Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 20

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Downshift

Downshift (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 was recently created as the outcome of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 23:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

revisiting the same issue in a new AfD? – Uanfala (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. I concur with everyone else in the recently closed RfD that this term is better disambiguated. The dab page has at least two valid entries. One of them is
  Downshift (Transformers), but it got redirect to an article that itself eventually got redirected to Transformers: Energon, which has a mention (and nothing more than a mention) of this character. – Uanfala (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I'm not sure why I was notified of this on my talkpage but not AjaxSmack who wrote most of it (and I have now notified on talk page). Courtesy ping to Sable232 who also partook in the RfD discussion, and TartarTorte who closed it. A7V2 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I supported the proposed disambiguation page since it was better than the status qua (significantly so) due to the lack of discussion about downshifting at the old redirect target. But reading what the nom has said, I tend to agree. Even with the recent addition, this article consists of a dictionary definition with a link to
  an article that uses the term just once and is in no way describing what it is, a character who has a redirect that should be deleted, and isn't even mentioned at the suggested article, and a term which might as well move back to the parent, non-disambugated title. And then in the see also we have a redirect to an article where that term isn't mentioned. This page is certainly of highly questionable utility for aiding searches (which is what disambiguation pages are meant to be for). A7V2 (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep I don't really love how the page isn't completely within the rules of a DAB, but I think there still is the issue of someone wanting to find information about downshifting that isn't related to the lifestyle if this is deleted and
  WP:IAR argument, but it just seems like the way to direct people best where they want to go. TartarTorte 14:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak keep - It doesn't fit the norm of a dab page, but it seems the most helpful solution for a reader searching the term. According to the article that existed at this title years ago for the Transformers characters, two come from the comic book series and one from a cartoon as a minor character, so there doesn't seem to be a single good place to link that entry to. --Sable232 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a note: I don't see anything in the

  MOS:DABMENTION was quoted above, but it only rules out the fictional character, not the other two entries. – Uanfala (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The first entry fails

  Double clutching (technique), Direct-shift gearbox, Heel-and-toe shifting, Motorcycle transmission, Engine braking, but none that provide real explanation. Linking to any of these is no better or worse. Note that shifting does not get you anywhere that talks about operating a transmission; there is no reason why downshifting must. MB 03:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The target article may (or may not) need to explicitly define (rather than just use) that term, but the dab page entry itself provides that definition and the article provides enough context for readers to learn about the mechanics of it.

  MOS:DABMENTION says If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. I reckon that the main reason we disagree here is because you see this entry as not providing value to the reader, and I'd venture to guess that's because you assume that it represents an everyday meaning of the word that readers will all be familiar with. – Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep, there is also frequency downshifting which is a notable topic but we don't have an article on it yet ... SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm sympathetic to the points made by the nominator, however, this page wasn't created by some random contributor. Its existence is due to the outcome of another process which was closed as disambiguate and that's a !vote which is neither counted nor refuted sufficiently in this process. That there is an opportunity to add Frequency downshifting in the future gives this da page more ground upon which to stand in the future. It is entirely possible somebody will write a downshift article as well. Wikipedia has only had twenty years to cover most subjects. BusterD (talk) 01:43, 28 December 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!} 07:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shirine Khoury-Haq

Shirine Khoury-Haq (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 meet notability guidelines GusChago (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GusChago (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Nominator has failed to provide more than a drive-by rationale. Article subject is CEO of a major UK company, employing over over 65,000 people, and with good coverage in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lebanon, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clear notability claim as the first female CEO in the 159-year history of
  WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:46, 23 December 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.

