR, unsure of the second one. I can't find mention of this person in reliable sourcing (to be fair, it is the typical flowery language we've seen in umpteen articles here, but it does not seem to help in this case). Gsearch goes straight to social media, this wiki article, then youtube and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage on the page and most of what I am finding fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA and there is nothing outside of the 2017 pageant that could be considered significant. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:09, 10 October 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!} 23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Falkholt

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable performer; what content there is, is mostly BLP1E material and not sustained. Had minor TV roles, posthumous lead in a minor film which flopped big-time. Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are fine, but it appears she only had a minor role for a few months in the program. The film role doesn't appear that notable either. I'm not seeing ACTOR met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing sustained much past the events of the investigation into her death, last coverage is from 2018, and it's only about the events of her passing. No critical discussion of her work or much of anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has minor roles failed WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 16 October 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 23:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Bailey

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

This artist does not meet WP criteria for inclusion per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Their work has not been included in significant exhibitions nor is it held in collections of notable museums or national galleries. Most of the citations are either simple name check mentions or are photo credits; one citation is a personal blog. No enduring record of critical reviews or art historical articles/book chapters or the like. Netherzone (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, California, and Florida. Netherzone (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources found for this artist. Gnewspapers only has mentions of similar people running for mayor somewhere. Not listed in the Getty ULAN. Not meeting notabilit requirements for artists. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/defense. I got the deletion notice as the creator of the page. I spent extra time looking for more credible sources via Google. I found and added 4 extra sources that prove the artist staged regular exhibitions of his paintings in notable nightclubs, galleries, boutiques and private homes. Here are they

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/realestate/gilbert-gottfrieds-chelsea-apartment.html

This New York Times states "Gottfried's high school friend Clifford Bailey, an artist, had a show in New York, she and Mr. Gottfried were in attendance"

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/06/spongebob-squarepants-fraud-peggy-howell-ninjas-art-theft

This features Bailey extensively

https://www.nashvillescene.com/arts_culture/clifford-baileys-i-the-american-i-at-ovvio-arte/article_8e9c9bad-9217-5b79-a9fc-395b6acc20c9.html

This features Bailey extensively

https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Clifford-Bailey/9978C3E0F66D240B

This features Bailey's works

I strongly believe with the above sources coupled with the previous ones, the page now meets WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Please consider keeping the page. Thanks. Quche Huzubi (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. The NYT source is one sentence, not SIGCOV, and the article is about another person. Vanity Fair article is about another person, there are a few sentences about Baily being upset that the other person "copied" his work. The Nashville Scene is a five sentence synopsis that seem based on a press release. Mutual Art is a database, that hosts auction records and the like, any artist or gallery can open up an "account" with them; it's a primary database source. This is not the sort of in-depth independent SIGCOV that one normally finds for a notable artist, this is run-of-the-mill coverage; it's not enough for an artist to simply do what artists do, which is make work and occasionally show it. There are hundreds of thousands of artists like that in the U.S. alone. Unfortunately I am not seeing how any of this is enough to pass notability criteria for NARTIST nor GNG. Netherzone (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SPA, creating this article on their 27th edit. Subject fails WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:28, 14 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Stanford

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and author-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Military, United States of America, and New Jersey. UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being in the military isn't notable by itself; might have a pass with AUTHOR, but I can't find reviews of his books. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b:. Many reviews have been added. Djflem (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tried to find book reviews of his first two novels in the Library of Congress newspaper archive from 1923-1925, nothing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a credible claim of notability as an author, but unfortunately the sourcing in the article doesn't support the claim and I wasn't able to find in-depth sources about him and his work in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:NAUTHOR. Here are various reviews for multiple of his books. There are many more on newspapers.com:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Jfire (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few old reviews don't satisfy WP:NAUTHOR, fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reviews of multiple works is routinely considered to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:NTEMP. Jfire (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jfire which of the 4 heads of NAUTHOR says that? 3 states "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", so reviews are not sufficient in themselves, unless the author created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, the way "significant or well-known" is determined in AfD discussions is via the presence (or absence) of reviews. Examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Shelby, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Collins (writer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Prince-Hughes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lara Prescott. Jfire (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those decisions obviously do not comply with the clear wording of NAUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article with additional sources and reviews for all but two of his books. I hope this is enough to meet WP:HEY. Jfire (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews found by Jfire, which meet my understanding of both AUTHOR and GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Works have been the primary subject of reviews, thus satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Djflem (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Espresso Addict and User:Djflem which head of WP:NAUTHOR do you believe he meets? If you are relying on 3 note that it states: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." So reviews are not sufficient in themselves. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "or reviews" is unclear to you? Djflem (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"or reviews" is perfectly clear, but you are ignoring the "In addition", which means that reviews are secondary to the first sentence requiring the subject author to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." which has not been established. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignoring a thing, that's your assumption. (spare us). As it the idea that Alfred Stanford has not created a significant collective body of work despite reviews that confirm that. Djflem (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No assumption made, that's clearly what 3 says. If reviews were all that was required then why would 3 be worded as it is? Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources.Djflem (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over whether WP:NAUTHOR is met by having reviews of books by the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews are the obvious way to establish that an author has created a noteworthy body of work. That's not just common sense; it's how WP:NAUTHOR has been applied day in and day out. I daresay this should not have been relisted. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, XOR'easter. I like there to be a clear consensus before closing an AFD. Otherwise, a closure is likely to be challenged at Deletion review. And, unfortunately, we have fewer and fewer admins patrolling AFDs, closing discussions so the few of us who do tend to review a lot of AFDs. But many AFDs are closed before their relisting period ends so that might happen. ^{Liz Read! Talk!} 04:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The added reviews make it clear that this passes WP:GNG. -- Mike 🗩 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Really history in this article with viable secondary sources. Passes WP:AUTHOR. scope_creep^Talk 17:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR, which I will concede is a low bar.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 15 October 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 Kansas Historical Society. Smerge. None of the keep arguments has addressed a compelling policy based argument backed up by sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas History

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources (some minor awards -to articles, not the journal itself- leading to in-passing mentions and library catalogs are not WP:SIGCOV). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODed with reason "Significant academic journal as part of a significant historical society in the US". However, this assertion is not supported by any independent reliable sources, neither for the journal nor for the society, so merging this to the society does not appear to be a good alternative. Anyway, PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Kansas. Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was never published as an academic journal, and should not be assessed that way. It is (or was) a publication of the Kansas State Historical Society in Topeka, Kansas. It was published as "a journal of the Central Plains : a ten-year cumulative index." Whether or not this is currently in publication is probably not an issue. But as for the validity, it is listed at the Library of Congress ^[1], and World Cat as of 1978. ^[2] — Maile (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: academic journal or not, being listed in WorldCat or the LoC is not an indication of notability as inclusion is automatic for any periodical published in the US and is certainly not SIGCOV. --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks above do not say WorldCat or the LoC gave it notability. I only said "validity", which is not the same as "notability". Validity just affirms they exist.— Maile (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has questioned the validity, it exists. But what makes you think this is notable? --Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a scholarly journal (although it might not have been considered one when it was still under the umbrella of the Kansas Historical Society...Kansas State University has a significant history program). And it's not at all unusual for articles within scholarly journals to win awards...awards they wouldn't have won had the journal not existed. Coverage and scope is sufficient in my view. But if it is decided to delete, then the article about the precursor journal (Kansas Historical Quarterly) should come up for deletion as well. Its article is just a stub. Intothat darkness 17:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the awards make perhaps the articles notable or their authors (even though they look pretty minor to me), but even if the journal had not existed, those articles would have been published elsewhere, there's an abundance of local history journals. Whether this is deleted or kept, the article on Kansas Historical Quarterly should be a redirect at best as we don't make separate articles for periodicals if their name changes. --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"..even if the journal had not existed, those articles would have been published elsewhere." Seriously? How can you know that? While you can assert there are a number of local history journals, that doesn't automatically guarantee publication or anything else. I don't find your contention persuasive or indicative of this journal lacking notability. Intothat darkness 12:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact in academic publishing: if an article is rejected by one journal, it almost invariably gets eventually published elsewhere. These articles got an award. Even though minor, it would not have been difficult to get them published elsewhere. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know about academic publishing, but your statement is still opinion and isn't in my view related to the notability of this journal. The fact is they were published in THIS journal, and received awards when published in THIS journal. Intothat darkness 13:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I was just responding to your hypothetical "if this journal didn't exist". My point remains that these minor awards for articles (not the journal) do not make this notable. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No...you were asserting these articles would have been published anyhow, which you can't know. While this might at one point have been a local history journal (that's debatable, but the article isn't about the precursor journals), Kansas History is now overseen and published by the notable history department of a major university. I see no reason to modify my Keep based on what you've demonstrated so far. Intothat darkness 16:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see even a shred of policy-based reasoning to keep this.WP:NOTINHERITED. --Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get a strong sense of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT here. Which is not a solid reason for deleting the article. Intothat darkness 02:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And given the absence of any independent RS that you come up with, I get a strong feeling of WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a solid reason to keep the article. --Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is difficult to get independent RS for academic societies and their journals, but that does not mean that they are NN. My guess is that this is a low level academic journal, but it is peer-reviewed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Since when is it sufficient to be peer-reviewed in order to be notable? A few weeks ago there was a huge discussion at WP:NJournals and other places where some editors only wanted to accept that a journal is peer-reviewed if that was confirmed by independent references. And journal articles would only be acceptable if they meet GNG, forget about NJournals... I feel like I'm sitting on a seesaw...--Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have three keeps and the original nom who seems determined to badger anyone who votes keep. Three to one seems like a reasonably clear consensus, especially since there have been no other delete noms. The journal itself is an academic, peer-reviewed publication put out by a major university and its articles have won awards. It's not a newsletter pushed out by a county historical society. Intothat darkness 18:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree to keep as well based on the reasons stated above. In addition, the article may have been edited lately, but I don't see language that would indicate that there were contributions by a close contributor. It is linked from a number of articles and seems to me to be a worthwhile and helpful article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So far we have no policy-based arguments supporting keep. Maile66 has confirmed that the journal exists, but this is not a valid reason to keep the article. They note that the journal was never published as an academic journal, and should not be assessed that way - in which case we default to WP:GNG, and no reliable independent sources has been provided (the Buckskin Bulletin gives a passing mention; everything else is either primary or a catalogue listing). There is the argument from Intothatdarkness that the journal is notable because of the awards it has won - which might possibly pass C3 of WP:NJOURNALS. However, if we are going to make this argument, we would need evidence that these awards are indeed significant enough to demonstrate the journal's historical importance in its subject area - and for this we would need reliable secondary sources attesting to the importance of these awards, which have not been presented (and I cannot find any evidence of this myself). Peterkingiron notes that this is a low level peer-reviewed academic journal; however, being peer-reviewed does not make an academic journal notable (indeed, pretty much every academic journal is peer-reviewed - almost by definition). CaroleHenson notes that the article does not show signs of a conflict of interest, and that the article is useful - neither of these are valid keep reasons. Determining the notability of academic journals is notoriously difficult - and, for that reason, controversial. WP:NJOURNALS can be a useful resource but it is imperfect and controversial - notably, it does not have the consensus around it to be a policy or guideline. However, the recent critiques of NJOURNALS have been that it is too lenient, that too many non-notable journals are kept based on NJOURNALS arguments. What is less controversial is that a journal which does not pass the requirements of NJOURNALS is likely to not be notable. In this case, we have a journal which is not indexed by any selective databases: indexing in such databases can be a useful benchmark for notability. Equally, WorldCat lists Kansas History as being held by 1372 libraries worldwide. Whether this counts as sufficient to establish notability is a subjective judgment call - but, by comparison, the American Historical Review is held by 2945 libraries and the Journal of American History is held by 2691 libraries. To my mind, this would be the best argument for keeping this article, but - especially absent any further indicators of notability - I find it to be insufficient. And, given that there is no subject-specific notability guideline for academic journals, we ought to be referring to the general notability guideline, which requires independent reliable secondary sources, of which none have been provided. WJ94 (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the awards was presented by the Western History Association, an academic organization promoting scholarship in this area. I don't know that I'd call that a minor award. But clearly mileage will vary. Intothat darkness 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For perspective, look at the huge number of awards that this association gives every year... --15:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Randykitty (talk)

