Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Nadir Ali

Nadir Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pakistani prank YouTuber with more than 3 million subscribers. The only non-trivial coverage is about him having to pay some money because he apparently didn't pay his taxes (see [9] for example). BilletsMauves (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing notable found, youtubers generally aren't notable here, being a tax fraud (or not) isn't notable. Only sources are listings of him appearing at various functions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like it may be a weak keep. He has a significant amount of coverage, even outside of Pakistan: for example, in a fairly large, English language UAE-based newspaper, and in Pakistan's largest newspaper. Tax evasion may not be enough to meet notability requirements, but the fact that his case got national and international attention indicates notability. He was also listed in another national newspaper's "Top 5 male social media celebrities of 2017" and his following has grown substantially since then. This is what I found in English coverage; I did not even look at Urdu coverage, of which there is surely much more.

Chagropango (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Disinformation (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

I don't think the album itself meets notability criteria from WP:NALBUM. While the sources in the article might cover the band or artists themselves, there is minimal significant coverage for the album itself. Tow (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tow (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was recently closed as a no consensus—in the previous AfD, you eventually wrote that "I feel a redirect is the ideal solution for this case." So why didn't you try redirecting now? Caro7200 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, my understanding was there was no consensus for either delete or redirect. Please advise if I could have redirected myself. Tow (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tow, I think so, although I confess that I don't have the entirety of AfD policy committed to memory. I wouldn't have challenged your mere redirect, as that retains the edit history. Caro7200 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, if this is going to linger, but also don't see an issue with it being kept. Caro7200 (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Finch

Dean Finch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Editors should not be nominating articles for deletion unless they are familiar with
  WP:BEFORE, and make a modicum of effort to see what might not be in the article. The most cursory search for "Dean Finch Persimmon" shows several quality sources, as does "Dean Finch National Express". He is the CEO of a FTSE100 company and was the CEO of a FTSE250 one for ten years. Such people are almost always notable. Edwardx (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Edwardx: I did conduct a BEFORE search, and could not find reliable articles which are both intellectually independent (e.g., by not being mostly based on interviews) and provide in-depth biographical (i.e., not focused on the company) coverage, as required for notability. If you could give some convincing examples of that, I will withdraw this nomination. As to "such people are almost always notable", notability is not inherited and I'm not sure I agree. Ovinus (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edwardx which would you say are the most significant independant sources to show notablity? Being CEO of any company doesn't make someone automatically notable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this. Notability is not indicated. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete, I don't see how this person is notable based on the article as it is now. It's more like a resume than an article. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current state of the article doesn't overly matter, it's more a case of do sources
    WP:NEXIST. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete, Does not meet
  WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Some coverage, but not seeing how it meets
  WP:NBIO. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Tipperary Senior Football Championship

2022 Tipperary Senior Football Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

2022 Tipperary Senior Football Championship

Article about a future

An article was created in article space and moved to draft space. A stub was then created again in article space. An unregistered editor then copy-pasted the schedule from the draft to the article, which would cause attribution problems if the article were worth keeping, but it is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Ireland. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament is starting in the next day or so, reference to fixtures now added.

• Speedy keep: We have loads of future sports events here (
  Upperchurch-Drombane GAA defeating Cahir GAA today. The source calls it the "FBD Insurance county senior football championship" (not to be confused with the FBD Insurance League). I think the nominator should withdraw. StAnselm (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

• Keep: Concur with St's assessment above. Finnegas (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not cut it for me. SWinxy (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep:Competition now taking place, plenty of similar articles already exist along with previous seasons of this competition.Fernandosmission (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11 July 2022 shelling of Kharkiv

11 July 2022 shelling of Kharkiv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not decreasing level of this horrific attack but I think it does not pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Renvoy (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The battle of Kharkiv ended in May so that wouldn't be too appropriate an article. Maybe a new article like List of attacks on Kharkiv after the Battle of Kharkiv (2022) or Aftermath of the Battle of Kharkiv (2022)/Aftermath of the Northeastern Ukraine offensive? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment could even redirect to an article about the war itself, we really don't need an article for each and every time a city gets hit in an ongoing war. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a war and there are constant and numerous artillery strikes on cities, and will continue to be (unfortunatley). I think if the arty attack is notable because of particular destruction, then it may warrant its own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was committed two months after the end of the Battle of Kharkiv. If it is to be merged into something, we need an article about the artillery and bombing campaign against Ukrainian cities, a main article for the euphemistically misnamed category:Attacks on buildings and structures in Ukraine (as if destroying residential buildings was about infrastructure and not people). —Michael Z. 13:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't see why it just can't be merged into the current
  2022 ukrainian war article in the Donbas front section. Its part of the ongoing conflict in that front. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete:
  WP:NOTNEWS —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. Mztourist (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possibility of merging content with another article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, one of dozens of attacks that killed hundreds; a terrible thing, but nothing special. Also possible to redirect to an article Kharkiv shelling (2022), if somebody (maybe @Mzajac:?) would create it; there is a nice RS, a report on it by Amnesty International. Wikisaurus (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Considering it's been almost 30 days without heavy additions on a highly-publicized war, continual additions to the article is something I'd expect. Unfortunately it's tragic-ness doesn't stand out in a sea of tragedy. SWinxy (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one of dozens of attacks that killed hundreds and per
  WP:NOTNEWS.183.82.108.172 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments to delete are substantially stronger here. As multiple users observe, we need reliable sources discussing the cuisine of Chittagong as a whole, not just individual dishes from Chittagong; that latter form of content may still be encyclopedic, but only in articles about said dishes. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chittagonian cuisine