Hugh Elliott (film editor)

Hugh Elliott (film editor) (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)

Sourcing is almost entirely based on websites that just list his credits; any more in-depth articles focus on a band he was in, which doesn't confer notability to him. Worth noting that the main author,

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I checked

WP:COIN would be the next step. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for pinging - def needs updating. I built this way back and haven't given a close look since, but it has apparently stood the test of time (11 yrs?). Inspired by what I viewed as valid notoriety deserving of a wiki. "The band" created music that helped advance jazz. Publications like Boston Globe and Jazz Times don't review just any CD - they not only reviewed but applauded. Also, reaching #1 on the college music charts is highly significant. Some of these ref links directly cite Hugh Elliott, but need to be updated - they have since changed, modernized to require logins, etc. This seems the primary issue. Ref 1 is the actual Emmy Nomination release, which can be reffed on Emmy's official site. The nom is additionally corroborated by IMDB, data one is not able to self-submit; cannot fake. This seems to validate edit/production accomplishment(s), Deadliest Catch and Discovery. Which then, it seems, further validates full body of IMDB page/credits. To avoid rights issues, the pic is self-owned; safe from rights violations. In that personal site links to wiki... not seeing how this justifies concern. Again, will work to update cited refs asap. Further advice welcome. 76.86.24.62 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for additional advice, I would suggest

WP:SELFPROMOTE) before making edits. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey all, Hugh here. I recommend you go ahead and blast it - do what's best for wiki. In my world there's just not the time or resources to place care on this right now. Thanks for working hard to keep wiki clean.

Hugh 1sjjmhbt0 (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—agree with nominator that there appear to be no readily available web articles or newspaper articles which focus on Elliott as their topic. Even the Bio page for Elliott on the Jazz Punks site contains no information, though if there was info we wouldn't want it as its too closely related to the subject. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:29, 20 December 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laser star model of quasars

Laser star model of quasars (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 very

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—maybe include the theory as a 'failed' or 'contraindicated' historical theory in Quasar in the "Modern observations (1970s onward)" section (could rename the section to "1970s onward")? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too fringe and irrelevant even for a mention at quasar. Maybe Y. P. Varshni can mention it. --mfb (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete discredited theory that never received wide interest. As far as I can tell by searching on
  WP:GNG. Modest Genius ^talk 13:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A WP:FRINGE topic not shared by others. NMasiha (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely a fringe topic, and not a notable one by any standard. Aldebarium (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A pretty obscure topic and hypothesis. I checked the talk page and a comment from a professor there just pushed the reasoning that they know Y.P. Varshni and is well-respected. Absolutely no problems if he is such one, but theories should stand by reason and adherence to facts, not just on the persona of who proposed it. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Same reasons above. Oh, SkyFlubbler, can I talk to you on Discord? I REALLY need to vent some things about the list of largest galaxies, especially about one particularly infamous, somewhat large and controversial galaxy... The Space Enthusiast (talk) 04:31, 23 December 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!} 22:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Rare Earths Elements and Strategic Metals

Institute of Rare Earths Elements and Strategic Metals (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)

Small company with no notability, almost completely written with sources from the company itself and in advertising style. Google almost doesn't know the company with exactly 15 (!) hits for the original German name [1] and 19 für the English [2], some of which come from Wikipedia and WikiCommons. Some of the (few) independent sources used to write the article don't even mention the company (e.g. [3] and therefore the article basically just presents the views of the company itself, while the role of one rare independent example (a short study for the German Bundestag) is not only presented twice, but also grossly exaggerated. (It only uses the company to explain some rather trivial information which could also have been found in the Wikipedia). Please also note that there is the possibility for paid contend, as the company declared: "Companies are included in the world's largest encyclopedia if they either generate more than 100 million euros in annual sales or if they simply deserve to be mentioned. We are therefore very pleased to be included in this group. In the following months, the entry in Wikipedia, which is currently only available in German, will also be translated into other languages. Furthermore, additional categories and links to the individual rare earths, base metals and secondary metals are created." [4] That's exactly what happened in the German Wikipedia, where about 25 paragraphs with clearly advertising content have been added in ever rare earth article and some others, where there was even less connection to that company. Therefore there has been a unanimously consensus (everyone except the author) to delete that entry, which has been done today, see [5]. Andol (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Germany, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The delete request is a transfer of the deletion action in the German to the English Wikipedia.

• The aspect of "advertising" has already been dealt with here and accepted as settled after appropriate revision.

