Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< January 11 January 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. While there is less discussion here of the substance of the sources than I would like, the arguments that the sources in the article provide significant coverage are not obviously wrong, and so I cannot close this any other way. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Parra

Claudio Parra (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)

Chilean musician with no notability outside band. Was previously redirected to

WP:BANDMEMBER. John B123 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to
    talk) 00:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I don't read Spanish very well, but based on Tommy Boy's post, he is clearly notable as a stand alone musician. The articles, from the title certainly appear to be discussing him, rather than the band, thus meeting WP:RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't really – they are either wishing him happy birthday as a member of a famous band, being the sole surviving member of a famous band, or being interviewed as the keyboard player of a famous band. In short, all the sources are very much tied to him being part of Los Jaivas, and as far as I'm aware, he hasn't done anything notable outside of the band. Richard3120 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of the sources give
    significant coverage to Parra. -- Mike 🗩 14:38, 13 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Fiji relations

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

Fails

WP:GNG. There really isn't much to these relations, 1 meeting of foreign ministers at the side of the UN General Assembly, trade is tiny, no agreements or embassies. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very thin article - non notable relationship between these two countries. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say that an annual export of goods worth 7.54 dollars is tiny? Oh well, delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [sqeaky angry whingey voice]: What how dare anyone nominate this!! I'll have you know that the prime minister of Fiji ran into the Azerbaijani charge'd'affairs at a in charity event in Sydney! Clearly this indicates the existence of substantial and notable bilateral relations! Nominating this was just trolling and the nominator should be... [remaining 15 paragraphs removed]. 😁 Obviously, delete. Very similar to the AfD for Turkey-Kiribati relations, maybe we need a bulk AfD for most of these articles about relations between Eastern European/ex-USSR nations and Pacific Island nations? These AfDs for them are quite amusing, but probably waste a bit more time than they need to. (example: this comment) Mako001 (C)  (T)  01:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes I don't know why someone created all these very marginal articles about countries that are *very* unlikely to have substantial relationsips - but I unfortunately spend a lot of my time voting to delete them (and mostly they are). Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:04, 15 January 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 Operation Atalanta with the option to merge verifiable content. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 5 April 2010

Action of 5 April 2010 (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 "action" with no long term impact. As an

alternative to deletion, can be merged back into the Operation Atalanta page. Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 12 January 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 Operation Ocean Shield. Clear consensus that a standalone article is inappropriate, and a merger is required. No consensus on the target; I'm including Operation Ocean Shield in the closing statement only because XfDcloser will throw a fit otherwise. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 1 April 2010

Action of 1 April 2010 (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 "naval engagement". Yes, this occurred, but this incident with Somali pirates is not a notable "battle". Additionally, there is no long term significance of this event. As an

ATD, could be merged into Operation Ocean Shield. Natg 19 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 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 23:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lama Alshamandi

Lama Alshamandi (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)

Entirely unsourced. Web searches give me nothing but wikis and IMDB-like sites. Dubbed a lot of films apparently, but I don't think that's a particularly notable thing. Found this article through Special:Random. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:07, 12 January 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 23:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libya–Montenegro relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. The fact that Gaddafi's son had a birthday party in Montenegro hardly adds to notable relations. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 12 January 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 Lafayette, Indiana. ✗plicit 23:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods of Lafayette, Indiana

Neighborhoods of Lafayette, Indiana (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)

Slightly more justifed than the corresponding article for West Lafayette: all the blue links are historic districts and justify their separate articles . But there's still no reason for a list outside the main article, which is where anyone interested would look, DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 12 January 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 Lafayette, Indiana. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods of West Lafayette, Indiana

Neighborhoods of West Lafayette, Indiana (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)

unjustified split: two of these are historic districts, and justify their own articles (Hills and Dale and Happy Hollow), the other blue links just redirect to the main article DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 12 January 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 23:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Sullivan

Shelley Sullivan (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)

Hopelessly promotional and so minimally notable (if at all) to be not worth fixing. Most of the references are promotional or trivial material. Most of the content is, correspondingly, trivial or promotional material.