Chittagonian cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Pretty much textbook WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, take your pick. Sources clubbed together to make an impressive looking list of references where none of them actually discuss in any meaningful way the existence of a unique and differentiated cuisine of Chittagong. If you're going to argue the existence of a cuisine to one city in the subcontinent, I'd suggest maybe avoiding the claim of biryani and chickpeas as uniquely famous and traditional... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Popular culture, and Bangladesh. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment. The concept doesn't exist in English, but this is very much the case where we need to search for and review sources in other language(s). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The term "Chittagonian cuisine" doesn’t exist (in both English and Bengali). We should rename it to "Cuisine in Chittagong". Mehedi Abedin 11:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This looks like synth/OR to me. I don't see any indication there is a separate cuisine of Chittagong. This seems to be more a list of dishes popular there, most of which are common dishes in all of Bangladesh or the global region? valereee (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All curries might seem the same, but that is not the case. The cuisine of Chittagong is different in many ways from the rest of Bangladesh and similar in others. Take, for example, Cuisine of Hawaii similar to other states but different. English sources do discuss it; take Mezban, Coastal cuisines of Bangladesh, A mouthful of Chittagong, Bamboo shoot recipes from the Chittagong Hill Tracts and 3-day food festival kicks off in Ctg. The article is in pretty bad shape, but it can be improved. There is scope for expansion.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is eerily similar to the
  Sylheti cuisine article, which also seems to just list popular dishes in Sylhet and the impact that people from Sylhet have had in the food industry. I think both articles should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd support keeping the article as Cuisine in Chittagong. Spudlace (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. There is far more extensive sourcing on Hawaiian food as a class than what is currently in this article, much of which seems to be SYNTHy or weak, touristy style content as it stands. No objection to draftification / userification if people believe that further sources *directly* on the topic can be found. SnowFire (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Aharoni

Ada Aharoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP is grossly under-sourced, and what citation there is is largely derived from primary interviews or works. No single clear case for notability is evident. It is claimed that she was a professor at Pennsylvania, but this is unsourced and it is unclear if this was a fully tenured position. Her sociological work has only been cited in local media, and it is also unclear if her body of poetry is influential. Added to which which is the concern raised in September 2020 that a major contributor may have had a close connection with its subject.

This is a crystal clear case of unnotable person with an exaggerate unsourced self-promotion. Tzahy (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I'm going to sit on the fence for now, but there is significant evidence in book sources that her poetry has been widely referenced, quoted and anthologised in books as well as peer reviewed journals. The issue here appears to be that much of that history is pre-internet, and that many of these sources remain to be digitised. You'll find her in books like "The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora (Volume 11) (Contraversions: Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society)" - pretty esoteric stuff, but there's an awful lot of it out there, including many contributions to publications like "PEACE STUDIES, PUBLIC POLICY AND GLOBAL SECURITY" - her poetry is discussed and analysed in The Language of Peace - Communicating to Create Harmony and so on and so on. It's not three whambam past GNG and looking back at the nom with a raspberry, but it's food for thought. There's a lot out there and what's there speaks to there being more. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The page, as it stands, certainly already speaks to a certain volume of coverage - what is unclear to me at this point is if there is sufficient quality and reliability of coverage. I see a lot of marginal sources, including peace stuff that could well be more related to the subject's leadership role in the organizations that they themselves founded and clearly somewhat self-promotional career than a reflection of impact in the field of sociology and conflict studies. The peer-reviewed journal above is another example of a slightly marginal-looking source - not sure how to view 'Langlit', but it seems absent from the likes of jstor.

  Iskandar323 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Found it here at Academia.edu - it's a 'thing'. But we don't disagree - there's a lot of stuff, but is it the stuff of notability? I'm unsure, to be honest. One issue is date - pre-internet papers, books etc. I'm usually able to be a little more decisive. Honest! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, noted author and poet winning notable prizes, see national library entry. She's a notable enough that a book have been written and translated from Arabic (مفهوم السلام في شعر عادا أهاروني) on her work. She is also analyzed in the article: Afrangiya Yahudiya - the literary-documentary oeuvre of Ada Aharoni on the twentieth-century Exodus in the מחקרי ירושלים בספרות עברית journal. I agree the articles on the English Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedia could be improved with better citations. There are also articles in Arabic and Egyptian Arabic Wikipedias that could also probably be improved.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see

  Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  NAWARD is not a notability guideline. It was a proposal, and it failed. Jacona (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tipped me over the edge, there. The book alone, together with the anthologies and other evidence of papers that haven't made it into digitalisation/the Internet, speak of a notable person. Article needs a HECK of a lot of work, mind, but (altogether now) AfD isn't cleanup! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a bit confused by that book - forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the book listing say that she and her husband were editors? That doesn't count as independent, right?

  Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Of the translation to Hebrew. The original book, from 1994 I think, is in Arabic by professor Mohamed Daif.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I see this as "No consensus" but will relist this discussion one week to see if a more conclusive outcome is possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources provided above by
  WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep seems to meet
  WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kylie Minogue products#Books. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K (Minogue and Baker book)

K (Minogue and Baker book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

A search of sources here, reveals no

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (or merge anything anyone cares to) to Kylie Minogue products#Books where it is already mentioned. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kylie Minogue products#Books.183.82.108.172 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (non-admin closure). Mangoe (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henrybuilt

Henrybuilt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Henrybuilt

Article on design company that is written like an advertisement, but

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, New York, and Washington. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:CSD#G11. It doesn't seem materially different to the version which was speedy deleted just two days ago. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelah Kay

Kelah Kay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Didn't pass at AfC and was manually moved to mainspace by it's creator. Don't see how it passes

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'm getting absolutely zero results when searching for this name (aside from Spotify, Apple Music, etc.). I know as a foreign artist, there may be some non-English or local print media about him, but until that's proven to exist, he is simply non-notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article subject has no single reliable source which fails
  WP:GNG. Secondly from the contribution of the editor who created this article, he or she is here to write and promote people from Port Harcourt that are not notable. It is suspicious that the creator of the article has a close connection to this port harcourt people he or she is writing about.--Gabriel^t@lk 21:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Well you know how painful it is to see the article you struggled and researched for being pulled down after days of researches and conclusions and committing to Wikipedia.