The "small company", which does not need any advertising or promotion (only a few entries in google), gets its importance from worldwide active subscribers, who access its paid database 4,500 to 5,000 times a day. ISE consequently achieves little public attention and thus a presentation relies on self-disclosure. Statements from a website can of course be based on information and are not automatically "advertising".

• The pleased reaction of the company ISE to the article in the German Wikipedia was not the result of a demand by the author - that there should be links to and from other articles is required by the WP (No orphan). The company will quickly realize that it is not allowed to do translations into other languages itself. As an author, I was interested in getting to know the working methods, formal rules and customs of the English Wikipedia with the entry of ISE.
• The mentioned source [3] (NZZ) has the purpose to describe the transit trade in Switzerland and not to name ISE. This should be understandable from the context.
• The eightfold mention of ISE as a source for mostly comprehensive contributions or quotations in the report of the Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Deutschen Bundestags is not a trifle, but a high-profile publication that values the exclusive expertise of the institute and was produced to inform the parliament and federal institutions about the international commodity situation on REE and lithium. [Report of the Bundestag WD 5 - 3000 - 003/2022 on the resource rare earths: Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestags 03-2022 Retrieved September 01, 2022.] There is hardly any better evidence of unique relevance, which also allows the German WP regulations to omit the 100 million Euro turnover limit for companies.
• Innovative is also the contribution of the ISE to a quite probable stability in the world trade (as a further criterion of this turnover exemption), by means of the daily determination and publication of the current prices of thousands of substances as well as the offer of a purity certification for serious transactions. GerhardSchuhmacher (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)— GerhardSchuhmacher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero hits on Google news, Zero hits on Wikipedia library, Zero hits in Google books. Seems not notable. The long and comment that lacks a vote and doesn't refer to a single policy or guidance is not convincing. CT55555(talk) 04:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just keep claiming that the company is very important. Because of the database and the role in the market and such thing. However, there is absolutely no evidence of that. Nothing in the article (or the internet) makes that claim plausible. Where does it even come from? It has to be from the company itself, as there are no independent sources writing something like that. That's not how Wikipedia entrys are written. We cannot just take the company's self-promotion that it's incredibly important, because it says so. We need independent sources. But in the entry there are almost no independent sources, almost everything comes from the company itself. It's just ISE, ISE, ISE, and if you take that out, there would be next to nothing left. Which is clear, given the fact that Google knows next to nothing about that company. That's why the entry has been deleted in the German Wikipedia minutes after becoming eligible, with a clear consensus (everyone with the exemption of you). And please don't claim the short piece from the Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestages makes the company notable, because that is "a high-profile publication". It's far from that. That organization gets thousands of request every year and then writes short pieces of information. It's not a key study or exhaustive or lengthy report commissioned by the parliament, its a short compilation of some basic information to inform one or a few members of parliament. Being mentioned in such a short piece doesn't make a company notable, especially since the information the report took from the company was quite trivial and could have been easily taken from the Wikipedia, too. Andol (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andol's data is unreliable. Thus, the article in the German Wikipedia was not deleted immediately, but after 7 days of discussion. The Scientific Services (see German WP "Wissenschaftliche Dienste") receive thousands of requests from parliaments worldwide, employ 64 people and award three media prizes. The dilemma here lies elsewhere: First, representations of a website are not automatically "advertising". I have only checked and taken over information for customers, which must and are absolutely serious with the high costs for the subscriptions. To deliver prices for 5,000 substances daily is an extraordinary achievement. Insight into this area should be convincing: ( https://ise-metal-quotes.com/ ) Secondly, Wikipedia's relevance criteria, which demand neutral newspaper articles with mention of names, are the problem. (Two years ago still as e. V. the institute would have been taken in the de-WP without circumstances). There are a number of articles that use price information (also over time) from ISE, but do not mention the source institute. Journalists are not obliged to do this! But "uniqueness" is also a valid reason for WP - if you accept that they don't lie and have 4-5,000 hits daily. I myself am a new author of en-WP, but with my expertise on these commodities so crucial today and the increasing reflection on the situation, it would not remain with this article. Based on the ISE sources, one could update many Wikipedia articles. GerhardSchuhmacher (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do yourself a favour and familiarise yourself with the relevant guidelines:

WP:GNG. Once you do so, you will see that nothing in your long comments here is relevant. You would need to show us that independent reliable sources have written about the organisation in significant detail. It seems like they have not. And it doesn't matter how important you think they are, it matters how much they made the news, or academic literature, or books. CT55555(talk) 02:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The article got eligible to be deleted after 7 days, as usual, yes. And it was deleted 21 minutes after midnight, which is "minutes after becoming eligible", isn't it? So which data from me isn't reliable? There was also at least one contributor that criticized me for not pushing for a speedy deletion, while there was absolutely no one of more than half a dozen editors who saw even a tiny bit of notability. the point is: There is almost no sources that even describes the company. The whole article is based on inside data from or strong opinions on that company. But that's not how articles can be written. You can claim the company is extremely important, as you do, but it just doesn't matter, because we need independent sources to conform that, not your word or your opinion, that you think so. If you delete every piece of information that isn't proven by independent sources, the whole article shrinks to a few words. And unfortunately that is NO exaggeration. Andol (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ISE sources are published by the company themselves; we need non-trivial sourcing in references unconnected to the entity being discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all sources found are PR material published as such. Perhaps being an "informal network of xxxx" as the article suggests is the reason why we can't find RS, who knows. It's a delete, as it's not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The matter stands with regular rules against the association, which became an AG ("public limited company") only because of the cooperating storage company two years ago. I still see the work of ISE as valuable - price trends over decades are also documented there. (US/China crisis). And the "self-presentation" seemed to me like a professional instruction manual. But the information based on it could be removed, the article "minimized". With the history of development "according to its own information", a sentence on the structure and the preservation of the "reception". I received information that there is still a newspaper interview with the CEO, perhaps with frame data. When I receive the article, I'll enter a minimized version for viewing here on Saturday. GerhardSchuhmacher (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out the relevant sections from NCORP below. The sourcing fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. You mention stuff such as the company providing a valuable service but that is simply your opinion and no Independent commentator has researched his company and come to the same conclusion. Have any industry analysts researched and published a report on the company? This often happen with publically quoted companies but I am unable to locate any reports at all. You also say that you've received information about an interview with the CEO - just beware that there's a good chance that if the article does not contain any "Independent Content" and simply relies on the CEO or the company for the information with no independent analysis/research/etc, then that article likely fails ORGIND.

HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete This is a company/organization therefore
  HighKing⁺⁺ 14:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was merge to 2021 Altındağ attack. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Emirhan Yalçın

Killing of Emirhan Yalçın (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 notable murder. Can't find news sources that can establish it's notability. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Syria. Skynxnex (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to
  WP:BIO1E. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge seems like a fine alternative, I don't see much sourcing otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Hai Chota Sa

Dil Hai Chota Sa (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)

Was seemingly closed as "no consensus" earlier today, which is questionable when the weight of argument was in favour of deletion. None the less, the viability and determined notability of this subject has not been decided upon.

There was just a single additional reference added during the last afd, while none of the current references meet

Anyone wishing to !vote keep should read the previous afd and demonstrate with evidence why this is a notable show. This evidence was not offered during the last afd. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close Go to
  WP:RENOM. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I really did consider DRV, but that to me is really an avenue if you staunchly disagree with the closure and believe it's conclusively wrong. While I did disagree, not to the point of challenging a relister and a closer with what seemed a balanced discussion. RENOM is an essay and I am aware of the guidance of a delay and the reasons offered. If there is another expression, like your own, to take to DRV instead then that'll be something to consider. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would vote delete, but per
  WP:RENOM (yes it's an essay), If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months. Bungle, I agree with your insightful analysis per the previous AfD, but given that AfD is just recently closed discussion here would likely lead to the same result. If it is the case that this AfD can proceed, no worries, but if it's procedurally closed my advice is wait for two months preferably. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first AFD just closed last week. And we are back here 7 days later?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: DRV probably would have been a better option for this. I stand by my delete reasoning in the original AFD, the sources here are weak at best and nothing really in depth. There has been no improvement since the AFD was started either. Ravensfire (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I still disagree with the article's deletion. The serial does have reliable sources to remian published. Lillyput4455 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It really doesn't. You failed in the last afd to respond to my request as to which sources are

  WP:RELIABLE and you fail to say so now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 22 December 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.