@Intothatdarkness: Do you have any reliable sources which support the significance of this award? WJ94 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any that say it's not? Frankly, since there isn't as much money or status in the humanities their organizations don't tend to be as exhaustively or obsessively covered as, say, science or obscure soccer players. The nom appears determined to steer this through to deletion, so I bow to the inevitable. Intothat darkness 17:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Maybe it's just a newsletter or a magazine but it's obv a major publication by and for serious Kansas history nerds, and third in a chronological series of three per this. We cite it in articles such as Sacking of Lawrence. If the consensus is that it's not notable enough, I believe it should be folded into a section of the article about the historical society. jengod (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both Kansas History and The Kansas Historical Quarterly into Kansas Historical Society. The second journal seems to be little more than a name change from the first, and both are inseparable from the organization that produces them. Nothing would be lost by merging and presenting this information in the context of the organization. BD2412 T 23:52, 17 October 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 Saga of the Skolian Empire. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eubians

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the books they appear in, there appears to be no discussion of this group of people. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saga of the Skolian Empire which has some coverage, as WP:ATD —siro χ o 21:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to target above. Fails GNG. Unreferenced. Ping me if better sources are found (unlikely). I did BEFORE too and no luck finding anything useful on my part, I fear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE didn't reveal any suitable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I searched newspapers.com and found some references to the Eubian Gulf and Eubian goats, but nothing about Eubian people. Delete Jacona (talk) 20:38, 16 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaf Wachtmeister

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability policy, as well as the biography-specific one. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Sweden. UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of available sources, like Swedish encyclopedias. See Svenska män och kvinnor : biografisk uppslagsbok, Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon or his entry in Nordisk familjebok. Swedish Wikipedia also refers to Ätten Wachtmeister genom seklerna by sv:Sven Grauers, which I don't have access to right now. Easily notable just looking at what's been digitalized, however. /Julle (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entries in various Nordic encyclopedias clearly establish notability. Jfire (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quick check turns up possible sources per WP:NEXIST. I sure hope someone adds a few to the article. Lightburst (talk) 21:01, 11 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton field

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

Impossible to understand unless the reader is already a mathematician. The lead is supposed to be understandable with the tough stuff in the body of the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's discussed in several papers in Gscholar, but I'm not sure of what it is exactly. Needs a rewrite, perhaps review by a subject-matter expers. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not believe that the nomination presents a valid deletion rationale. An article about advanced mathematical physics is going to be incomprehensible to readers who aren't mathematicians or physicists, and there's just not much we can do about that. A stub lacking an introduction that holds the reader's hand is not a reason to delete it. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, speedy keep criterion 1 applies: being too technical isn't a reason for deletion. It isn't even a problem, necessarily: we're talking about a niche subject that a physics student wouldn't even encounter until a couple years into graduate school at the earliest, not the opening paragraphs of the Albert Einstein biography page. Second, sources exist with which the article could be expanded. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Browsing the Google Scholar entries, (and being outside my scientific field), it does seem like there's enough coverage to warrant a stub, but it definitely needs to be encyclopedia-ified given how technical the subject is. I wonder if there may be a better home to nest this subject under for more context, but that would take someone well-versed in quantum mechanic subjects to assess. Until then, keep but definitely leave the tag from 2009. KoA (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as no valid reason for deletion has been advanced. PianoDan (talk) 20:15, 16 October 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 23:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File sequence

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

unsourced for over a decade and not sure this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced essay; the good parts are already at File system. I don't see use of this term on Google Scholar and cannot endorse any redirect. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Echo hut

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

Stub. Merge into Bon Echo Provincial Park. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a cabin people can use in a provincial park here in Ontario. Not sure why it's notable, more so than any other cabin in a provincial park. This appears as a PROMO (it has a fireplace for drying clothes!). You can reach it by boat! Wonderful stuff, but not wikipedia material. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article cites no references and it doesn't look like there are any independent sources discussing the topic. -- Primium (talk) 19:44, 10 October 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 Hershey Entertainment Complex. Star Mississippi 02:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Pavilion

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and building-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Architecture, and Entertainment. UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hershey Entertainment Complex with the infobox. No coverage of opening or expansion, only of tour dates Mach61 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:19, 10 October 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 14:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sookshm Information Services

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV (although I'm not as good at finding quality Indian sources on a WP:BEFORE). BuySomeApples (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources with significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:31, 16 October 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 14:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty 168

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

WP:ORPHAN that doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines unless someone else has an easier time finding sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Canada. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soverel 33

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Single reference is a 404 error to a database. Fails the general and product-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gbooks has enough coverage to verify the specs, from a period magazine [7], this is a discussion of the boat [8] under the rather hopeful title of "Stocking Stuffers". Should be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised at your !vote, Oaktree. Specs are just a listing, so not WP:SIGCOV, and the discussion is also failing that quality. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does have two full pages of specs, they seem rather detailed, I'd consider them significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources and these additional newspaper sources:

"5-race weekend series is a Soverel showcase". South Florida Sun Sentinel. 1985-12-12. p. 52. Retrieved 2023-10-10.
"Soverel's success comes by design". The Miami Herald. 1984-02-26. p. 315. Retrieved 2023-10-10.
"Sea beckened Stuart sailor, designer at an early age". The Stuart News. 1985-12-13. p. 21. Retrieved 2023-10-10.

I'd expect additional coverage to be available in specialty periodicals of the period, which are unlikely to be accessible online. Jfire (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sailboatdata (the only refrence in the article) is not reliable. However, the sources found by Jfire leads me to vote keep. -- Mike 🗩 17:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources found by Jfire. The stub can be improved and I hope that someone adds the sources. Lightburst (talk) 21:03, 11 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign (Sansom novel)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010 and contains no references. Fails the general and book-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several reviews just plunking Sovereign Sansom into the Ebscosearch; a more thorough search would undoubtably find more. According to the Shardlake series article it has been adapted for radio. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's been widely reviewed in both the U.K. and U.S., adapted for radio and stage, and the series is in production for television by Disney+. I've added a sourced "Reception" section to the article. Clearly notable. Jfire (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its been updated per WP:HEYMANN and is more than visibly notable now. scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 14 October 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 Illinois High School Association member conferences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southwestern Conference (Illinois)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. All references are not independent, so fails the general and organization-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, Sports, United States of America, and Illinois. UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Illinois High School Association member conferences: Agree with the nom rationale regarding this subject being non-notable. This is another high-school athletic conference with a lack of WP:GNG coverage. Mentions in local newspapers or television stations are routine and don't equate to notability. A redirect to the overall association under which this conference operates seems like a fine WP:ATD. 19:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 10 October 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 Lincoln Cathedral. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Mystery Plays

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

Promotion for local production of historical plays. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Prod removal mentions two sources [9] [10] but these are purely local, containing identical quotes and are comprised primarily of quotes from the director and publicity material. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lincoln Cathedral: Not notable alone, could be merged with the cathedral article, all coverage found relates to it anyway Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively with Lincoln Cathedral as not independently notable fir a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine's Cede of Ani to Georgia

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

Not ready for mainspace, WP:BIAS Annwfwn (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Annwfwn (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Armenia, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom; prefer title Draft:Byzantine cession of Ani to Georgia or similar. Folly Mox (talk) 17:02, 12 October 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 14:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senators of the 38th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage

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

I cannot really see how an article of this level of detail is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senators of the 39th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage. gnu 57 22:51, 10 October 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 14:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical subject

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

unsourced for over a decade and incomprehensible to me and presumably to anyone who is not already a philosopy graduate Chidgk1 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:DICTIONARY, a short philosophical definition of the term "historical subject". No sourcing. — Maile (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unsourced article not needed on Wikipedia. FatCat96 (talk) 04:43, 11 October 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, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Maksimenko

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

Unable to find any decent coverage in the Cyrillic or Latin alphabet. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and never appeared to have been a key footballer for Kazakhstan, playing only 155 mins in 5 matches in one campaign before disappearing. The only coverage that I could find was Olympic, which is a squad list mention and confirmation of receiving a yellow card. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:12, 10 October 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 14:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha King

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. She does have a couple of Canadian Country Music Award nominations in down-the-line categories like Independent Female Artist of the Year (which I had to correct, because the article was falsely claiming she had been nominated for the topline Female Artist of the Year, as in "Shania Twain/Terri Clark/Tenille Townes level superstar") and Rising Star, so a neutrally-written and properly sourced article about her would be fine -- but this, as written, is promotionally toned and poorly sourced, and has been tagged for that problem for over a decade without resolution.
The article additionally claimed a Juno Award nomination that I have been completely unable to verify, as her name fails to show up even in the Junos' own self-published database of its past winners and nominees -- I've already removed that due to its unverifiability, but it still leaves a lot of article's other claims also questionable in the absence of better sourcing than this.
But apart from the nominal verification of the CCMA nominations themselves, this is otherwise referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, one glancing namecheck of her existence in a source that isn't about her, one source that completely fails to support the claim being cited to it (it's "sourcing" a concert, but is about a hockey game), and just one piece of coverage about her in the weekly hyperlocal of a suburb of her own hometown.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can salvage it with a neutral writing tone and better sourcing, but particularly in light of the {{tone}} template having been on the article for 13 years without repair, it's time to fix it or lose it. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 10 October 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 14:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viwawa