  i understand you are a well respected person on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean you'll use your power to oppress others that haven't reached your stage in this wikipedia, well table turns

  its your turn today doesn't mean it will be for ever. Thanks for nominating the page for deletion after so many research Phwriter20 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject of the article is non-notable and does not meet
  WP:NMUSIC. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, doesn't meet any notability standard. --Muhandes (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There just isn't
  WP:RS. Jacona (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — per nom. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 13:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — When the article's creator compares a call for reliable evidence to oppression, you know the forecast for
  too soon. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete subject is non-notable and the article's creator was blocked for threats and personal attacks. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emski

Emski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It was only fairly recently created, but I'd already moved it to draftspace and it was recreated, and the draft version has already been declined at AfC. Don't see how it meets

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would also say the same reason I said Here on the article editor created. --Gabriel^t@lk 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  well obviously you are using your wikipedia powers to suppress and oppress others that don't have it, you have done well Mr. Phwriter20 (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet
  WP:NMUSIC or any other notability standard that I'm aware of. Feels like someone created an article about themselves and their friend. They also recreated the article in main space after it was moved to the draft space. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, doesn't meet any notability standard. --Muhandes (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There just isn't
  WP:RS. Jacona (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — subject does not meet
  WP:GNG. R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 13:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Note that the article's author has been banned due to personal threats toward those arguing that his articles are flimsy puff pieces trying to promote unknown Nigerian musicians. Some of those comments have been removed, so now the author is claiming oppression. None of this makes Mr. Emski any more
  notable. Anyone can upload a few of their own songs to YouTube. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life Christian School

Life Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no significant news coverage on this school at any time in its history aside from it suing the city to re-open during COVID shutdowns. A search online shows no other relevant secondary source coverage. There are no secondary sources in the article for the information it contains. PDXBart (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article as I don't see any specific notability about this institution. There are many newspapers.com hits for "life christian school", however it seems there are many others by the same name in different states, many prefixed with "new" but their existence doesn't imply notability. There are only ~10 newspapers hits by this school name in Oregon media and non imply notability. May be a future possibility for an article about the family of schools by this name, if deemed notable, but I see nothing sufficient on this particular school. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find the sources the nominator was talking about?[10][11] It seems that this is enough to pass GNG. There is also sports coverage, e.g. [12][13] but you're right - it's hard to know what to search for. StAnselm (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SIGCOV. The fact there seems to be a number of schools across the states with this name makes me think that the primary article title should not just be about one of them alone, but either all collectively or none at all. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, how about these? [14][15] StAnselm (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is run-of-the-mill news coverage and not even exclusively about the institution in question, just that they were among a number of schools at the time wanting to reopen. Covid had a significant affect on many sectors, education one of them, and those refs do not in any way assert notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete References do not point to notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just MILL coverage in media outside of the 1E COVID bit. And Bungle, there's no relationship between the various schools bearing this name across the country except they offer Christian education. 174.212.227.158 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not suggest there was any relationship or connection between them, only questioning why this particular one should have an article over the others (and that it wasn't the only one I could see by this or a similar name). Fundamentally though, this institution does not appear notable enough for an article, which is the matter being considered. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just because something exists doesn't mean it needs a WP article. Businesses/private schools/etc can advertise themselves on their own sites. Does not meet GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (unless greatly improved). The article appears to be entirely concerned with a failed court case, ratgher than about the school itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article does not show notability for this school. NMasiha (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Derkach

John Derkach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Finding nothing on google but interviews. Can't get to any of these sources except Companies House, which only proves he exists, and three of the sources are from the same publication. None of the references include title, byline...why? Valereee (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article seems to be almost
  WP:TNT quality, but there is some evidence of possible notability. For example, in addition to the interview in the Guardian, there is this article in the London times which mentions him, although it doesn't go into depth. Overall, though, it doesn't seem that he passes WP:GNG. Costa's former parent company Whitbread is on the FTSE 100, so if he was CEO of Whitbread he might pass, but he was just managing director of Costa which is a subsidiary, so he doesn't seem to pass WP:NBUSINESSPERSON either. Chagropango (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet
  WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Zhou

Ben Zhou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article written by SPA, who also contested a PROD on it. This is the version with the REFBOMBing cut down a bit. The RSes are articles about Bybit, and only mention Zhou himself in passing. Sources found in a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, China, Singapore, and United Arab Emirates. David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most possible sources look like churnalism about Bybit. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B15A:4ECC:3C0E:728A (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources; searches return promotional coverage. Not independently notable outside of role in Bybit, for which no article exists. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The coverage I've been available to find has all been promotional stuff, press releases and such, nothing in-depth. There just isn't any in-depth
  WP:RS. Jacona (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources about Ben Zhou (Chinese: 周本). The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. If Bybit had an article (which it currently does not), I would support redirecting there as suggested by the nominator. If Bybit is created in the future, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion, I would support undeleting this article's history under a redirect to Bybit to allow editors to use the content for a selective merge and to undo the redirect if Ben Zhou becomes notable.