Ashok Kumar (Telugu actor)

Ashok Kumar (Telugu actor) (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 done any significant role in the listed films. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Sourcing is available in English that establish Ashok Kumar (the TV actor) is at least tangentially notable. Among the best of these is the article from The Hindu published in 2012. Another few sources can be found through Google searches, but I encourage using modifying terms that distinguish our Ashok Kumar from the decedent Ashok Kumar, another actor who passed in 2001. Current article contains deficiencies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per The Hindu source. DareshMohan (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will check it later, as it's quite confusing. There are multiple Ashok Kumar, Telugu Actor. So please don't get confused. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a BLP with virtually no sourcing. A working actor with credits. Notability of this subject is not asserted or proved by applied sourcing. One of the links appears to be a business card with phone numbers. The only significant coverage is routine industry news from The Hindu and that's almost entirely an interview. It is possible RSs exist on this seasoned TV actor but my reasonable BEFORE doesn't find anything which is better than what is already applied. This is a BLP; we can't just treat a IMDB listing as a model for biography, as it seems to be in this case. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 28 December 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. Star Mississippi 19:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shikho

Shikho (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 online educational platform. Promotional article. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of sources are interview, press release and about an actor who joined as brand campaign. Fails

Also this article most likely paid editing. This photo was published in this interview-type news. Article creator also uploaded same photo here on commons with high quality. I am not sure how they got it if they don't have any connnetion. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most sources seem to be PR-type announcements, funding and acquisitions and such. Potential copyvio image, article appears promotional. Many red flags here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nommed; promo piece with likely COI/UPE issues. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just declined an AIV report on the article creator as insufficiently warned and recommended for now that we just let this play out. So, in the interests of that, I agree with other delete !voters that a lot of the sourcing for this seems more like wire-service puffery than anything that really establishes notability, and there are large stretches without any sourcing. Further, much of it is peacockery.

  All these things together suggest to me that this is not an article about a notable subject that was just written as promo, it is an article about a presently non-notable company. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not paid editing. why you are thinking this way brother? Manojmondolbd (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this photo was taken on shikho office when Shikho officially acquires Bohubrihi Manojmondolbd (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. The article is thoroughly promotional and almost bordering (but probably not eligible for)
  WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices on acquisitions, investments, and other routine announcements. VickKiang (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Non-notable promotional article. NMasiha (talk) 15:30, 22 December 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. Star Mississippi 19:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Levine

Ann Levine (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 topic does not pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Alabama, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find sources, various social media platforms and an obituary for her (I think) parent. Unsure if she'd meet AUTHOR but I can't find reviews of her books. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this person doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) requirements. It's also concerning that this is a seemingly promotional biography of a living person. The cited low book sales are just odd. QuintinK (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Created by an SPA, and a fair amount of the content is not supported by the references given. I can't find the publisher but it does appear that the book was at least initially self-published. The book is found in some libraries (~150 in WorldCat) but the few reviews are in rather marginal publications. I did find a PRWire press release, but nothing independent. (Has anyone NOT referred to their book as a "best seller"?) Lamona (talk) 16:35, 26 December 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.