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Only passing mentions/listings. Fails the general and company-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Business, Companies, and Singapore. UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was recreated mere months after the first AFD closed as delete, with almost identical content, which has remained essentially unchanged for 12 years now, with a few primary source announcements added in 2011. No evidence of notability. -- ferret (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: current sourcing is PR/news releases. I can't find mention of the software in RS, and it's been discontinued, so we likely won't find anything further. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything to add, and there's not enough here to meet any of the notability guidelines. Jacona (talk) 20:42, 16 October 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 14:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Vagabond Queen (opera)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general notability policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, and Theatre. UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RSs at all. It looks to me like all of the articles about works by Edward Barnes (composer) ought to be deleted, and his article is a jumble of WP:PROMO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find was a one sentence entry in Operas in English. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 01:06, 14 October 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 14:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Uhlig

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. References are questionable as for meeting the golden rule. Fails the general and musician-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. I'm not sure how I went "BLP1E" then named two other events she was involved in. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

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

Contested PROD. Clear WP:BLP1E created after her suspension from Twitter. She's not notable on her own, only the things she did (goblin mode, Snickers dick vein, both of which have articles) are. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If someone wants to redirect after deletion go for it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Spencer (Psych)

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

There is very little notable coverage of this character from sources not affiliated with the character. The one source that does is much more of a passing mention. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well just based on the sources in the article I would be a !delete, but others might find some sources. Conyo14 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my search, there is only part of a book that gives him any mention, and that is Arp's Psych and Philosophy. However, it is far from being enough to warrant a stand-alone page. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 20:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Books are definitely better than website articles in my opinion. However...

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV aside from the occasional recap. Although I am open to changing it if someone finds more. Conyo14 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Poorly referenced, no analysis/reception, just "characterization" (but see my first point). Fails GNG as written. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus. Not enough reception in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:30, 18 October 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!} 23:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Lassiter

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

This article suffers from a lack of meaningful coverage. Anything of value is already said in the main Psych article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG
1. Loads of SIGCOV in Psych and Philosophy: Some Dark Juju-Magumbo [11]
2. SIGCOV in the aggressively-titled Shit Is Fucked Up And Bullshit: History Since the End of History[12]
3. SIGCOV in Paste review [13]
4. More coverage of how the actor's real life medical issues were written into the second movie [14]

—siro χ o 16:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two touch on the character well, but I doubt that they are significant in scope enough to warrant a page. The reviews are more fitting for either the actor's page or the movie's page. Even then, the first two sources still appear to touch more on the character in the show rather than discuss him in a meaningful way that speaks to the broader genre, reception, or even impact. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping some coverage from the above sources to help demonstrate WP:GNG:
1. Psych and Philosophy: Some Dark Juju-Magumbo
  - Michaud
    An Ad Hominem (translated "to the man") is a fallacy in which we attack the person instead of the claim that the person makes. Lassiter is a favorite victim of Shawn's Ad Hominem. Lassiter, especially early on in the series, would attempt to point out that Shawn is a fraud and, generally, Shawn refused to even engage Lassiter's claims. He would simply call Lassiter a name of some kind or make fun of some neurotic quality of his, and move on. Lassiter is often taken aback and dumbfounded by these comments, and before he can recover, Shawn has already moved on. When we think about it, though, we realize that Shawn has never really addressed Lassiter's claim-he has avoided it by making fun of "Lassie."
  - Malloy
    the antithesis of the Overman--the last man. Gus and Lassiter, in particular, are last men. The last man, as Nietzsche describes him, is the ultimate herd animal. He is mediocre, passive, and complacent. Plainly, this is not a perfect description of either Gus or Lassiter, but in their relations to Shawn, they are last men.
  - Ruiz
    Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) identified something he called Slave Morality. Detective Lassiter is a good example of someone in the grip of Slave Morality. According to Nietzsche, slave morality is the kind of attitudes and behavior we adopt when our self-image is threatened by greatness in others.
    Instead of looking within ourselves when we don't measure up to some ideal of excellence. we find it easier to point fingers at others or to pretend that our own failings are really virtues.
Harris, Shit Is Fucked Up And Bullshit: History Since the End of History
Like Hank, Psych's veteran detective, Carlton Lassiter (Timothy Omundson), can't hack it in the big leagues. In keeping with Psych's ADD po-mo charm, he's not so much a movie antihero cop as a cop who models himself on movie antihero cops. But amid Shawn and his partner Gus's (Dulé Hill) buddy-comedy hijinks, the show never develops "Lassie" and his conflicts with his partner Juliet (Maggie Lawson) ... and Police Chief Vick (Kirsten Nelson). The series hints at a wrecked marriage and his obsessive need to be the cop archetype he imagines he should be (setting him up for a means-ends crisis), but the writers never give him the narrative space to do much more than hint. Omundson imbues this straight-man role with occasional glimpses of stern sadness that make him a bright point in an already strong cast. In one episode, a visiting fed tells him he could have been an FBI agent, maybe, if he'd gone to college. In another, he finds out that his score on the detective's exam--which he believed to be the highest in the department--wasn't only worse than Juliet's, but also worse than Shawn's, who aced the test as an adolescent. Lassiter's good never seems good enough.
Gunderson in Paste
They made Lassiter the lucky survivor of a brutal shooting in the middle of a secret case he can no longer remember, whose slow, monotonous recovery in a fancy private hospital outside of Santa Barbara is either part of the plot that got him shot in the first place (Lassiter’s take), or has him seeing mysteries ... where there are none.... Narratively, this works aces in giving Lassie plenty of opportunities to bicker with Shawn and Gus (Dulé Hill), vent to Juliet (Maggie Lawson) and grumble at Nurse Dolores (guest star Sarah Chalke), while also driving the plot engines of the story’s various investigations. Practically, it gives Omundson—who’s really turning in excellent work—chill recovery-friendly perks like rolling around his room, Rear Window-style, in a slick wheelchair, hanging out with a sweet-tempered German Shepherd (spoiler: Morrissey is back!) and napping in a plush, king-sized bed while Rodriguez holds his hand....
In short: Lassiter’s recovery-centric arc, from start to finish, makes perfect sense. Not only that, it’s a genuine joy to see the whole Psychphrancisco team rally around Lassiter after his stroke on screen, just as the whole Psych team has been rallying around Omundson after his own in the real world. Nothing to baffle here.

—siro χ o 16:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Siroxo. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 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!} 23:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet O'Hara

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

There is little of value here. The references are mostly just episodes for the fictional biography and say nothing about any meaningful analysis or reception of the character. The main Psych article is almost undoubtedly sufficient for coverage. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question The nomination is based on the current state of the article, which according to WP:NEXIST is not the decisive factor. Was the required WP:BEFORE search done? As there are a number of hits in suggested Google Books and Google Scholar searches, could there please be some commentary why these should not amount to sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article? Daranios (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the guideline. I almost doubt that it's necessary to justify denying the inclusion of these hits, since a fairly large portion of the first page are novel adaptations. The USA Network book seems to be a copy-paste job of Wikipedia, so that is obviously not allowed. The few books that mention the actual character are mostly reserved to passing mentions or don't really discuss the character in a meaningful way outside of their role in the show. Compare this to the Gus (Psych) article, where when I did search for material on the character, there were articles that mentioned him and took him out of the scope of just the television series, such as character identity and falling outside of the tropes commonly found in sidekicks of detective fiction.

Google Scholar paints a similar picture, with Amino Apps being a hit for some reason. The "Mystifying Rationale of Psychic Detection" largely deals with the two main characters — Shawn Spencer and Burton Guster. The same guideline you cited is precisely why I haven't nominated these two main characters to be deleted. However, the Shawn Spencer article is in a bad state. I do know that it can be fixed at least. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Always better to hear the analysis than be left in the dark. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG
1. Loads of SIGCOV in Psych and Philosophy: Some Dark Juju-Magumbo [15]
2. SIGCOV in Television's Female Spies and Crimefighters [16]
3. A bit in Cable Guys: Television and Masculinities in the 21st Century [17]
4. IGN has SIGCOV across many episode reviews, including e.g. [18][19][20][21]
5. SIGCOV across several reviews in Den of Geek. This review has a choice quote about how the character is used to speak to a real-life actor who is recovering from a stroke [22]. Den of Geek also has some other usable reviews, e.g. [23][24]

—siro χ o 16:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arp's Psych and Philosophy is the closest one to being any meaningful, significant coverage. As for the others, including the reviews, they really don't say much outside of her role in the show/episode/movie plot. Television's Female Spies doesn't elaborate much more than the relationship and her willingness to believe Shawn.

The Cable Guys section rarely mentions Juliet. If anything, it's a good source for Shawn Spencer's page or Gus's page. Even the "Very Juliet Episode" review is mostly confined to the plot only to discuss that, despite the name, "As usual, Shawn and Gus got the most screen-time". So, I really don't think there's a strong reason to keep. I don't think Arp's book alone is sufficient. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. I would also argue that the Psych and Philosophy does not confer notability. -- Mike 🗩 19:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, Psych and Philosophy in total has many pages worth of secondary analysis of the character throughout the book, discussing the character in context of multiple philosophical and sociological concepts, and occasionally comparing the use of the character to other media. The coverage also comes from multiple authors who have each contributed chapters to the book. The individual essay "The Amazing Psych-Man Versus the Sexist Mentalist" by Mona Rocha alone has several pages of secondary analysis of the character, and other essays have SIGCOV on their own as well. —siro χ o 23:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the secondary sources which have been listed collectively allow to write an article which fullfills WP:WHYN, so I see no benefit for the users of Wikipedia in deleting this article. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost none of the coverage in the listed sources are significant. The sum of plot recaps does not make something notable. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the fact, that basically a paragraph or more of commentary could be written from the contents of Psych and Philosophy (I cannot see all of it), supplemented by short additions (like "Juliet O'Hara is an interesting" but also "a peripheral character", as well as the significance/effect of the Shawn/Juliet relationship being very slow) + providing referenced plot summary + appearance data from other sources, therefore taken together fullfilling the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. Daranios (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just combining the sum of trivial mentions. 7 words isn't much or enough to justify keeping it. "Juliet is interesting". That says nothing of real value. Compared to the material on Shawn and Gus, who have been analyzed in the greater scope of detective fiction, tropes, and design, it just feels like there is very little on this character that has any weight. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"7 words isn't much or enough to justify keeping it." No, it isn't. It's the pages dealing with Juliet in Psych and Philosophy, somewhat supplemented by the other sources. And I readily believe that there is significantly less material than on Shawn and Gus. But more than the paragraph that the characters without their own articles on List of Psych characters have, and more than the usual threshhold between a stub and an article, which is the critereon for a stand-alone article applied by WP:MERGEREASON #3. And even if it were just on the order of the other characters on that list, outright deletion would make little sense: It would leave an empty section there, while more minor characters had their own paragraph. In that case a merger there would be the way to go. Daranios (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Using the sources above, I've overhauled the article, adding a § Reception and analysis section which is now the bulk of the article. —siro χ o 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources and edits made by Siroxo. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 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 14:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azeus Convene