  Cunard (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• lol crypto. Delete. The company is more likely to have notability maybe in the future, but neither topics constitute GNG. SWinxy (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Probably should have done that in the first place rather than filing an AfD. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of dental colleges in India

List of dental colleges in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough items have their own Wikipedia articles blue linked to, its a valid information and navigational list. Other things need to be removed. Dream Focus 18:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have removed all the unlinked and redlinked entries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Canada and Japan

History of rugby union matches between Canada and Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar to

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Japan, and Canada. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence that this rivalry (if one even exists) has been discussed at length in
  WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Lol I used the same sources that are used to aggregate the stats played between the two pages (here and here). Just an odd thing to add. It isn't unreliable sources at all. The total (up to 2019) can be seen here also: *RugbyData -- Archived 26 January 2019 at the Wayback Machine MarioBayo (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no clear case for rivalry, fails
  WP:NOTSTATS. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  As I have already mentioned, these two sides have played each other the most of any teams outside their own continents. Both teams compete at the RWC frequently (except Canada for 2023), and have a matchup dating back to 1932. One can ignore their historical matches as just pointless stats. However these two teams share a rich history of, not to mention Japan's new status as a tier one nation. MarioBayo (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom and Bcp67's rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:NRIVALRY. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. An interesting and very narrow combination of two topics. A non-notable rivalry. SWinxy (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Church Historian and Recorder. There is rough consensus that the sources we currently have are not quite enough for a standalone article. Sandstein 08:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LeGrand R. Curtis Jr.

LeGrand R. Curtis Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Non-notable individual associated with the LDS Church. A

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. StickyWicket (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Church Historian and Recorder. As Church Historian, Curtis is one of the most important officials of the LDS Church outside of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He's also ex officio, but I think also in reality, the head of the The Joseph Smith Papers project, which is of great scholarly importance to historians of American religion even outside the LDS Church.[16] This makes his name a very plausible search/inquiry term. When the article was previously deleted, he had not yet been named Church Historian. Jahaza (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC) (updated Jahaza (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep: Meets
  independent Deseret News and KSL. I'm not sure how the nominator considers multiple in-depth paragraphs directly of and about the topic to be "routine passing mentions". ––FormalDude talk 08:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. I agree that most mentions are passing. He's only been in since 2019, so perhaps substantial coverage will appear in time. Caro7200 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the rationale offered by FormalDude, unless the nominator contends that KSL and the Deseret News are not sufficiently significant, reliable, or independent sources, which is not directly germaine or relevant to this discussion. It is also worth noting that work is underway to establish specific notability standards and guidelines foe articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, including for top leaders of the Church, consistent with Wikipedia policy. It strikesme as somewhat discourteous and disingenuous by Wikipedia standards to actively single out articles and topics about the movement for deletion while discussions about finding the best policy-based solutions to the longstanding issue are actively underway. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I use Deseret News often for music articles and think it's fine. KSL? Not sure. Neither are wholly independent. The biggest problem is that the cited sources don't offer significant and substantial information about Curtis himself; I also didn't find much in ProQuest (A lot of "Curtis returned from Liberia..." stuff). There's nothing wrong with being merely accomplished rather than notable in the encyclopedic sense... I'm an "inclusionist" (shudder), so always happy if someone can find better coverage. Caro7200 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources make

credible claims of significance, such as detailing his history within the church and various high-level positions that he has held. ––FormalDude talk 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. No substantive independent sourcing. The Deseret News is owned by the Mormon Church (through holding companies) and is obviously not an independent s source about church officials. Other coverage simply reports that he issued press releases for the church, saying little or nothing about the subject himself. Just a flack with a grandiose title -- Vivian 166.149.176.27 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • independent for topics about the LDS Church. ––FormalDude talk 21:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources found, those 1960's interwebs haven't been digitized yet... Local garage band, hardly notable even these days. Oaktree b (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- article creator left this comment on his talk page, which I'll link as his keep !vote. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  he provided links to TV shows he says he was on, we can't verify it happened. I still don't consider it coverage of the band, at best, it confirms the tv show happened. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Note that the article's title is capitalized incorrectly, to get around this. If it is kept, the title should be moved to The Institution (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have perused the
  qualify for inclusion, and while some members of The Institution may qualify for things they did later, the band itself does not. They were purely local with little apparent influence at the time, and even the hardcopy books mentioned at Tonytt's talk page are about other things like TV shows on which the band briefly appeared. This is all a fascinating historical exercise, which can spruce up fansites and maybe even a feature magazine article somewhere, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Take a look at the Steel Mill entry. For much of their early existence there is very little solid sourcing, instead mostly there are fan sites such as brucebase, dead entries, tribute sites like Garry's Corner, mentions from an autobiography (an excellent one) by Bruce Springsteen who was a member of Steel Mill, making the reference self-sourced. To me, that is not crucial. What is most important about Steel Mill is the fact the several of its members went on to considerable success, including Bruce, Steve Van Zandt, Danny Federici, and that they opened for several well-known groups (which is apparently poorly sourced in the Steel Mill wikipedia entry), not that they were a significant or well-known band at the time, though there was a nice review of one performance in a local paper, as there were short, complimentary words in a letter in a local paper for The Institution. (Note that Steel Mill also played at a Thanksgiving event in 1970 with The Institution, mentioned on their tribute site in a flyer, and Steel Mill's presence on a fan chronology site.)

  I strongly believe that there should be a Wikipedia entry for Steel Mill, to show how Bruce and the others got started, no matter how obscure these early groups were. They are an important part of rock history, as is the usually obscure role they played as an opening act. I also believe that The Institution played a similar, but less prominent role, giving a start to people like Joey Kramer, Rickie Rackin, J. Howard Duff, and Philip Rubin. I am fond of outsiders and underdogs, but feel that The Institution was more than this, playing a significant role in the rough and tumble, and usually obscure, early days of garage bands in New Jersey, opening for well known groups, appearing on important television shows like Clay Cole's and Zacherly's, and nurturing key individuals, a couple of whom went on to considerably more prominence than most who were part of this scene. At the same time, I understand that Wikipedia has its rules and standards. I believe that in this instance, the difficulty of documentation from this era (for Steel Mill, The Institution, and many others bands), and the web of connections and verifiability of key individuals who were shaped by playing in this band, should be both important and mitigating factors when considering the deletion of this entry.