The original editor in 2007 was a single purpose editor who has not contributed anything else at all almost all subsequent edits were made by a succession of other spas, culminating in someone whose username was so obvious as to attract attention, (Rebecca Sullivan ModelCo ) DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 12 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 23 April 1945

AfDs for this article:
Action of 23 April 1945 (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)

1. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The engagement between a German submarine and an American on April 23, 1945 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. It would be better to delete the page and ensure any sourced details are recorded instead in the article about the USS Besugo 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards. It is mentioned on Talk:Action of 12 October 1950 Keith H99 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 6 October 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 13 May 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 10 November 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Action of 5 July 1942 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-168, U-1224, USS Flounder & USS Growler.

Relisted WW2 articles as per request from Peterkingiron Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

merge relevant content to relevant ships/submarines - done on 13 January Keith H99 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as suggested by Mztourist. These names are too ambiguous, many things would happen on one day of such a vast conflict as World War II, and it would be quite possible that a similarly notable (whether enough for an article or not is another matter) engagement may have also taken place in a remote island of the Pacific, on the Eastern Front, or on the Western Front for all but the last one, on the same day. Which one would get the article? If articles with this format of title should ever exist, they should be disambiguation pages. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all -- I would suggest the target should be something like United States anti-submarine operations in Pacific Theater, which is a long enough title without adding WWII to it. The actions are not individually notable enough to require articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This information could be merged into the article about the ship, and der U boat that sank - it's just an engagement between two ships, its not an actual battle. It doesn't get its own article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:42, 14 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Dadet

Amos Dadet (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)

Apparently, he only has appearances in the second tier of Slovenia, so does not pass

WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 12 January 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keemstar

Keemstar (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)

Very much not my field, but I noticed this because of the BLP concerns. Quite apart from the subject, there are a number of living people referred to, many in uncomplimentary terms, based on sourcing which is not acceptable for BLP. It could be argued that any of them are public figures just as much as he is, but this doesnt in my opinion justify an article mainly featuring the negative interactions among them. Apart from being basically written as a BLP violation, sources seem utterly unsubstantial, and I think the appropriate rule is NOTTABLOID. Some of the sources merely cite him peripherally; many are basically promotional notices.

I do not know to what extent this is the standard of referencing and article writing in this subject; if most other articles are like this, we should reconsider how we deal with the field DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is PantheonRadiance typing this from another country. I randomly saw this today and just had to add my two cents to the discussion. 41.223.132.235 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 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 speedy deleted per

(non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 05:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Vuparian

Vuparian (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 non notable article for a “Hentai reviewer” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search turns up nothing cogent and literally all articles used in this are all unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 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 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Heart

Pure Heart (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 clearly-defined topic. "Pure heart" is a generic English term, used in all kinds of circumstances. The article paints it as a theological concept, but its definition there isn't meaningfully different from its plain meaning. Vahurzpu (talk) 20:52, 12 January 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 Closed as Nomination withdrawn. For the purposes of determining consensus, it further appeared that this was trending toward a keep anyway. Whether it needs a rename is another issue . Star Mississippi 23:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ismene (moth)

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)