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

the content appears to lack substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources; too many links with promotional or straightforward informational coverage Assirian cat (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Routine coverage for a brochure article, adveritising the company on Wikipedia. Fails WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4. scope_creep^Talk 21:25, 11 October 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 14:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SoonFasting

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

Notability and sources problems; 5 best apps and similar sources aren't good. Assirian cat (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear cut COI PROMO issue 87.74.193.124 (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No neutral WP:RS sources and clear advertising, WP:PROMO. Zefr (talk) 13:47, 10 October 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 Psych characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Vick

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

There is only one reference, which is not a very reliable one at that. A quick search doesn't show much for analysis or anything meaningful about this character. There is little value said here not already covered in List of Psych characters article. It should redirect there with only a very brief description of the character. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Did a quick search not finding anything else notable with name referencing the character Teddy012 (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Unreferenced plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:59, 11 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation

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

Dead/primary sources only, fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 12:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable, no secondary sources XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 12:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline spam created by someone who got blocked for spamming at later time. May not meet NCORP, and as another justification, the article is so fluffy that start all over is also reasonable. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did my best to find independent sources. There are some sources confirming that the organisation exists and has been involved in at least one legal case, but that's weak for establishing notability. Following what Graywalls said, the article was created by a user who is indefinitely blocked since 3 March 2022 for advertising spam, and in six years since the article's creation on 5 May 2017 nothing much has improved in terms of sourcing. Boud (talk) 00:29, 12 October 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!} 23:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Zubrycki

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

Hopelessly promotional autobiographical spam. Blow it away and let someone independent start over. Note that the author has repeatedly removed the autobiography tag from the page but has self identified as the subject. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am in the process of editing entry to make it less 'promotional'. Have added links to film referred to in "writing/directing career". Over the next 7 days will check and add references and citations. I would like to take on board any suggestions to improve this entry. Thanks Tzub (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of promotional in quotes suggest you disagree or don't understand. You need to immediately stop editing this article about yourself, if things have gotten so bad you end up at AfD, the game is up. Read WP:COI right now. You risk not only complete deletion of your Wikipedia profile, but public embarrassment - oh look the guy who got into a pissing match at Wikipedia because he was editing his own article. Duffbeerforme is right, let other people edit the article, this is how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not your CV or place in history, it's whatever people besides yourself want to say - that's why it's valuable. You have your own website to write about yourself. There are so many problems with your article clearly you don't understand the norms and rules of Wikipedia, or flaunt them, either way it will not go well for you if you continue this way. -- GreenC 15:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give the initial state of the article, I can totally see the nom's position. I went ahead and removed everything that doesn't have a reliable secondary source, cutting the article size in half (not quite TNT). I removed all the inline external links to film databases and TZ's website. With all that done, there is still enough evidence of notability per GNG, the topic itself is notable, as was even suggested by the nom ("let someone independent start over"). The article is salvageable, so long as Tom can leave his Wikipedia article alone, even if he doesn't like it, or finds it's incomplete. If Tom has sources he should post them on the talk page with suggested edits. If he continues to edit the article I will report it to the COI Noticeboard. -- GreenC 15:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The quote from the film encyclopedia seems solid, this also helps [25]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 10 October 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, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bestshoring

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

The Clinton source is not enough to make this notable Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:DICTIONARY The is lifted from a Hillary Clinton opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, which is also under External Links. A Google search of the term results in the exact same wording, but nothing else. — Maile (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neologism, and not one that seems to have caught on. It's a whitewash of offshoring, for which we have an article, so this article strikes me as a pointless POV fork. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:07, 10 October 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 12:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24 (Turkish TV channel)

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

I looked at the Turkish article and although it has sources and a lot of history it does not really explain how the channel is notable amongst the hundreds of Turkish TV channels Chidgk1 (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 10 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Pocock, artist

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

No evidence of notability found, the one source with biographical info is an amateur website, and I can't find any reliable source which gives significant attention to this Edward Pocock(e). Fram (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. Fram (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This artist meets criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST; his work is included in the permanent collections of several notable museums. Netherzone (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.Leutha (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- If taken literally, like here, that is a rather ridiculous rule. Even if some objects are kept in the depots of rather local museums and aren't on display, and are just catalogied but not further described or noted, it supposedly means that the artist is notable? The British Museum, for instance, has eight million objects, not every artist who has an object in that collection is notable (even though the British Museum is way more important than the musea listed here). The very least one would need to meet this criterion is being (semi-)permanently on display, not just hidden in storage. Fram (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The Norfolk Museums holds over 30 pieces of his work in their permanent collection. (These can be viewed by performing an advanced search of their collections online). Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which isn't an answer of course. "Norfolk Museums Service holds over three million objects"[26], being included in these collections is as such not a sign of notability. Fram (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to our guidelines for notability of Creative Professionals it is. This artist is in the permanent collections of several notable museums. Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:ARTIST #4. Fram (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I've responded there. Netherzone (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- His importance is underlined by the reproduction of his work in historical books, such as Great Tooley of Ipswich published by the Suffolk Records Society. They often provide images of buildings which sometimes are no longer standing or have been substantially altered. Leutha (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Netherzone. --SouthernNights (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NARTIST per above. I'd also comment that it is unreasonable for wikipedia articles notability to be subject to a potentially ever changing count of whether an artwork is on display or not - which is why I expect the SNG primarily requires presence in multiple collections. ResonantDis_tortion 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow per all of the above. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is kept, I think it should be be moved to Edward Pocock (artist) --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agreed. I had the same plan - but we can't do that until after the Afd is resolved. ResonantDis_tortion 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:NARTIST #4.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:57, 16 October 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. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack F. Campbell

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

Fails WP:BASIC. No significant mentions in reliable independent sources. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additions of reliable sources. Teddy012 (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced non-football/soccer name search. I’ll amend sources. I guess it’s different from State Attorney office. Thanks AB. Recommend delete Teddy012 (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Teddy012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Additional sources about influence added Jc6828a (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Jack F. Campbell is so non-notable that the article has to use deceptive referencing to puff up the subject:

- reference 1 - Politico - cited to support Campbell's claim that "He is a policy influencer".

Politico's article quotes a totally different Jack Campbell, in this case a state attorney

- reference 2 - cited to support Campbell's claim to be a "published commentator on the American Aerospace Defense industry".

This is just Campbell's self-published assessment of Lockheed Martin's stock on the crowd-sourced Seeking Alpha stock-picking website.

- reference 3 - Tallahassee Democrat newspaper article includes the name "Jack Campbell" on a list of 500+ signed up to attend a Tallahassee Chamber of Commerce meeting.

Except it's that other Jack Campbell, the state attorney.

- reference 4 - another self-published Seeking Alpha piece about a defense contractor.

- reference 5 is the basis for Campbell's claim to be a military officer - his promotion to First Lieutenant in 2021. That's an officer rank typically attained by someone two years after leaving officer training. It's certainly an honorable job but it's such a low, low rank that it's painful to see someone using it to support their Wikipedia article.

- reference 6 cites the U.S. Embassy to the Philippines, Joint Military Assistance Group's webpage.

Campbell's name is not on this page.

- reference 7 cites a long Wall Street Journal article about a US Marine unit's preparations near Taiwan.

Campbell's name is not in this article.

In several hundred AfDs, I haven't seen such egregiously deceptive sourcing. If I were Mr. Campbell, I would be so embarrassed to get caught out like this. I'd hope Google won't index this AfD page for the general public to find. I'd worry about the state attorney's reaction if he (the other Jack Campbell) learned about this article. But that's just me; I don't think these are likely concerns for Jack F. Campbell.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Message received apparently. [27] Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been speedied. Deb (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A. B.'s source assessment, clearly fails WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 05:23, 11 October 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, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Roche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wendell Roche

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

Non-notable fighter. Does not meet criteria for WP:NKICK. Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG Lethweimaster (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Could not find any significant coverage only event results, no mentions of him on sheerdog, article fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Lewolka (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no evidence that he was ever ranked in the world top 10, which is the requirement for WP:NKICK. I also found no significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources. There were plenty of fight results, but nothing that showed WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:12, 12 October 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. Thank you for the multiple source assessment tables, that was quite an effort. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sameh Al Tawil

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

This has got to be the most impressive example of Wikiwashing I have seen - a sleek article packed with citations, lots of detail, well formatted and generally looking just fine and dandy. Behind that excellent presentation lies a house of cards - sourced in the main to the subjects own website, with occasional incidental mentions as taking part in local/regional exhibitions with video installations, there is not one shred of notability, enduring impact, critical regard, monument, significant award or exhibition. Fails WP:ARTIST; WP:FILMMAKER. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Arts, Egypt, and Germany. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added more than 20+ reference articles from independent sources. The irony is that the person was nominated for deletion because I added only those that was written from a neutral point of view and made sure not to write the things that would promote himI would also like to tell this person is one of the most recognized New media artists in the middle east ..He already has a section written about him in the wikipedia - .Contemporary art in Egypt - Wikipedia i have added references from some of the most recognized references like from Al-Ahram - Wikipedia which is one of the oldest news page out there. some eg - http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/5/25/300120/Arts--Culture/Visual-Art/Egypts-second-edition-of-Cairotronica-probes-futur.aspx, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/ausstellung-nach-dem-kassensturz-1.3443658, http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsAFCON/2019/93085.aspx etc

Apart from that yes, he has won multiple awards and have attended International exhibitions in germany, saudi arabia etc..

for Eg -

01/2003(Endless journey) film “Kunst am boden” Exhibition ADBK Munich,

03/2002Participation prof. Brangenberg class Drawings-exhibition, in ADBK, Munich.