  Thanks again for your patience in putting up with listening to my point of view on this. I think that is an important entry, if not a standard one, and hope that it will not be deleted from Wikipedia. It was an important part of this early history (at least in New Jersey and clubs in NYC) and will, unfortunately, disappear from history without such an entry on Wikipedia. I first ran across modern interest in the band around 2015 on a website called 60srockband.com. That site is now gone. Many of the links and sites on the Steel Mill site are gone. This history is disappearing. Wikipedia can, and should, help save it. Tonytt (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

notable. If the Steel Mill article needs improvement, or even if it deserves to be deleted, that can be handled as a separate matter by Wikipedia's volunteers. Once again, I think you are doing very interesting historical research, but you're putting it in an inappropriate forum. There is surely an interested readership for what you have found on The Institution, so consider submitting to NJ history publications or the like. Best regards, ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - I won't get involved in the question of whether the article should be retained or deleted. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I applaud Tonytt for his interest, passion, and diligence--he should definitely write a book. I think that some of the material in this article, provided reliable sources can be found, could be used as background info. in articles about some of the later well-known acts whose members played in the Institution. And, if some of the Institution's recordings could find official release, that would be very helpful for establishing notability down the road.
  talk) 06:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of notability. I would suggest Tonytt to find another
  WP:OUTLET, or even write a book to keep the history alive forever (even better). SWinxy (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. There just isn't enough independent, secondary,
  WP:RS on the band itself. Jacona (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Justin Delort

Pierre-Justin Delort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not established for either GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Ireland. Curbon7 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  talk) 00:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, or at least Redirect to
  St Patrick's College, Maynooth as the subject is mentioned here as an important figure in the early history of the college. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep
  WP:NPROF doesn’t apply to the 18th and 19th century. I don’t understand why the sources aren’t sufficient for a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I agree that the
  talk) 21:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The Eucharistic miracle material makes it awkward to redirect it only to Maynooth, where that material couldn't be merged. The sourcing in the article on the Eucharistic miracle is not great, but there's an academic source here[17]and a long account here[18].--Jahaza (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good finds, thanks.

  talk) 03:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. Passes
  WP:GNG: a Google Books search provides a couple reliable sources with significant coverage, even if they're both in French.[19][20] StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as meets
  WP:GNG as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Probably keep - at worst redirect to
  St Patrick's College, Maynooth. This was probably only a small college, created so that Irish Catholic clergy would be trained in Ireland, not a (hostile) France. The four professors were probably the only teaching staff, but were presumably instrumental in its foundation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Due to the sources unearthed above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

André Darré

André Darré (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not established for either GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Ireland. Curbon7 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's a 10-page scholarly biography here. Also mentioned here and here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Beyond the coverage already in the article (including the Gow biographical article) there's nontrivial coverage of him in Revue de Gascogne 1910. I think there's plenty here for GNG.
  WP:PROF is not so relevant for academics from so long ago. And the nominator's claim that the article was (at time of nomination) a stub is both irrelevant for notability and false: it was at least start-class. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for the reasons given by David Eppstein and also concerned by the suggestion that this was a stub.--Jahaza (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I concur that
  talk) 02:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as meets
  WP:GNG. Doesn't matter if the article is currently a stub or not. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Sources
  notable subjects, it needs to be developed using the sources above. This [21] and this [Revue de Gascogne 1910] (already discussed above), along with a couple of others are certainly sufficient to establish GNG. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- the same considerations apply as to the other three professors, who were instrumental in founding
  St Patrick's College, Maynooth. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This article supports
  WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep As per David Eppstein's source analysis. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I see a weak consensus that he has enough sources to scrape by; the presence of an article in a print encyclopedia is particularly significant. However, merging or redirecting may still be discussed on talk pages. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Anglade

Francois Anglade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not established for either GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Ireland. Curbon7 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom, notability doesn't seem to be established. A
  WP:ANYBIO criteria). Book/academic searches return a number of results, but all (as with the web search) are passing mentions in works which are substantively about other topics. I can find no sources/works which deal with the subject as a primary topic (biographical or otherwise). Subject's notability seems to be inextricably linked to another topic. For which we already have an article. Not seeing rationale for stand-alone article. Guliolopez (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, or at least Redirect to
  St Patrick's College, Maynooth as the subject is mentioned here in connection with the early history of the college. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment As pointed out at the deletion debates for
  talk) 00:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep. Sourcing for him, independent of the other French founders of Maynooth, seems to be somewhat scarce, but there is at least a biography of him in the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers,
  doi:10.5040/9781350052468-0004. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep (lie the other three founders of
  St Patrick's College, Maynooth. I see nothing inadequate in the sources cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep under
  St Patrick's College, Maynooth, as already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Louis-Gilles Delahogue

Louis-Gilles Delahogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not established for either GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Article is currently a stub, and would be even shorter were irrelevant/unreferenced content to be removed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, France, and Ireland. Curbon7 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In the context of this AfD, and the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francois Anglade, it is worth noting that the content of both pages is practically the same. See: compare 1102118119 to 1101680611. If both subjects are notable for effectively the same things (and their association with the same topic), then why do we need separate articles for either/both of them? Guliolopez (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or at least Redirect to
  St Patrick's College, Maynooth as the subject is mentioned here as an important figure in the early history of the college. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment As pointed out at the deletion debates for
  talk) 00:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. There's an entry for him in Encyclopédie des sciences religieuses (1879, 50 years after his death), and another entry in Biographie universelle (1834). His Exposé des motifs is widely held in libraries. I think together with the sources we already have in the article there's plenty of coverage for
  WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep just about meets
  WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Between what we already had and the biographical dictionaries found by
  talk) 15:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- The founders of
  St Patrick's College, Maynooth are notable for founding it. The article has quite sufficient sourcing. Even a college history, by another academic, ought not to be regarded as independent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per David Eppstein. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