According to http://www.pyraloidea.org/, which is recognised as an authority on the superfamily, the is an unnaccepted genus (sadly, I can't provide a url to the report, so please visit the site and search for Ismene). This website, which is recognised as an authority on Lepidoptera, gives Ismeme as a junior synonym to Bibasis, but this is a butterfly, not a moth, so this page is not suitable as a redirect. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment, but edit text to indicate that the genus isn't accepted. Presumably the moth Ismene pelusia does exist (since it was described), and we don't appear to have any other article on this moth, so if we delete this article, we're losing our sole record of a species. The situation appears to be: someone published a minor moth a very long time ago; a major authority hasn't accepted the nomenclature, but a less-major authority has listed it anyway (the ref in the article). Since we're a tertiary source we can simply summarise that situation and wait for the taxonomists to sort themselves out. Elemimele (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good solution. I don't actually understand what the status of the species is under these circumstances (i.e. parent taxon invalid)? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@
junior homonym to Ismene Savigny, 1816, and a junior synonym to Bibasis (which I pointed out in my rationale), which is a butterfly, not a moth. The picture you link to is also clearly a butterfly. The NHM does list Ismene as a moth here, but states that the genus is unconfirmed, all of which takes us back to my original point. The question now is, should we retain the article when it is of an unconfirmed or unaccepted? YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Can the article be named "Ismene (butterfly or moth)" which seems accurate per this discussion, and explain within the page? Randy Kryn (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn and Dream Focus: This doesn't seem to me to be a particularly reasonable thing to do. Given the localities of the two genera (the moth in Egypt, and the butterfly in Indomalaya) and the fact that the authorities are differnt, I reckon the naming was conincidental. Ismene is a character in Greek mythology with a few things named after her, so it's not a case of it being either a butterfly or a moth, just the name being used twice to describe different things (the name is also used for a plant genus, which is fine, botanists and zoologists can use the same name, but neither can use the same name twice, hence synonyms and homonyms). The moth is unconfirmed, and therefore the question is does it merit a page of it's own. I would argue not. The butterfly already has a page under the senior synonym (but the info could do with adding, something for me to do perhaps). YorkshireExpat (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the genus is unconfirmed. A reputable encyclopedia wouldn't have an article dedicated to "there might be a genus of moth called Ismene, or maybe people are getting it confused with the butterfly". A note on the existing page for the butterfly genus would suffice for this purpose. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if I'm interpreting it correctly, we have a perfectly respectable primary description of a new species (a sole member of a new genus), the moth, but its genus name has not been accepted, and the genus name clashes with another, completely separate described genus, the butterfly. As a result, there's a taxonomic dilemma that hasn't been resolved (presumably because the moth isn't sufficiently important for the taxonomists to have got round to sorting it out yet). I don't think it's appropriate to reduce the moth to a note in the article about the butterfly because the moth has nothing to do with it, beyond an accident of naming. This AfD already shows the danger of converting a mess-up of naming into a general misunderstanding about whether there's a single Ismene that might be a moth or a butterfly, or two different Ismenes. I don't think deletion is ideal, because the moth presumably exists, and we accept articles at species-level. It's just that currently its naming is a mess. This is an example of science-in-progress, it's not unusual for species to change names, come and go, merge into other groups, or get separated out; we can only describe the story as it is. Hence my original suggestion to keep with an explanation of the situation. Elemimele (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per MrsSnoozyTurtle. Whatever the issues are with the naming of the thing the references don't seem to be there to support an article about it anyway. In the meantime I think a good argument could be made that this is probably a case of