06/2003(Solo ll) Video, prof. Metzel class, year exhibition in ADBK, Munich,

2001-2004 participating in the annual exhibitions at the fine art academy in Munich(ADBK)

05/2023 Chaos ىضوف / within Nexus group exhibition in VerpachereiGö, Germany

10/1999 (Bronze sculpture) Workshop and Exhibition in Goethe Institut Cairo.

Here are the awards he had won -

Nile Salon photography prize 2012

Youth Salon Award (1999,2000, 2004)), a Small pieces Exhibition (2002),

ENPI Photography 2nd Prize 2010 and a commission from the Contemporary Art

Museum in Munich for the SOLO project (2003),

Cannes Lions Silver 2021, 2 Effie Awards 2017 &

2019, EME Award 2018,

Comprix Award 2018,

BestCss award,

AdsOfTheWorld 2020, Vuforia

Vision Award 2015.

Now, my main concern was i didn't write award since, it though it would promote him since i wanted to write it in a neutral point of view but since, it was nominated directly for deletion i will add all those things the nominator has requested Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I agree with the nominator that this is a misleading use of sources, using trivial mentions to make grand claims. For example, the article currently says that this person's "body of work is distinguished by its thought-provoking exploration of themes, notably freedom, religious identity, artistic identity, and human rights," which is sourced to a 3-sentence mention in an article about a group show, which mentions a single work (not a body of work), is a basic description of the work that does not describe it as anything like "thought-provoking," and makes no mention of anything like "freedom," "artistic identity," or "human rights." Elspea756 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Since, my fellow colleagues tells that i used only trivial mentioning for that purpose i would like to prove that the sources that i used are not just trivial sources by mentioning each project with secondary sources links - please note that these projects are the reason why i mention that the sameh al tamil way of work is to show freedom, religious identity, artistic identity, and human rights (it's the overall perspective of the projects ..i didn't mention this randomly.. I would humbly request the fellow collegues to please go through the references proverly before casting vote here -

Reliable independent sources for Projects –

Video Installations -
1. Cupboard - https://universes.art/de/nafas/articles/2005/dar-al-hiwar
2. Visitors - AkademieGalerie 2004 - 2008 (in German). Academy of Fine Arts, Munich. 2009. p. 11. ISBN 978-3-932934-25-4.
3. A442Hz - https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsPrint/82223.aspx , Mekawei, Yara (2013). https://www.udrop.com/file/KNV1/A442Hz_-_AhhSixthFloor_Exhibition_Cairo_2013.pdf" (PDF). SIXTH FLOOR. pp. 54–55.
4. "Clockwise - https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsAFCON/2019/93085.aspx
6. Solo –(1) "LOOK AT THIS steht in Großbuchstaben auf der Zeichnung von David Shrigley, die ein schwarzes Rechteck zeigt" (PDF) (in German). 2021. p. 11. - LOOK_AT_THIS_Booklet_WEB.pdf https://www.udrop.com/KRjs/LOOK_AT_THIS_Booklet_WEB.pdf?download_token=e46b53aafb6e7de562664355562ec774a9520250ac380ac7e79dd4f30c8d3604

(2) another secondary source https://www.sammlung.pinakothek.de/en/artwork/Y0GRWlX4RX/sameh-el-tawil/solo

Art projects –

7. Slavery Document - https://universes.art/de/nafas/articles/2005/dar-al-hiwa

8. Vs Versa” - https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/05/cairo-culture-festivals-combine-art-politics.html - www.al-monitor.com. May 2, 2013. Retrieved September 29, 2023.

another secoundary reference - "Behind the image and Beyond," (PDF). Egypt Digital art Festival. 2013. http://teganbristow.co.za/?portfolio=amaze-johannesburg-2013

10. Not for sale - https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/ausstellung-nach-dem-kassensturz-1.3443658

Moving Images –

11.IDEMixer - https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/5/25/300120/Arts--Culture/Visual-Art/Egypts-second-edition-of-Cairotronica-probes-futur.aspx

https://alarab.co.uk/%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%A7-%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA

12. Chaos - "Cairotronica 3rd edition at the factory and tahrir cultural center" (PDF). 2021. p. 111.

https://www.udrop.com/KNV5/chaos_-_Cairotronica_2021_Cataloge-compressed.pdf?download_token=40f43a70b71a197cfdb8ecdc8d542bde4996c449e3aad1cebfeca09eb77b7757

Please go through the secondary links and then cast your vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Sadique Hussain (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO I am not finding any reliable sources for the biographical information presented. I can't find significant coverage or evidence that he is any collections. The article relies heavily on the artist's website. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elspea756 , @Alexandermcnabb and @WomenArtistUpdates Dear Colleagues, i do admit that he doesn't have alot of coverage through news articles publication and other way of references about his life.in general but he does have coverage about his each of his work he published. But saying that he doesn't have any other significant coverage other than his official website is wrong without proper prior research.

To show evidence here it is a peer-reviewed publication- LandEscape Art Review - December 2013 - land.escape Flip PDF | AnyFlip

In this Peer-reviewed publication Sameh Al Tawil has a coverage from page number 50 - 59. A total of 9 page worth of coverage ....it talk about his life, career and work. and explain in detail about his projects.

for your kind information "Landescape Art Review" meets the criteria and is considered a reputable source within the field of art and art criticism, Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article says just above that a self-written bio and interview in LandEscape Art Review is the absolute best source there is for this article. This unreliable primary (not reliable secondary) source describes themself as for "the advertising of works of art" and "selected works will be asked for a symbolic 15€ contribution." THIS IS PAID PROMOTION, not significant coverage in a reliable secondary source. DO NOT TAG ME IN ANOTHER RESPONSE AND DO NOT CONTINUE TO WASTE MY TIME. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, @Elspea756 I will not tag you anymore and as a matter of fact i only tag you once.The other was a reply to your comment. I would appreciate if you can watch your tone and not be rude ..I would suggest you to please use a little professional tone. I am not here to waste your time, ok? This is an Interview where the artist is explaining about his work and what does his art/video installations speak of, and this is not the best source in this particular article ..they are a lot of different secondary source as well. with a total of 10+ different source for different project mentioned in the article. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It is also clearly mentioned that if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. - WP:BASIC and WP:NBASIC .. Also the person has won multiple awards and has been part of multiple exhibitions see the listed exhibition in the article and the award he won in the above discussion section. Most of the work the artist has done is his original work. Also i would like to mention that with regards to artist there is no dedicated page which give the criteria in detail (since it is failed proposal) as of now only a small paragraph that gives detail about the notability of the artist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(artists)_(failed_proposal) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Sadique Hussain (talk • contribs) 09:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Syed Sadique Hussain please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON and turn down the bold. You've made your case, you do not need to refute everyone else's opinions. Star Mississippi 13:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi Sure, I was giving my point with the guidelines but i will backout now. I have made my point and had spoken whatever need to be. Thank you for reminding me of that :-) Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here. But please, no more rebuttals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment: Here are the first 10 out of 35 sources, in a source assessment table as requested by Liz. Elspea756 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was an amazing amount of work to go to - thank you for your diligence! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Elspea756
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsPrint/8288.aspx			Subject mentioned in half a sentence	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
https://issuu.com/landescapeartpress/docs/landescape_art_review_-_december_20	Paid advertising. Source describes themself as for "the advertising of works of art" and "selected works will be asked for a symbolic 15€ contribution."	Paid advertising		✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/about/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
https://issuu.com/landescapeartpress/docs/landescape_art_review_-_december_20	Paid advertising. Source describes themself as for "the advertising of works of art" and "selected works will be asked for a symbolic 15€ contribution."	Paid advertising		✘ No
https://www.adbk.de/de/?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=archive&task=view&mailid=220			Subject's name just listed with 40+ other people	✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KT8x/bruno_frank_and_sameh.pdf?download_token=a660363e8289ed38e1a8cdfcc82b70c6c1af900eca2f9c659054a6c50497d186			Blurry image of a newspaper article hosted on a file sharing site does not mention subject in headline and body of the article does not appear to discuss the subject in detail if at all.	✘ No
https://universes.art/de/nafas/articles/2005/dar-al-hiwar/dar-al-hiwar			Neither of the subject's names, "Sameh" nor "Tawil," appear on this page a single time.	✘ No
https://gate.ahram.org.eg/News/2351485.aspx			Three short sentences on the subject as part of a longer article about 100+ artists at an art festival.	✘ No
https://www.alroeya.com/130-42/2102182-%D8%A5%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%88%D8%A3%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%83%D8%B4%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%89-%D9%81%D9%8A-%C2%AB%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9%C2%BB			Two short sentences on the subject as part of a longer article about multiple artists at an art festival.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