V. K. Garg

V. K. Garg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Among his most prominent work listed in the article is this [22] it has only 5 citations in 7 years. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: [23] Total 16,000 cites, h-index 68. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep he is notable academic and has 16,000 cites as mentioned above.I love to be honest (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to meet
  WP:DINC -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No result. Given how radically the article has changed during this AfD, many of the comments are not applicable any more, and as such there is no valid result to be obtained here (not even a "no consensus"; the discussion is simply irrelevant to determining the notability of the article as it stands). I suspect Chinese military exercises are notable, but if anyone disagrees, a new AfD will be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

A non-notable non-event. Entirely

Noting that the article now is practically an entirely new article, with a complete topical shift to boot. This has got to be one of the worst, most chaotic and nonsensical AfDs I've ever been a part of. Curbon7 (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Military, China, and Taiwan. Curbon7 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Actually, some sources mentioning a fourth crisis do exist, such as [24] [25], but this still does not surmount to notability on it's own, as the coverage is very superficial. Feels far
  WP:TOOSOON still. Curbon7 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:TOOSOON. And calling the current events the "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" definitely is sensationalism: compared to the previous three, what's happening right now is peanuts. BilletsMauves^€500 18:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  WP:CRYSTAL. I checked five of the sources and none of them mention the concept of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment/Keep: A few sources like that has the name. [26] -184.146.37.152 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP per DUH, and btw WP:Competence is required

In a NOTABLE and widely reported actual EVENT in 2021, multiple PRC military planes entered the ROC's ADIZ. Therefore I have expanded the scope of the article accordingly, and we should ignore the opinions of editors ignorant of this history or unwilling to account for it. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article was not lack of notability. The problem was it was biased toward WP:Recentism and Anglo-Americanism. This can be corrected. Jaredscribe (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of China's ADIZ is way bigger than its sovereign airspace, and some parts of it are situated over mainland China. Chinese "intrusions" in Taiwan's ADIZ are routine, and often take place several times a week. There have been hundreds of them, if not thousands, in the past years, and this did not start in 2021. While this ongoing series of ADIZ "violations" may be notable, related copy-pasted additions in the article really don't show that these sparked any kind of crisis. Interestingly, even though Chinese incursions in Taiwan's ADIZ are frequently reported even in mainstream media, these almost always fail to explain what an ADIZ actually is (i.e. not necessarily sovereign national airspace). Lastly, please keep it down with the caps and personal attacks. Thanks in advance. BilletsMauves^€500 20:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is not to say that the Fourth Crisis won't happen, but at least not at this stage - it could as well escalate into one and then we can create that article. For now, please delete.Kazuha1029 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article does not so much as mention a Fourth Crisis at this moment. —

  talk) 22:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Wait and see. As per
  notable. Wait till the end of the events to determine how significant they turn out to be. NoNews! 04:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There is nothing to wait and see for. It's a big nothing burger. The event has been over for a day and nothing has happened, besides a little display of materiel that is pretty routine for China. Curbon7 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think we need to wait until there are numerous authoritative media sources that are reporting on a fourth crisis. Until then I think this article is jumping the gun. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:TOOSOON, the media coverage is speculation if such a crisis would occur, and it has not yet happened. Once sources describe it as a thing that's actually currently happening then we can re-create. Jumpytoo Talk 05:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Hold / Modify article's contents - Request other users to archive the article's contents until information is substantiated for the article to be a thing. It was reported earlier the PLA fired two missiles from Fujian and traveled through the Taiwan Islands itself. Godspeed to whom may it concern. Cheers, PenangLion (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed by other comments there are no references to this event as the "fourth crisis", thus modifications would be required or a complete deletion as the final solution. PenangLion (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with points that there are almost no notable sources referring to it as the Fourth Crisis. I think a new article can be proposed with a different name or (probably more sensibly) discussion of the military drills can be added to the article about Pelosi's visit. Dhawk790 (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As HurricaneEdgar pointed out, this is straight up

Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit. 121.179.189.157 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Global Times twitter account uses the term fourth crisis over Taiwan Straits. Link --AdrianHObradors (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Some sources are using the term "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis", but just using the term alone is not enough to demonstrate independent notability at this moment, as again, the coverage is mostly supeerficial. Curbon7 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Keep The actions undertaken by the PRC are a significant escalation. In addition, some sources have referred to the incident as the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis ^{[1] [2]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticForce07 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The article title is problematic, it isn't a crisis, yet, but it may develop to one. However, the live fire drills conducted by the Chinese around the island are probably already notable.PrisonerB (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep under new name, the exercises are notable. PrisonerB (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or wait and see: The situation has escalated far enough to make it reasonable to either keep the article, or at least wait for some time before deletion. There are already some international reactions to the situation. The article was created
  WP:TOOSOON, but currently it means little. The problems can be fixed by editing the article. Ceosad (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for now... BobNesh (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you are not required to give a reason, if I may ask, what is your reasoning for wanting to keep this article?

talk) 20:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Very obviously notable event with endless media coverage to indicate that. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or heavily modify. In its current form and with this title, this fails
  WP:CRYSTAL, as stated by others. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Comment: Stricken out, as the current title and scope of this article is totally different from when I first voted here. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or Draftify. In its current form, this fails
  talk) 19:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Noting that I am not the original creator, I don't wanna be tied to this mess of an article lol. I initially draftified it, but decided AfD was a better venue. Curbon7 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Did not know that, so thanks for clarifying that. I had just seen the move to mainspace then AfD, but yeah, you have nothing to do with the creation of this article. I just altered my comment because of what you said.