    WP:TOOSOON. I say create the article in a few years when the genus is actually confirmed and there's enough references to justify something that's not just a basic listing. If I was stretching things I could also say this should be deleted as a type of hoax article. Although, I don't think we need to go that far with it to justify deleting the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
According to Wikipedia's current state-of-the-art, which is unfortunately a policy that failed to gain full consensus and therefore leaves us floating in doubt, species are notable (see
WP:TOOSOON given that it was described 206 years ago, in 1816. I'm not going to defend Ismene (moth)'s existence to the death as I assume no one really cares about this moth, and there's not much to say about it, but I just want people aware that this seems to be removal of our entire record of a genuine species, not a spurious bit of fluff-clean-up. Elemimele (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NSPECIES, because the genus is unconfirmed. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Ismene Pelusia?[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Bisby F.A., Roskov Y.R., Orrell T.M., Nicolson D., Paglinawan L.E., Bailly N., Kirk P.M., Bourgoin T., Baillargeon G., Ouvrard D. (red.) (2011). "Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: 2011 Annual Checklist". Species 2000: Reading, UK. Ginkuhà 24 September 2012
  2. ^ LepIndex: The Global Lepidoptera Names Index. Beccaloni G.W., Scoble M.J., Robinson G.S. & Pitkin B., 2005-06-15
I have not read these sources. I do believe they exist, FWIW. Simply bringing them to your attention. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read, and do not have access to, these sources, so can't confirm or refute anything with these. However, Lepindex here says the genus is unconfirmed, and ITIS does not appear to have any listing for the species (which is not particularly unusual). YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's creator was not told about this AFD. I posted on their talk page to inform them of it and ask where their source is from. Their user page states they created 8,200 articles, I assume mostly with some sort of bot creating things like this. I'm curious where they got their information from. Dream Focus 13:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: The creator seems to have been inactive for a couple of years. Also, references on this aren't terribly hard to find. There are plenty in the taxonbar. The question is which are the most relevant. The ones I give at the start of this are dedicated to Lepidopterology, as is Lepindex. ITIS is a data aggregator and less reliable. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this is a real genus (which seems in contention) then the article is a stub that needs to be expanded. Caleb Stanford (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Westwood, J. O. (1839). An introduction to the modern classification of insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different families. Vol. 2. pp. 398–9. has some illustrations within a description of Pyralidae
  • Should also look at Strigina and Lyndia. For Minyas the disambig redirects to Bombyx.
Good work @Fiveby:! On the first points, what you're finding are instances where other taxonomists have tried to use the name Ismene, but couldn't because it was already claimed by Savigny. Clearly, before the Internet, it was much harder to check if a name had already been used or not. The fact that Ismene was used isn't surprising as she is a figure in Greek mythology, and taxonomic names often use this as a source of inspiration. So, Nickerl couldn't reuse the name, but then it was found that the species he described was part of another genus, Hypermnestra, who is also a classical figure. None of this changes the fact that Savigny's Ismene has not been accepted.