More source assessment: Here are sources 11 through 20 out of now 39 (4 more of these types of sources have been added since the last previous source assessment table). Elspea756 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Elspea756
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bf1944a25bf02584d34fa6d/t/5c1974fe562fa783d99e0cfe/1545172230102/1702.pdf			Subject's name just listed with 40+ other people. This is the exact same list of 40+ people in a previous source, so serves no purpose other than spamming references.	✘ No
http://www.halle6.net/projekte			Neither of the subject's names, "Sameh" nor "Tawil," appear on this page a single time.	✘ No
https://universes.art/de/nafas/articles/2005/dar-al-hiwar			Subject's name just listed with 20 other people.	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/visitors/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
AkademieGalerie 2004			Apparently a purportedly offline source.	? Unknown
https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsPrint/82223.aspx			Subject's name just listed with 150+ other people	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/a442hz/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KNV1/A442Hz_-_AhhSixthFloor_Exhibition_Cairo_2013.pdf?download_token=9c4c6a6e705272cbb985b2927efb85e4743f50a50377082eb0c836baf9f9a406	PDF hosted on a file-sharing site, contains excerpt of text from subject's website.	PDF hosted on a file-sharing site, contains excerpt of text from subject's website.	Four sentences.	✘ No
https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsAFCON/2019/93085.aspx	Largely primary-source interview quotes from subject.	Largely primary-source interview quotes from subject.		✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/clockwise/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Even more source assessment: Here are sources 21 through 30 out of 39 sources. Elspea756 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Elspea756
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.pin-freunde.de/foerderungen/erwerbungen/kunstwerk/solo			24 words	✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KRjs/LOOK_AT_THIS_Booklet_WEB.pdf?download_token=8cf343511e5bfcc0d3ef53320bdf60b866fda751067fc9d57dfb6a12670a3509	Exhibition catalog statement likely written by the subject.	Exhibition catalog statement likely written by the subject.	3 sentences.	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/solo-2018/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
https://www.sammlung.pinakothek.de/en/artwork/Y0GRWlX4RX/sameh-el-tawil/solo			Directory listing, roughly 30 words.	✘ No
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/05/cairo-culture-festivals-combine-art-politics.html			Three sentences.	✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KNUx/VS.__Augmented_Reality_Live-__DI-EGY-FEST-Ex-BOOK.pdf?download_token=9630f8a8319f6d7f89c5a05d6f29673ba59e33093e04549a6350e7ec7d089e61	Hosted on file-sharing site, says simply "File cannot be located, please try again later."			? Unknown
https://samehaltawil.com/2013/09/12/vs_amaze/	Subject's web site	Self-published source		✘ No
http://teganbristow.co.za/?portfolio=amaze-johannesburg-2013	Another person's self-published website on an event they did together.	Another person's self-published website.	Three sentences on the subject.	✘ No
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/ausstellung-nach-dem-kassensturz-1.3443658			Four sentences.	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/not-for-sale-%D9%84%D9%8E%D9%8A%D9%92%D8%B3%D9%8E-%D9%84%D9%90%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%8E%D9%8A%D9%92%D8%B9%D9%90/	Subject's web site for the eighth time!	Self-published source, subject's web site for the eighth time!		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Even more source assessment yet: Here are sources 31 through 38 out of 38 sources. (A 39th source was removed by the article's creator.) Elspea756 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Elspea756
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/chaos-%D9%81%D9%8E%D9%88%D9%92%D8%B6%D9%8E%D9%89/	Subject's web site for the 9th time!	Self-published source		✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KNV4/Nexus_catalogue-_Chaos_and_al_tawil_biography.pdf?download_token=03a5ebcdfb1aceb205a782d0c536b75ffb41e0e14fe329aea0316053cc48cd49	Exhibition catalog statements likely written by the subject or those close to them.	Exhibition catalog statements likely written by the subject or those close to them.		✘ No
https://aawsat.com/home/article/2060726/%C2%AB%D9%85%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%%2084%D9%81%D9%86%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%20%D8%A9%C2%BB-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82-%D8%A3%D9%86-%D9%8A%D8%B0%D9%%2087%D8%A8-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%%20D9%84%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A9			Five sentences.	✘ No
https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/5/25/300120/Arts--Culture/Visual-Art/Egypts-second-edition-of-Cairotronica-probes-futur.aspx			Part of a single sentence listing seven people.	✘ No
https://samehaltawil.com/portfolio/idemixer/	Subject's web site for the 10th time!	Self-published source		✘ No
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-43859-3_8			A single sentence.	✘ No
https://alarab.co.uk/%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%A7-%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA			Three sentences.	✘ No
https://www.udrop.com/KNV5/chaos_-_Cairotronica_2021_Cataloge-compressed.pdf?download_token=cb15db6257fa543d411aab3040b96f9967123f924104128d959d4667b19e1ed2	Exhibition catalog statements likely written by the subject or those close to them. Text is similar to that on the subject's web site.	Exhibition catalog statements likely written by the subject or those close to them. Text is similar to that on the subject's web site.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete: Based on the THREE source analysis tables, there is nothing remotely notable about this individual. PROMO. I can't find anything about his film work, the name is rather common so you get hits on anything and everything. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Things

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

Now here's the thing: this whole construct/concept is a piece of IBM 'thought leadership', and a phrase coined by IBM - and promoted by the company - in the pursuit of commercial goals. So I nominated it for G11, and it was then sent to draft. Now it's back and it's STILL problematic. I'll quote here from the G11 template, "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." (my bold)

So here we have an article about an idea and associated catchphrase that solely serves IBM - sourced to IBM, the opinions and/or op-eds of its staff and a couple of non-IBM sources dealing with tangential concepts that have been accepted into the mainstream. It's promotion, plain and simple.

If speedy is declined and the draft mainspaced by its author without addressing the fundamentally IBM-centric nature of the whole idea (hard to do - again from G11, "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.") then I would suggest the only possible outcome is deletion. You could redirect to IBM but then that gives IBM effective ownership of the phrase on Wikipedia... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree at least that this falls under "other content not suitable" at the moment . Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not believe any of the content currently in the article is suitable to merge into internet of things, however, I would not object to a redirect with history kept if a mention is worked into that article without being contrived. With regards to anti-corporate bias, I believe it's reasonable to take a harder line against commercial promotion versus the "I'm a fan of this" type of promotion, and I believe that this is supportable by the spirit of our PAG. See the difference between COI and PAID or GNG and CORP for example. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole article is just an IBM promotional piece. The sources are weak too - two are primary sources directly from IBM, a Forbes article that turns out to be sponsored content by IBM, a press release and a promotional brochure by Vodafone, a blog post by whatever the hell Peaq is, and pieces by other businesses that aren't reliable sources. Delete the whole thing. No redirect either, because as Alexandermcnabb correctly pointed out, there isn't enough independent coverage to grant IBM ownership of this phrase on Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As @Seraphimblade: said in this article - Not really a G11, but not mainspace ready either; reads more like an essay than a summation of references. Will move to draft. I did a total rewrite of the article as recommended to me. Certainly this article cannot be classified as a promotional article, as it comes from reliable sources and is a viable wikipedia topic.--Zytty (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source? Cortador (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources available in the article, including the following Techradar,Techtimes, Rcrwireless, [28], [29], Thesundaily, Businessinsider...and many other newspapers, books mentioning the name of the article. Zytty (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus on TechRadar, RCR Wireless News, or The Sun Daily, TechTimes was deemed unreliable, Economic Times was deemed unreliable as they apparently don't always mark sponsored content, and Business Insider also apparently doesn't always mark syndicated content as per Wikipedia's lost of perennial sources. The single reliable source here is Sensor. Cortador (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get 'Sensor'... sorry, slow bear... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Sensors (journal), which is the source for the PubMed link. Being a MDPI journal, reliability is... debatable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, PubMed - gotcha. Thanks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sensors is the journal the PubMed article Zytty linked to above is in. It's peer-reviewed, so that is one actually reliable source in a group of dubious ones. Cortador (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Alpha3031's comment above, I did have a closer looks at MDPI. Their Wikipedia article is 75% controversies. Wikipedia is not a source, of course, but maybe we should have a second look at what they publish, as MDPI has been alleged to be a predatory publisher, and have some level 0 journals. Cortador (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to I did a total rewrite, I have to say when people say total rewrite, they do not usually mean going through 6 of the 20 paragraphs with a thesaurus while keeping the semantic meaning of each clause nearly identical (or at least, substantially similar). If there is any appropriate redirect destination, it would probably be internet of things rather than IBM, which I hesitate to suggest as such while it does not mention the concept. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Buzzwordy and promotional; all sources I could find were either not independent of IBM/Peaq or were breathless opinion pieces that made me instinctively cover my wallet. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be you practising the economy of things, right there... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary into internet of things. A search found a couple of papers section 2, The digital economy of things and [30], and a chapter in a book, The Economy of Things. These in addition to the Sensors article mentioned above show discussion of the concept independent of the original IBM source. IMO the sources confer marginal notability, but as a concept discussed in reliable sources, the topic is solidly verifiable. As the EoT concept is discussed in the context of IoT and indeed depends on them, a brief summary in the internet of things seems the appropriate target. That preservation of verifiable material is preferred over deletion is our Wikipedia policy (see WP:ATD and WP:Preserve). I also think we need to be sensitive to systemic bias in Wikipedia, in this case an anti-corporate bias. If an academic had first come up with the concept of EoT, I suspect we would not be having this discussion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but an academic wouldn't be leveraging the coinage of the concept for commercial advantage, would they? And the issue I see - 'anti-corporate bias' apart, is that using a Wikipedia article to help mainstream/cement a 'thought leadership concept' driven by a corporation is an abuse of Wikipedia. Getting back to the nomination, "...it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea." In other words, it's "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course an academic would leverage the coinage of a concept for personal gain! Such leverage would increase their reputation or notoriety and increase citations, leading to better chances of success in getting grants, corporate funding, and promotions at work. With respect to the nomination, the origin of a topic doesn't matter--if a topic is discussed in enough depth in reliable sources, that is verifiable information, possibly notable, and is suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia. My suggestion of merging a brief summary from RS both preserves verifiable information and can easily remove any advertising and hype problems. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, 'The Economy of Things' book you linked to is a) self published and b) by a gentleman called Enamul Haque who, we would fervently hope, is not the same Enamul Haque employed by IBM India. So we're really back to square one - find a reliable source that does not originate with IBM and this attempt to coin a phrase to use in a 'thought leadership' campaign. We come back to the same basic point - this article has G11 splashed all over it in nice, blue lettering... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good find on the book source, agreed it isn't independent. But not back to square one at all--the other three sources (the two articles and the Sensors article) are independent RS (AFAICT) and are fine for verification of basic facts and merging a brief summary. I still see no compelling argument for deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little skeptical on the conference proceedings by the way. Leaving aside for the moment whether AWK AACHEN is fully peer reviewed for the moment, it doesn't seem to be on the same topic as what IBM proposes? Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge an article that must be on wikipedia.--Tristancr (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion on the chance that there is some content here that is worth Merging. I have no opinion on the ultimate fate of this article, I just don't want to be quick on the delete button here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than enough hits in Gscholar discussing this thing, I would give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus here. Just editors with very different assessments of this article and its sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the newly-created article does too much repeating of IBM marketing claims in Wikipedia's voice to be kept. Also, I don't see any good references; when I did a Google Scholar keyword search, most of the hits were unrelated to the IBM-coined topic. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep however the material in the article is easily verifiable by the sources present, fully supporting Mark viking idea.--Nimorinka (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge per Mark viking) it seems like this is somewhere between an IBM promo and WP:CRYSTALBALL. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 04:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is far too early to tell if this new buzzy phrase will be adopted or where precisely the "Characteristics" section really comes from. There are no independent sources and we should be deeply suspicious of topics where the content is provided by companies invested in the success of the topic. The topic is simply promotional and even if it is destined to take off as a separate industry segment, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL applies. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:50, 17 October 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 Froge.mp3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Words (Piri & Tommy song)

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

It doesn't look like any of the sources in the article both provide sigcov on the song and meet WP:NSONG's requirement of a qualifying source being fully independent of the artist and team. I'd suggest a redirect to Froge.mp3. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Froge.mp3 as suggested above. Agree that it doesn't have sigcov. Also, there are plenty of bigger artists that don't have articles for songs. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Froge.mp3 per the above. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Głusza, Wałcz County