Özal Group

Özal Group (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 a notable company Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 20 December 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!} 06:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Drake

Isaac Drake (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 can't see much that is particularly notable here; the military rank is not the highest and from what I read elsewhere, George III knighted quite a lot of people. Open to the possibility that I'm missing something important. JMWt (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and England. JMWt (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete his name is common enough that you get hits on all kinds of stuff. Nothing about this soldier from the 1790s. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothin'
  (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep if a reliable source can be found that he was knighted. Clearly a knighthood meets
  WP:ANYBIO #1, but we need proof that he actually had one (I have no idea whether the listed print source mentions it or not). George III knighted quite a lot of people is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:BASIC no source provided that confirms his knighthood. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 22 December 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.

GBC International Bank

GBC International Bank (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 Google search shows that it has a Fitch rating but the article does not show it is a notable company Chidgk1 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For something supposed to be an international bank, gets 5 gnews hits and most of those are small mentions. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 21 December 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 Liquiçá Church massacre. Viable ATD. Star Mississippi 19:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Clark (police officer)

Karl Clark (police officer) (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could imagine this person being notable due to their work investigating human rights abuses in East Timor. However, no online secondary sources seem to establish that at this time. QuintinK (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I would love to see this article expanded, but sources are very difficult to come by. Redirecting this to Liquiçá Church massacre will save what history is there so far and make possible future article expansion much easier. Jacona (talk) 11:29, 23 December 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.

• Speedy Keep. This team made it to the PSAC Football Championship Game, and made it to the Division II semifinals. With several sources in the article, I don't understand the rationale for this being brought to AfD. Disclaimer, I am the article creator. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 17:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 17:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- to any closer, see this edit from the nominator... opening this AfD was their first edit, also. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 18:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: Per SPF121188's rational, this team's season was clearly notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose delete. The content shouldn't be deleted given the coverage. However, I increasingly think the best way to deal with Division II programs is to create conference/season articles, in this case 2022 Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference football season. Compare 2022 Gulf South Conference football season, 2022 Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football season, and 2022 Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference football season. Cbl62 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep with no prejudice against merging later. I agree with Cbl, a conference season article might be the way to go but until it exists we should keep this one, having passed
  WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:14, 20 December 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!} 22:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopscotch (company)

Hopscotch (company) (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 company, lacks reliable & independent coverage. Lordofhunter (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Originally a
  WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough information on the company yet out the article, perhaps

WP:CORP. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:37, 20 December 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.

Arun Bose

Arun Bose (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kerala. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The PR material came from a sandbox draft which was already made. The materials without citations has been removed and cleaned. The director is popular in Kerala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.248.68.68 (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 17:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Shshshsh, can you provide any reason for your opinion? Otherwise, it's likely to be dismissed by a discussion closer. One word votes aren't contributing to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz: I think it's well sourced, with reliable sources which establish the subject's notability pr both WP:GNG. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Shshshsh, thank you for the additional feedback. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 24 December 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 Nikolija (singer). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (Nikolija album)

Aurora (Nikolija 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)

Of the sources that aren't just Apple Music links, there's #9 which is an

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Serbia. QuietHere (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: #11 is about Nikolija recording a song/music video together with Amna Alajbegović who is the winner of what I'm guessing is a TV series called IDJShow. #13 is about Nikolija performing at a music festival called Music Week. I got really mixed up there. It's still the case that neither make significant mention of the album though so my point still stands. QuietHere (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nikolija (singer). I do not see evidence of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources, although there is a language barrier at play here. I would say a redirect to the main artist's page would be preferrable over outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harris J

Harris J (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. Skynxnex (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I have watched this page for years. Even with fans trying hard to build it up (with unreferenced claims that are quickly removed by other editors), it has always failed
  talk) 02:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing solid seems to be out there. You Tube & Twitter do not cut any mustard. WP notability guidelines have never made any sense to me; I'm not sure that the book might not be considered notable, sine there are reviews. Even if it sank without a trave. Wa aleikum as Salaam!TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tagged this for notability a couple of days before it was proposed for deletion. I did a search at that point and could not find sources to meet
  WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep Might pass AUTHOR Wisconsin Muslim Journal [7] seems semi-RS, Publisher's Weekly [8] and a Kirkus Review [9] Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And a brief mention in Quill and Quire, which is an Ontario, Canada literary publication [10] Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]