On your other findings Strigina appears to be a junior synonym, which shouldn't have a page of it's own. I will redirect it accordingly like Minyas (moth). Lyndia seems to ba a similar case to Ismene and should be deleted, but I missed this when I edited it myself -_-, so thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am surprised this situation does not arise more often, but maybe i am not searching the archives correctly. The closest precedent i can find is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coeloria elegans, but that coral was once recognized and here we have a monotypic genus and a 200 year old description of only head and mouth parts. @Loopy30:, @Robert McClenon:, any help? fiveby(zero) 13:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC) oops, @Nick Moyes:. fiveby(zero) 14:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen Robert McClenon But that's the point, there is no verifiability here. The most reputable sources say that the thing isn't accepted. It is effectively imaginary. We don't have articles on imaginary species (apart from Yetis and Unicorns of course). YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think even a 200 year old partial description of a specimen collected 18 years prior and by a zoologist with failing eyesight is verifiable. But is a monotypic species inquirenda(?) stub (which will always be a stub) useful? I'd say no, as long as there are entries in Wikidata and Wikispecies, but would like to hear from more taxonomy geeks. The encyclopedic content and work should be in the Savigny biography: works, named species, what happened to his collection and artwork? fiveby(zero) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiveby, Dyanega, Peter coxhead, and Plantdrew: I am pinging some people who you may consider to be 'taxonomy geeks', and am hoping they are not too offended by that categorisation. They have discussed lepidopterology with me before, and I would be happy to for their thoughts here. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is indisputable evidence that Savigny named the genus, and that the name is valid. Yes, that it is incertae sedis does confound things. BUT - and this is important - a name that is incertae sedis is more grounded, so to speak, than a name that is a nomen dubium. Were I treating Wikipedia as a taxonomic index, I would include names in the former category but exclude names in the latter category. Why? Because incertae sedis means that we know there is an actual organism, and its name is accepted, and while we don't know where exactly it should be classified, we presume this is attainable. As such, the problem is strictly taxonomic, and could be resolved at some point. In this case, we know there's a moth, we know it's a pyralid in the broad sense, and the potential exists to definitively track down its identity. Should that happen, this article will either point to itself, or point to another article, if this proves to be a synonym of another taxon. A nomen dubium, on the other hand, means a name where we will never actually know what it refers to - i.e., we don't know whether we should accept its name - and as such, the problem is not only both taxonomic and nomenclatural, but there is no possibility of definitively tracking down its identity. Such an article would never point anywhere else, and has little meaning or relevance in and of itself - very much NOT notable. While Ismene is only marginally notable, that is not true of all names like it (especially among fossil taxa, some of which are quite famous), and I would argue that this and other articles like it should be kept as a matter of principle. Dyanega (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyanega: Thanks for this. I'm not so worried about the fact that it is incertae sedis; many pyralid genera are at different levels. However, could you shed any light on the reason for the genus being 'invalid' or 'unaccepted' in the refs I cite at the start of this thread, and what the ramifications of that would be? I was thinking I might the species elsewhere as a synonym of another crambid moth, but no luck. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link a Pyraloidea.org just says "unrecognized taxon". I don't know what that's supposed to mean without details of their reasoning. Savigny provided a figure, even, so one is compelled to assume that the folks at Pyraloidea.org simply don't know what existing species that figure corresponds to. It's a puzzle, yes, but one that should be possible to answer. Would I bother to create an article in WP for such a species? Probably not, but once it has been created, it harms nothing to leave it in place; maybe it will inspire someone to seek a resolution. Dyanega (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyanega: Thanks for the reply. In that case I think I must withdraw. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:15, 18 January 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 just want to note that those arguing for keep on the basis that this has survived three previous AFDs are using an invalid argument. First of all consensus can change, and secondly, in this case, it most certainly has. The first two AFDs kept on the basis that high schools and above are automatically notable. This is no longer the consensus and guidelines have since changed.