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

On GMaps this locates to the driveway of a single property whose exact nature I can't make out, but it's obviously not a village/town/whatever. The first reference is to Registr TERYT, whose English language front page describes its mission in terms that show it is exactly analogous to GNIS; the other reference appears to be a statistical/geographical database of a sort familiar to those who have checked this kind of article before. I don't see how this is notable, and for those who might appeal to WP:GEOLAND, I don't see that "legally recognized" is satisfied; but if it be so, it's another example of how that has proven to be a bad standard. There appear to be a number of these, newly created, so we're going to be busy here. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging expert @Stok _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Best wait for the experts but here's my dwa groszy in the meantime - www.polskawliczbach.pl is apparently algorithmically-created content and anyway not a reliable source. Using my poor Polish (I lived there for four years but am far from fluent) I tried searching on the Teryt database linked to in the article but couldn't find a place called Głusza, though this is probably just my own failing. The ___location is, as Mangoe says, just someone's drive-way. I spot checked three of the article-creator's articles over on the NGEO talk-page and all three were problematic (two were about locations with nothing at them and sourcing which did not show that they had ever really been populated; the other was about a random embassy in Warsaw with no GNG pass). Leaning delete simply on this basis. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into this in more detail, I'm going to upgrade my !vote to strong delete. The place in question is an osada leśna (or "forest settlement") according to this regulation on the names of cities and parts of cities, not a hamlet (which in the relevant Polish law is referred to as a przysiółek -see Art.2(10)). A "settlement" in the relevent Polish law (Art.2(8) of the same act previously linked) is described as:

"osada - niewielką jednostkę osadniczą na terenie wiejskim o odmiennym (wyróżniającym się) charakterze zabudowy albo zamieszkaną przez ludność związaną z określonym miejscem lub rodzajem pracy, w szczególności: osadę młyńską, osadę leśną, osadę rybacką, osadę kolejową, osadę po byłym państwowym gospodarstwie rolnym; osada może być samodzielna lub może stanowić część innej jednostki osadniczej;"

Or in machine translation:

"settlement - a small settlement unit in a rural area with a different (distinct) character of development or inhabited by people associated with a specific place or type of work, in particular: a mill settlement, a forest settlement, a fishing settlement, a railway settlement, a settlement of a former state farm; the settlement may be independent or may constitute part of another settlement unit;" (emphasis added)

From this you can see that the ___location need not actually be populated (emphasis on the "or inhabited" part of this) or independent, which is indeed what we see in multiple examples of these settlements for which there are now AFDs open - they can be forestry offices, farms, or even just empty locations, and can simply be parts of villages.

GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability to legally-recognised populated places, but a place need only be "a small settlement unit in a rural area with a different (distinct) character of development", and not necessarily inhabited, to receive the status of being a "osada leśna". FOARP (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Following pl:osada leśna interwiki leads me to hamlet (place), but that particular article on pl wiki has a pipe leadning to ... a wilderness hut. If it is a hamlet, it may meet GEOLAND, but if it is just a hut... (TERYT confirms it is a hamlet). I'll start an AFD on pl wiki and ask for more feedback. PS. Done: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:10:17:Głusza (powiat wałecki) - let's wait a week or so and see if any useful arguments emerge there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 17 October 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.

Cisco Bradley

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ––– GMH MELBOURNE 02:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NACADEMIC (as far as i can tell). None of the sources in the article are independent. From what I could find on google, nothing seemed to be totally independent or reliable. Note: article creator is an editor who has declared a COI. ––– GMH MELBOURNE 03:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Music, and Montana. ––– GMH MELBOURNE 03:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Work has not made an impact through citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Book citations in musicology are extremely hard to find - what sources did you consult for this?

-- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "book citations in musicology are extremely hard to find" needs a source. A look at GS for "Musicology" shows many references with well over 100 citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Seem to meet WP:AUTHOR for authorship of some notable books. Here's some reviews:
1. The Legacy of Shaykh Da’ud bin ‘Abd Allah al-Fatani in Mecca and Southeast Asia
  1. Sevea, Teren. Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde 172, no. 4 (2016): 545–48. [31]
  2. Bruinessen, Martin van. Journal of Islamic Studies. Jan2018, Vol. 29 Issue 1, p103-106. [32]
  3. BROWN, JARROD W, Southeast Review of Asian Studies Volume 39 (2017), pp. 159–87 [33]
  4. Fogg, Kevin W. Journal of Asian Studies. Nov2018, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p1131-1132. 2p. [34])
  5. Eric Tagliacozzo Volume44, Issue3. Special Issue: Biblical Translating and Interpreting. September 2018. Pages 344-345. [35]
2. Universal Tonality: The Life and Music of William Parker
  1. Benjamin Barson, Critical Studies in Improvisation / Études critiques en improvisation, Vol. 15, No. 1, [36]
  2. Henry, Lisa, Universal Tonality: The Life and Music of William Parker. Library Journal, 03630277, Jan2021, Vol. 146, Issue 1 [37]
  3. Dietrich, K. R. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Nov2021, Vol. 59 Issue 3, p458-458. 1/4p

—siro χ o 09:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- three books by two of the top presses in their respective fields (Duke for Jazz studies; UH for East/Southeast Asian studies), with significant numbers of reviews for the books that have been out long enough to have reviews found by Siroxo. Definitely above the Average Professor test as a significant music researcher. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some of the above reviews and some others to the article. I agree they're enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets our guideline for WP:AUTHOR Lightburst (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Esene

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

Topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. The sources available (which you can go through) are PR and press releases. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Wholly promotional article about a person who doesn't passes the [[[WP:GNG]]. Sources are either passing mention, not even mentioning the subject or wholly insignificant coverage-wise. Literally no citation to establish notability. Originally moved to draftspace by nominator but was later moved back to mainspace by creator without going through the AfC process which was presumably the essence of the draftification. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Thanks to User:Graham87 for his help with this history merger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Lino

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop. I have reset the article classification to stub because it is at a very early stage of development, as would be expected for an 18-year-old player. I think the topic meets the notability guidelines, perhaps marginally so, and all that is needed is for the article to be developed. I know there is a WP:TOOSOON guideline which would apply if Franco was still a reserve player only, but he has made his professional debut. It is surely "too soon" to delete because, if Franco's career takes off, the article will have to be recreated and that would mean time has been wasted. PearlyGigs (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His career may take off is not a good enough argument to keep. WP:TOOSOON applies. TarnishedPath^talk 10:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search indicates that the subject fails WP:SPORTBASIC. This was created WP:TOOSOON. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with TarnishedPath that fails WP:SPORTBASIC. 'Draftify' is a good option, but my understanding is that the policy is not yet approved?? Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as Draftify but found that Draft:Franco Lino exists already. Should that draft be deleted in favor of this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Draft and Delete The draft is very similar to the article being discussed here, but not identical. I think the best option is to combine the two in draft form, as it may be WP:TOOSOON to be in mainspace. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I tried to Merge this article and the draft version and even though the edit history didn't overlap, the system wouldn't allow me to complete a Merge. Perhaps it's because they were in different namespaces. Maybe someone could ping an admin who is more technically adept at merging page histories and they could take a stab at this process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: see above. I suspect the draft first needs to be histmerged into the mainspace article and then moved ot of mainspace without leaving a redirect. Could you take a look when you have a chance? Jenks24 (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jenks24: All done. I have no position on what should happen to this page though. Graham87 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Graham. @Liz: histmerge has been done so you should be fine to close as drafity now if you want and move it to Draft:Franco Lino. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country Fever

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything else. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 01:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 01:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify sounds similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Lights and Country Music (Rick Nelson album). Many Rick Nelson albums will be individually notable—this one likely is due to his well-known shift into country music but it'll take time to dig up sources from that era. —siro χ o 02:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been draftified recently. However, the creator moved it out of the draft space without making significant changes to improve the article. Significa liberdade (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple months ago, someone mentioned to me that even when this happens, the creator doesn't WP:OWN the article, which I now try to consider in such cases. It's pretty clear the creator has had a bit of a tough start on Wikipedia, and that's unfortunate. However the article is in an acceptable state to draftify, and it's very likely sources exist, given the artist's well-known shift into country music. —siro χ o 16:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything in sources except passing mentions. Also, this article is unfortunately part of a string of others created by the same user, and brought to AfD for notability issues. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC Not all albums are notable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Siroxo and outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Lights and Country Music (Rick Nelson album). The author should probably be banned from creating new articles and should have to go through the AFC process for each. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I advised them to do exactly that last week, and so far they've been pretty good about cooperating with the AfC review process, which I appreciate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:49, 16 October 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!} 05:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic

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

All but one entry (Archaic (comics)) is a partial match on this disambiguation page. Replacing this with a redirect to Archaism shortchanges the other main meaning of the word. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not quite clear to me what exactly you want done now: redirecting to archaism? But that article is actually about yet a different, more specialized concept (not archaic periods in the history of civilizations or languages, but archaic elements preserved in present-day languages). Or redirecting to the comic? But that is most certainly not the primary meaning. I'd keep the page as is, for lack of a better solution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the comic needs a link, the "in title" and "look from" links will help readers find other stuff, and the rest of the page needs to be trimmed drastically. Note that in Archaic_humans#Terminology_and_definition they are referred to several times as "archaics", so that is certainly a valid entry (though should not be piped: I've unpiped).Pam D 13:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Archaic period already exists, which covers the archaeological eras. The other entries seem unlikely to be confused with one another, and WP:PTM applies here. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Presidentman So do you suggest that the comic be renamed Archaic and that we leave it at that? PamD 21:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another dab page at Archaic Period: either that should redirect to this, or this should have a link to that instead of the various corresponding entries. We don't need both lists. PamD 07:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a go at producing a stripped-back version of the Archaic disambiguation page which I suggest will work to help all readers. PamD 07:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend Does this answer your concerns about the page? PamD 09:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Two of the three entries are partial matches. However, I don't want it to become a redirect to the comic. Maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But then the comic is lost. I really think my suggestion works best, even with a touch of WP:IAR, to help the reader. PamD 09:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added archaism back into the main dab, explicitly including "archaic" in the description. In my own life that's by far the most common occurrence of "archaic". I imagine the same will be true of at least some other readers. —siro χ o 02:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple things that readers may arrive at this page wanting to find, none seem primary. I see at least 4 full-fledged entries that should be disambiguated. (Comic, language, humans, periods). I think the dab is preferable to search results. —siro χ o 03:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now. And mixed opinions expressed on what some editors actually want to happen to this article which doesn't help determine a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a reasonable disambiguation page to me. There are multiple articles that a searcher could reasonably be looking for.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful for readers as 4meter4 and Siroxo have noted already.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:38, 10 October 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!} 01:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Shankar