talk) 19:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge into
  WP:OR given the NOTNEWS/CRYSTAL status. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Obviously is a crises when one nation starts lobbing military missiles and projectiles into another's waters. Highly notable, with much well sourced news coverage. The crises does not require a lot of dead and injured people to be a crises. N2e (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Note that even on Chinese Wikipedia there is an article referring to the 2022 strait crisis, discussing whether it can be called the "fourth crisis" or "2022 crisis" is one thing, but wanting to deny that there is currently a crisis is crazy. LLs (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Merge This article has improved a lot since it was first published and deletion is no longer a reasonable course of action, but I could see reorganizing it. Jsnider3 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article was moved to
  WP:TOOSOON and that few sources call this crisis the "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis". The article needs cleanup, but I am against deleting all the work done so far, so I propose to draftify the article under the current name. P1221 (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If we're now discussing on the basis of the new article name, shall we move the title of this AfD page to the new article title then? NoNews! 07:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article with the new title may be keepable, but the OR redirect

  Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis should be deleted or possibly retargeted. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think this discussion should be closed and a new one opened if necessary. Many of the oppose arguments no longer apply after with the new title. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no need, the closing administrator will take the reasons for the !votes into account rather than the number of them. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• IMPORTANT NOTE: — The article was moved to
  talk) 11:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The classic scummy page move during AfD. Re-votes are not necessary. If someone wants to change their rationale, they can strike. Curbon7 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Smith assault of Chris Rock at the Oscars HurricaneEdgar 13:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Re-vote. Original reasoning doesn't apply after move. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC); edit: Strong keep per Mhawk10 below. Article might need work, but the solution is working on it, not deleting it. It is notable enough and with enough sources to keep it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @AdrianHObradors - Please indicate your original vote as rescinded, as I've done for my own. Thanks. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Modify) (vote rescinded, re-vote listed lower down the page) - The information in this article is not necessarily non-notable in and of itself, but the conclusions that editors originally came to when formulating the nascent title "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" were 100% original research. The first three Taiwan Strait crises are well recorded and researched, in large part due to having occurred a long time ago. Overall, there was no way that this article could stand with its former title. With its current title, it's a bit more acceptable, although there are still various issues with the actual content that's inside of the article. For example, why is Syria's opinion on the altercation so important, aside from simply being a puppet of Russia? (as we can see from Syria's recognition of the Russian breakaway republics in the Donbas). The only relevant players should be other East Asian nations and various world powers (either superpower, great power, or middle power). A third world country like Syria that is located far away from the conflict zone has no weight in this conversation, especially since there are only something like six countries' opinions listed at the moment. On the other hand, North Korea's opinion is obviously acceptable given how relevant they are to Taiwan (i.e. historical relations, geographic proximity, etc.). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I've gone ahead and removed Syria from the "international response" section of the article for the reasons that I outlined above. The source that was used to support Syria's position was state media. In my opinion, it is not Wikipedia's job to literally just spread propaganda with an asterisk* (*this is state media). If it's state media and it's coming from some random third world country, then it probably has no genuine relevance to the situation at hand. Syria trying to be relevant doesn't mean we have to facilitate their agenda. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:DUE), if it is by state media then label it so; most government statements and stances will be issued by state media anyway. You can separate views of countries into categories such as "regional"/"non-regional" or "support"/"neutral"/"oppose" etc and let the reader decide what to do with the information. NoNews! 15:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I disagree with the notion that this is a globally significant event. That's original research. Indeed, at the moment, I would consider this event to be only regionally significant. And, going by that definition, Syria isn't located in the region, nor is Syria really a world player in geopolitics, at least nowhere comparable to countries like France, the United States, or even nearby (to Syria) Israel. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Think about it this way. If we were to go by your definition of "globally significant event", we would have to list the opinions of around 200 different countries in order to be truly fair. Do you honestly think we need that many opinions in this article? Just a few opinions from the most important players would suffice. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. When you say "the bigger country", I presume you mean China. But I have to disagree with that notion, because this incident isn't a two-way dispute. Instead, it's a three-way dispute between China, Taiwan, and the United States. And, while China is definitely a lot bigger than Taiwan, it's not really all that much bigger than the United States. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest merging this with 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, though I'm not sure whether the content should be moved there or here. Either way, the original title wasn't good but the current one is ok. ansh.666 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a bad idea. That article has issues of its own. Both of these articles are Frankenstein's monsters at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  talk) 18:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Also, I will note that

  talk) 18:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete or merge to 2022 visit by Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan I'm just not seeing any reliable sources which actually say that a Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis exists, thats the bare minimum and we don't have it. WP:RS universally frame this as a response to Pelosi's visit not a stand-alone event. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be noted that the article in its current form does not include the words "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" even once.

  talk) 20:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Be that as it may the title has been justified by subsequent coverage, the Center for Strategic and International Studies[27] for example is now calling it the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Based on the shift in coverage I'm changing my vote to keep and restore to its original name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Modify per Ⓜ️hawk10. Imperator Storm (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- now that the article has been renamed to something more appropriate. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:CRYSTAL. Chance it could become notable later but not now. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Vladimir.copic, how do SYNTH and CRYSTAL apply here? AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably more of a