This close should not be taken as evidence that the article is without neutrality or promotional problems and does not preclude the article being entirely rewritten or

stubifying. SpinningSpark 14:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Darul Huda Islamic University

AfDs for this article:
Darul Huda Islamic University (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)

Requesting to delete and salt all articles, and block all suspected accounts. This institution is a self-styled and unaccredited university based in Kerala. A group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like TwoCircles.net, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence and they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by accredited universities.

Read more at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting cross-wiki investigation against Darul Huda Islamic Academy

. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if article in the New Indian Express is reliable or not since it's about a student magazine. Which isn't what this article is about. Otherwise, how does that article address "university" directly and in-depth? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was nominated three times before and resulted keep. A clean up might works. Onmyway22 talk 19:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are 25,000+ madrasas in Kerala, this is one of the most prominent.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ISBN 9781400837458
    . In Kerala, institutions of advanced Islamic training tend not to use the term "madrassa" ... Instead, they prefer loan words like "college" or "academy". Thus one of the most prominent "madrassas" is Darul Huda Islamic Academy.
  2. doi:10.1017/rms.2016.73
    . This essay is based on three months of fieldwork at the National Islamic University, Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), and visits to two Muslim universities in Kerala ... In comparing DHIU and JI with JMI, I try to illustrate the conceptual differences of the universities' interpretations of being Islamic institutions ... Darul Huda Islamic University (DIHU) and Al Jamia Al Islamiya University (JI) in Kerala have a different approach regarding the role of religion. Both institutions have constructed a dual education system, providing their students with a purely Islamic faith-based education, that is to say they offer degrees in hadith, the Qurʾan, fiqh, etc., which they combine with non-religious, government approved university degrees. These degrees are typically in fields such as history, English, and sociology. Both universities have accepted the necessity of government approved degrees to improve their students' career options, while still remaining focused on religious education and the dissemination of their interpretation of Islam. DIHU and JI thus represent a different position within the Islamic educational tradition than JMI in deliberately trying to educate their students as specifically Islamic modern subjects.
  3. doi:10.1017/S0266078413000266
    . Darul Huda Islamic University is arguably the State's flagship Islamic learning centre, offering upper primary, secondary, intermediate and advanced courses (including undergraduate and postgraduate courses) spread over a period of 12 years. Located in the village of Chemmad in Malappuram district, the heartland of the Mapilla Muslims of Malabar, this institution is the boldest initiative ever undertaken by Kerala's Sunni ulema to promote reforms in their madrasa system and English has been a compulsory subject in its curriculum since its inception in 1986. At present, Darul Huda has more than 1000 students and almost 60 teachers on its rolls.
  4. doi:10.1017/S0026749X20000347
    . The first-ever 'model dars' in Kerala was established in Kottakkal Town Juma Masjid during the 1980s that incorporated subjects such as literature, Islamic history, Urdu, and English language into the curriculum. However, such attempts at imparting 'integrated education' were rather unsuccessful until the establishment of Darul Huda Islamic Academy in 1986 in Chemmad, Malappuram, which was formally upgraded to a university in May 2009 and is currently a member of the Federation of the Universities of the Islamic World.
  5. doi:10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00003.7
    . In Kerala, new experiments in the field of community education, like the combination of secular education with religious, for instance Darul Huda Islamic University, shows that the achievement of educational progress among Muslims is possible mainly through the combined efforts of micro level organizations, regional initiatives, and local educational bodies, with the affiliation of macro level religious organizations
  6. doi:10.1177/10608265211050680
    . they send students from the region, irrespective of their class backgrounds, to various Islamic educational institutions associated with these organizations. Darul-Huda Islamic University at Chemmad of the EK group of Sunnis, Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya at Karanthur of the AP group of Sunnis, Al-Jamia Al-Islamiya at Shanthapuram of the Jama'at-e-Islami, and Madeenathul-Uloom at Pulikkal of the Mujahids are considered prestigious.
It's important to note that this is a Deobandi institution and Wikipedia has been beset with quite a degree of drama between supporters and those opposed to the movement. Instead of getting involved in the drama, all that should concern us is focussing on reliable sourcing, remembering that AfD is not clean up and expecting a thorough BEFORE. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references you cited are trivial name drops. There needs to be more then that for them to work for notability. Especially since this isn't a university in the way the notability guidelines for schools means it. But articles with simple name drops like the ones you've provided don't work for