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable singer. Fails the general and singer-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nepal. UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was ruled a "soft" delete on September 23, just two days ago. If I am reading the history correctly, it appears that the article's creator simply removed the AfD notice and carried on, and the article was never actually deleted. Now it has been nominated for deletion again as if something different will happen this time. See the exact same course of events at Benisha Poudel, with the same article creator involved. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it was deleted and then requested to be restored via WP:RFU. This request was fulfilled (which is why the AFD tag was removed). I then created the 2nd AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One question remains: what is the likelihood of anything different happening this time? I'm undecided as a voter and it appears that few others are interested, so therefore I'm seeing wasteful bureaucracy. Sorry for all the copy/pasting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since a restored prod or restore soft delete can not be soft deleted again, this will remain an active discussion until there is enough discussion to reach a more permanent conclusion. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - There are lots of reliable and independent sources, with significant coverage.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 meet WP:GNG and notable.Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. I think an immediate renomination to AFD after a weakly attended first AFD might not result in the permanent conclusion you expect. There would have to be substantial support for Deleting this article since Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:GNG with sources cited in the article and provided here.4meter4 (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would request to all(for participate this afd and close.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endrabcwizart (talk • contribs) 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A future Merge can be discussed on the article talk page or another appropriate forum. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians of Julfa

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

We already have Armenians in Azerbaijan, Armenians in Nakhchivan, Armenian cemetery in Julfa, Armenian cultural heritage in Azerbaijan and Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History. We don't need this article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per nomination. Nemoralis (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose well sourced, passes WP:GNG. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have articles for the historical Armenian population of every place once inhabited by them. I am aware of the cultural importance of Julfa for Armenians, but we have a lot of much better articles where this information can be perfectly covered. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the history section to Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History, but the cemetery portion is already covered by the dedicated article, so no need to merge that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above rationale. Archives908 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far. Also "We don't need this article" is not a strong deletion rationale as editors, in good faith, can disagree on what articles are "needed" on the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV. Oppose merge through this AFD for procedural reasons. The content could possibly be merged as suggested above but that should be done through a formal merge proposal at WP:MERGEPROP where notices can be placed at the targeted merge article and the threat of deletion removed from that discussion. I advocate for this because in my opinion merging this content could create WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the suggested merge article, and it it might be preferable to either let it remain a stand alone article, or merge to one of the other articles mentioned by the nominator (such as Armenians in Azerbaijan which I think would be a better merge target than Julfa, Azerbaijan (city)#History).4meter4 (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources and notability. Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge per 4meter4's thoughtful analysis.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:27, 10 October 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 Move a whole mess of articles‎ Per the below, which appears to have consensus. Should specific titles need tweaking, they can be adjusted at RM. But cascade TK within ten minutes Star Mississippi 01:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truist

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

Disambiguation page not needed; see WP:PTM. Make Truist a primary redirect to Truist Financial. 162 etc. (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - all of these can reasonably be referred to as simply "Truist", per WP:PTM. In addition, there is no primary topic for "Truist", so disambiguation is necessary. Finally, there are five stadiums with four different name types (Park, Field, Stadium, and Point), and keeping track of which is where and called what is confusing without some sort of list somewhere, which is partially what DAB pages are for, to avoid confusion. BilCat (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are five (!) American sports venues called "Truist Something". There needs to be some kind of disambiguation page listing all of them. Should it be at Truist or something else? I don't know. But, a reader thinking they want to know about Truist Field and finding it in a different city than they expected with nothing to point them in the direction of the stadium they actually want isn't helpful. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Truist Stadium, move Truist Stadium to a qualified title like Truist Stadium (Winston-Salem) or something, as it is definitely not the primary topic, and make Truist a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Truist Financial as requested by the nom. Then move the Truist Financial entry on the dab to the see also section, and update hatnotes as necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested by Mdewman6. "Truist" on its ~~unknown~~ own generally refers to the actual bank unambiguously. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and United States of America. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Truist Stadium. All of the stadiums that fall under Truist are there because Truist bank sponsors them and has the naming rights. Also as far as I can tell every sponsorship has a time period so all of these stadiums will eventually be renamed as something else. It's also consistent, if you search American Airlines you aren't sent to dismab page asking if you meant American Airlines Center. BHC (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Truist (disambiguation) or perhaps Trust (stadium). Please note that Truist Stadium is not the right dab name here, per WP:DABNAME: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page,. "Truist" is the name being disambiguated, not "Truist Stadium", which only represents 2 of the 5 actual names. —siro χ o 05:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's my issue with this dabpage - there is no ambiguous term. These are all PTMs. The consensus so far seems to be that we want to keep the page, but really this isn't a disambiguation page; it's more of a List of stadiums sponsored by Truist Financial, and I don't see much precedent for keeping such an article. 162 etc. (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a set index then. Except for Truist Financial, all the entries are stadiums (see their lede sentences) regardless of actual name. Then, as it serves a "disambiguation-like function", Truist stadium (disambiguation) can redirect there to disambiguate the two that actually have base name "Truist Stadium". Mdewman6 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that can work. —siro χ o 23:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying to understand Move recommendations that suggest moving this page to one occupied by an existing article. There needs to be more consensus on what to do here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This is a frustrating AFD because there are multiple move suggestions occurring, some of which can not be carried out by a closer. This article can not be moved to Truist Stadium because there is an article existing at this title and can't simply be deleted in favor of this article because it was not included in this nomination. Other editors want a simple page move to a page title that indicates that this is a disambiguation page which is a move that can be carried out outside of this AFD. If editors can't get on the same page with their recommendations, I think this might be closed as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Mdwewman's proposal for this because it's 50/50 about who is searching for the bank or its sporting venues. Nate • (chatter) 00:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move Truist to Truist (disambiguation), redirect Truist to Truist Financial as the company is the WP:PRIMARY target for which all the other things are named, move Truist Stadium to Truist Stadium (Winston-Salem) and redirect Truist Stadium to Truist (disambiguation). This sorts out the problem raised by Liz in in the redirect above and should sort things out in the spirit of what everyone stated above. @Mdewman6, Presidentman, BHC, Siroxo, and MrSchimpf how does this workable plan sound? The votes above weren't workable as pointed out by Liz. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds workable to me, and I will support this. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't resolve the concerns above that "Truist" is not the ambiguous term being disambiguated, with the opinion that most of the entries are then partial title matches. Not to complicate things, but I still believe my proposal above is the best solution, the problem is that prior to the last reslist nobody explicitly supported moving Truist Stadium to Truist Stadium (Winston-Salem), and that page must be moved to make this work. Rather than have a no consensus close and then having to redo all of this in an RM, I think a closer could find there is consensus to move the article currently at Truist Stadium to something, and be explicit in their close that there is not actually consensus on where it should be moved (essentially invoking WP:NOGOODOPTIONS as if this were an RM). To me, prior to the last relist there was a consensus for the moves I proposed, but obviously it's up to the closer's discretion on what there is actually consensus for. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is how I understood Mdewman6's suggestion, so I support this. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support 4meter4's proposal. To me this makes by far the most sense as Trust Financial is what most users are looking for and all the stadiums derive from them. BHC (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, all of the move proposals above include redirecting Truist to Truist Financial. Can you clarify why you favor disambiguating at Truist (disambiguation) instead of a set index at Truist Stadium? Mdewman6 (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry somehow missed this ping. I support this plan. —siro χ o 17:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move: per 4meter4 above, along with the cascade of moves. UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move per 4meter4. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 13 October 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!} 01:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Ray

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

Advert by likely UPE; fails WP:BIO. Only a single source ([38]) is more than a passing mention, and this is insufficient. Jfire (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jfire (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfire It wasn't UPE, but am happy to take notes if improvements should be made in the future. I felt based on his colleague Michael Green (agent) this page was an improvement, sorry if not the case somehow. Stravensky (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a professional profile and is basically promotional, even if accidentally so. This happens a lot with articles on businesspeople, because most the information out there is structured as such. To write an article that will be kept, find some secondary sources that provide an independent look at this person, and summarize the secondary coverage in those sources. It might not be possible, a lot of businesspeople relentlessly self-promote, but don't get much independent coverage, and we can't build an encyclopedia article around that self-promotion. —siro χ o 03:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest engaging with editors in the discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard you were notified about on your talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Out of the 22 references on the page, this is the only one that comes close to showing notability. The rest are one liners, quotes, and some don't even mention the subject. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, California, Florida, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article has no real sourcing in the first two references blocks. They are passing mentions often in something or someones else's context. The article is terrible as well. It is a brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 06:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 16 October 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!} 01:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benisha Poudel

AfDs for this article:

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

Amateur singer with no notability. Fails the general and singer-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, and Nepal. UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was ruled a "soft" delete on September 23, just two days ago. If I am reading the history correctly, it appears that the article's creator simply removed the AfD notice and carried on, and the article was never actually deleted. Now it has been nominated for deletion again as if something different will happen this time. See the exact same course of events at David Shankar, with the same article creator involved. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it was deleted and then requested to be restored via WP:RFU. This request was fulfilled (which is why the AFD tag was removed). I then created the 2nd AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One question remains: what is the likelihood of anything different happening this time? I'm undecided as a voter and it appears that few others are interested, so therefore I'm seeing wasteful bureaucracy. Sorry for all the copy/pasting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - There are lots or reliable, notable refrences on article, which clearly meet WP:GNG and and singer-specific notability policies.As per information please read. [39] 2 3 4 Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

procedural keep & Comment - keep as per |1, this was the actual main reasons, & I would request to all(for participate this afd and close.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endrabcwizart (talk • contribs)
- You have already !voted keep once, please strike one of them. Your link is not reason for a procedural keep when @UtherSRG: was not the nominator. Star Mississippi 21:06, 13 October 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. It sounds like there has been improvement on the article that might address the nominator's concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Inspired Teaching

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

Moved from AfC. I don't see WP:ORG level coverage here. Much of the sourcing is primary, churnalism and/or not in depth Star Mississippi 00:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Washington. Star Mississippi 00:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this org has been in the news since 1996 (the news link above shows plenty of hits over the years) and won awards in 2022 and 2023. Sure, it could use work – I just fixed the latest refs which were very poorly done by someone who probably cares about the org but is not experienced with WP referencing. Let's improve it rather than remove it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dicklyon's comments above and his work cleaning up the article. This is a "weak keep" for me - I think notability is still just over the line. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dicklyon. There's enough RS coverage here to pass the notability bar. Sal2100 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Library of Congress as of 1988

[2] Kansas History: A Journal of the Central Plains -World Cat Search Results.

[1]

[2]