  WP:POVFORK. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @

  talk) 05:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Merge with the article on Pelosi's Taiwan Visit. The events in this article are not notable enough at the moment to have its own wikipedia article. The conflict may warrant their own article if things escalate but not now. Evercool1 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Keep the information here is encyclopedia worthy for it's notability and relevance. Perhaps for now it could be merged until it can be looked at in retrospect RFZYNSPY ^talk 00:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The GNG has been far and away surpassed here, I don't see the issues with SYNTH. "Fourth Taiwan Strait crisis" was not an appropriate title, but since the page has been moved that vacates all the reasonable SYNTH and poor sourcing concerns. I also oppose a merge to
  2022 US Congressional Delegation visit to Taiwan, since that article is already very bloated and doesn't need the detailed day-by-day military analysis that is bound to spring up here. The two are also separate events with separate coverage; the military exercises may have been caused by Pelosi's visit, but she's already long gone. Maybe (and this part is TOOSOON) if it is determined by RSes at some point in the future that this is a "Fourth Taiwan Strait crisis", then all the different parts can be merged into such an article, but until then I see such merges as SYNTH and TOOSOON. Toadspike (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Seems like
  WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps merge into another article as suggested. Qiushufang (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Qiushufang I don't understand these arguments. Toosoon and crystal? How? AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Crystal element plays in here because news outlets are describing this altercation as a "potential crisis" rather than as a full-fledged fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. With that being said, the info is definitely notable enough to remain as a standalone article, but we just have to be very careful about how we classify the information until further developments are made in the real world. Personally, I'm not even sure that I agree with the way that this article seems to almost be presented as a direct military conflict (like a skirmish or a battle). So far, no actual fighting has taken place. It's all "sabre-rattling" at the moment, albeit with a blockade and military exercises by China against Taiwan thrown in. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Jargo Nautilus, not once in the whole article since the move is "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis" used. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but they still present the altercation as a military conflict with that info-box. This is a detail that I disagree with since I don't think the altercation qualifies as a military conflict at the moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. No Merge. The topic is notable enough to have its own article. The Pelosi visit is notable enough on its own to also have it's own article. Both articles are related and will have wikilink in each other. EyeTruth (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Keep Keep it and merged it with the page we got now. As there is some news outlets that starts to coin it as crisis.

The Economist: https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/08/03/nancy-pelosi-has-left-taiwan-the-real-crisis-may-be-just-beginning (Crisis)

NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/02/1115234980/what-3-past-taiwan-strait-crises-can-teach-us-about-u-s-china-tensions-today (Crisis)

Hankyoreh: https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1053402.html (Crisis)

Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/pelosi-trip-risks-sparking-fourth-taiwan-strait-crisis-us-china-1730063 (Crisis)

As of August 6th 2022, these four news outlets has coin the recent event as crisis. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the articles that you linked seem to be describing the altercation as a "potential crisis" rather than a definitive fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (under the new less peackock title). The event seems notable given the coverage, and is ongoing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Modify - UPDATE: I've changed my vote from "Delete (Modify)" to "Keep and Modify". The info is definitely notable, there's no question about it. The main issue was with the way that the information was being presented. Clearly, that issue has been fixed in large part by changing the title. HOWEVER, I also believe that the info-box is still problematic because it presents this altercation as a military conflict even though no actual fighting has taken place yet. For now, the altercation can only be described as "sabre-rattling", albeit with an illegal naval blockade by China around Taiwan thrown in. For now, it is a case of CRYSTAL to regard this as an actual military conflict, although the situation on the ground may change in the coming days. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the topic is changed to different content. The event seems notable given the coverage passes WP:GNG. Taung Tan (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowclose. The article in its current state is unrecognizable compared to its incarnation at the time this AfD was initiated. Additionally, during this discussion, the article was preemptively redirected from
  WP:NOTNEWS that should be a separate discussion. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 08:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  For the record, the current article depicts the altercation/incident as a conflict because it uses the conflict info-box. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per @EyeTruth:.103.141.159.230 (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The PRC military has surrounded Taiwan ROC and has been blocking ROC Taiwan trade and resources. This is not the same fiasco as the 1950s and 60s Taiwan Strait Crises. This event may actually precipitate in President Xi annexing Taiwan. 203.166.241.41 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Curbon7 (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I know, but considering people have already been linking this event with how the Ukraine-Russia conflict precipitated, someone had to say it. It's implied. The article is notable simply because it is an ongoing, important event. The article should not be deleted. 203.166.241.41 (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per @EyeTruth: >>

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deleted G11 as most of the text is a copy of https://theprideoflondon.com/2018/02/19/chelsea-barcelona-true-european-rivalry/. It should be noted for future reference, however, that consensus was that the subject is non-notable anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea F.C. - F.C. Barcelona rivalry

Chelsea F.C. - F.C. Barcelona rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No real sources to show that this is a lasting and meaningful rivalry rather than a couple of teams who have played each other recently. Lots of sources are just stats or routine coverage of individual matches. Spike 'em (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is clearly no significant rivalry here. This is another case of an attempted article on a "rivalry" which is actually just an account of a few matches between two teams -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A rivalry would have more than contemporaneous sources about the actual Rivalry, discussing it as a Rivalry. I would expect to see evidence of that Rivalry in those sources discussing, distinct to a single upcoming game, the rivalry details. This is fleeting, temporary, news coverage of some (at the time) relatively high profile games. Koncorde (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A transfer battle is not a rivalry. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The teams only clash when they meet in international club tournaments, a total of 17 matches including both ends of multiple two-legged ties over the course of nearly six decades. The prose states that the allegedly rivalry began in the early 2000s, whereas the table lists five matches from the 20th Century. This leaves a total of 12 matches over six Champions League competitions during the past two decades. The understood definition of a sports rivalry requires regular meetings between the teams – e.g. the
  WP:GNG – which is why there is no article on the croquet rivalry between the United States Naval Academy and St. John's College despite it being an annual competition. If sufficient sources are found to meet GNG, please ping me. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No significant rivalry. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insignificant. If these two have a rivalry significant enough for a separate article, than an article for any pairing of two major European clubs can be said to be worthy of an article. They're not. oknazevad (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No rivalry exists between the teams. Clog Wolf _Howl 07:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not even a rivalryMuur (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rivalry made by some mass media as much of the international club rivalries by analogy with the nations rivalry.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In my opinion, there is greater rivalry between the women's teams of these clubs than between the men's. I agree with the point made above that a rivalry requires seasonal meetings between the two teams and, I think, a degree of proximity as in Liverpool versus either of the Manchester clubs. Chelsea v Barcelona matches are luck of the draw encounters.

Sistorian (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all above. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wadhwani Foundation

Wadhwani Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. AmirŞah 14:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Schools, Social science, and India. AmirŞah 14:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article does not satisfy SIGCOV. The references appear to be based on PR material and cannot be used to support NCORP. VV 15:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Speedy delete Reads again as advertising. The Banner talk 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.