WP:GNG either. We aren't just verifying the exitance of the place. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That is a misrepresentation, they're not simple name drops, they're sources which attest to (a) its prominence and (b) two of them discuss it in length; the sources establish notability under NONPROFIT. FWIW, I'm reminded of AfDs of other Deobandi institutions; precedent shows keep (Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi, Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi); while this one must be judged on its own merits, it's nevertheless useful to note the patterns. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The last reference on your list literally just says the name of the school. To cite from the abstract of the paper that the quote in the last reference you listed, it says "his article explores how different forms of capital act in configuring power relations among differently positioned Mappila Muslim men." Which doesn't sound it has anything to do with this "university." So how exactly am I misrepresenting that reference by saying it's not about the "university" and just names drops it? Also, where do the notability guidelines say that something is notable if a reference "attests to its prominence" and what makes whoever is attesting to it's prominence an authority that is worth listening to, instead of following the notability guidelines? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of one source, is not analysis of six. You first stated that these "are trivial name drops"; but they are not, out of 25,000+ madrasas in the state of Kerala (population 34+ million), I've supplied reliable sourcing from peer-reviewed specialist publications that attests this is "one of the most prominent", "prestigious" institutions that was a pioneer of integrated Islamic education. Two of the sources are detailed examinations of the madrassa. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason I said "most" of your references are purely name drops in my original message. "Most" isn't all six. In the meantime, I picked one as an example. Which is fine. I don't have to summarize every single reference in obtuse detail for my point to be valid. If 4 or 5 of the references you've provided are trivial name drops then it still massively undermines the reasons you posted them and the claims your making about them showing notability. As far as your claim that the sources say it is a "prestigious" institution, only the 6th reference uses the term "prestigious" and it has to do with prestigious Sunni groups that are associated with the institution, not the "university" itself. I could see where you might have misread that sentence though. It's kind of convoluted. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood Kasim's point. It's an article about social capital and the way in which male-male networks reinforce and extend social power and assist in social mobility among Kerala's muslims. The full quote states: "Although all Kerala Muslims are Sunnis of the Shafi madhab, nowadays the term Sunni is used to mean "traditionalist" Muslims: those who stand opposed to the organized reformists, the Mujahids and the Jama’at-e-Islami. These groups also run religious institutions like mosques and madrasas, and maintain their competence involving in various community development activities such as promoting education. As part of this, they send students from the region, irrespective of their class backgrounds, to various Islamic educational institutions associated with these organizations. Darul-Huda Islamic University at Chemmad of the EK group of Sunnis, Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya at Karanthur of the AP group of Sunnis, Al-Jamia Al-Islamiya at Shanthapuram of the Jama’at-e-Islami, and Madeenathul-Uloom at Pulikkal of the Mujahids are considered prestigious." He's making a point that each sect has an institution it considers prestigious and orients towards by sending students there, he is not describing the EK group, the AP group, Jama’at-e-Islami or the Mujahids as prestigious. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general notability means "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable." If the author is "making a point that each sect has an institution it considers prestigious" and your saying this is notable because the author says it's prestigious, then your essentially creating de-facto standard where each sects institutions are de-facto notable. Simply because it's an "Islamic university." Otherwise, what makes this one remarkable and worthy of notice compared to all the other ones out there that the author says are also "prestigious", which according to them is literally all of them? Or should we just have an article on every Islamic educational institution "just because?" Also, notice from that quote the author is saying "the sect considers the institution prestigious." Why should we care what the sects think of their own institutions when considering their notability? That would be the same as saying a business is notable because it's CEO says it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your point that some of them are mentions is made and understood. What would be helpful for this particular discussion is whether at least some are in depth. Even if two of them are
WP:BASIC. hemantha (brief) 17:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It's probably personal preference, but I'm not a fan myself of "combing non-significant ones per
WP:BASIC" or whatever. Since it just invites ref bombing of bad sources. Plus, two or three in-depth references is a pretty low bar that most things should be able to meet anyway. In the meantime, I'm more then happy to re-consider the notability of this institution if two or three in-depth references materialize. I haven't seen them myself though and I spent a good amount of time reading through the references that Goldsztajn provided. Which ones do you feel are in-depth? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
"Also, notice from that quote the author is saying "the sect considers the institution prestigious." Why should we care what the sects think of their own institutions when considering their notability? That would be the same as saying a business is notable because it's CEO says it is." This is a false analogy. It is an independent area expert making the statement...and there are 25,000 madrasas to choose from, but this is the presitigious one. A more apposite analogy would be in mid 20th Century USA, upper middle class WASP families regarded sending their child to Andover Academy as prestigious (probably still do). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy is perfectly apt because he's saying that the institutions that think they are prestigious, not that he thinks they are. Even if he saying they were though, the dude has only written like six articles about Islam and gender. Most of which aren't even slightly related to Madras. So in no way is he an "independent area expert." Not even in gender. Which is the main area the guy writes about. You seem to be working really hard to squeeze water out of a turnip to justify keeping the article for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Goldsztajn and these - [4], some local news sources and books Hemantha (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We cannot ignore
    WP:NORG has been created. This organization hired a bunch of editors to spam their organization across Wikipedias in several different languages, regardless of notability requirements. And @Goldsztajn:, this AfD is not an example of anti-Deobandi nationalism or whatever. This is a case of an organization gaming the system with shitty coverage and churnalism to get an article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think nationalism thing has to do with this AfD because you claimed in your original "vote" that "Wikipedia has been beset with quite a degree of drama between Deobandi supporters and those opposed to the movement." Which makes it sound like your claiming the AfD, and by implication people who vote delete, are both partially being motivated by anti-Deobandi nationalist sentiment. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly active currents both pro- and anti-Deobandi matters, but it has nothing to do with nationalism. Given the origins of this AfD, my comment was related to emphasising a focus on sourcing, rather than being sidetracked with speculation over other editors' intentions (perceived or otherwise). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through all the discussions related to this and your the only that's used the term "Deobandi." No one else has. Except for me when I asked you about it and responded to your original message that mentioned them. Your clearly pro-Deobandi. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's weird to claim other people are anti-Deobandi when no one else has brought them up. Otherwise, can you point out where anyone, including (or especially) me, has said anything anti-Deobandi in this discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good faith request that you focus on questions of notability, rather than (mistakenly) asserting my editorial intent. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want people to focus on questions of notability then your free to lead by example and do so yourself. In the meantime if your going to say that people voting in AfDs are anti-Deobandi don't be surprised when someone asks you for evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the article given in the first reference, "Darul Huda Islamic Academy" is cited as an example of the tendency of some Islamic institutions in Kerala to name "College" or "Academy" instead of "Madrasa".
The introduction to the article given in the second reference clearly stated that it includes interviews with students of Darul Huda and Al Jamia and they added Darul Huda's old website, www.darulhuda.com, as the reference to the information given in the article.
In the biography of the author of the article given in the third reference, it is clearly stated that he is MUNEER ARAM KUZHIYAN (A. K. Muneer Hudawi) and that he holds a postgraduate degree in “Islamics and Contemporary Studies” from the Darul Huda Islamic University.
The article in the fourth reference cited a Malayalam book named "Keraleeya Muslim Charithraparisarathil" which is said to have been authored by Mahmood Hudawi Panangangara (M. H. Panangangara), an alumni of the Darul Huda, edited by Bahauddin Muhammad Nadwi (B. M. Nadvi) and published by Darul Huda Islamic University, in two places related to this subject.
I am learning about the 5th and 6th references. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In an AfD,
the current state of the article mostly does not matter. What's under discussion is whether the subject deserves an article or not. If you have issues with Academy/University, request a move. hemantha (brief) 03:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Hemantha: Consensus on this issue just a few weeks ago was not to move, see: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_17#Darul_Huda_Islamic_University_and_DHIU, but am in heated agreement, the contents of an article are essentially irrelevant in determining notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be kept? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up the article and investigate potential COI conflicts thoroughly. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be kept? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 01:48, 19 January 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, with valid points brought up on both sides of the divide. This has been reopened once, and has been open just shy of a month. I do not see a clear consensus emerging with another week of discussion. Star Mississippi 23:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Spears

Glenn Spears (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 GNG, no evidence of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the policy or SNG that makes him notable. He doesn't meet
WP:BASIC therefore he is not notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://www.airforcemedicine.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000255749/ No USAF website Yes No Photo and caption only ✘ No
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/104732/lieutenant-general-glenn-f-spears/ No USAF bio Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.dm.af.mil/Media/News/Article/314616/air-force-announces-lieutenant-general-spears-retirement/ No USAF website press release Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/10217633/fss-introduced-to-cafb-air-force-columbus-air-force-base No USAF base newspaper Yes Yes ✘ No
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1019409.pdf No USAF publication Yes No 7-9 sentences setting out experience and commands ✘ No
https://books.google.ae/books?id=zWQMEuM_CfkC&pg=PA173&dq=%22&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false ? US Congress publication Yes ? Short description of him and his career ? Unknown
Air Force Magazine No USAF magazine Yes ? not available online ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/702849654/ Yes Yes ? Can't read as my access not approved yet ? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/546734367/ Yes Yes ? Can't read as my access not approved yet ? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/350042142/ No USAF base newspaper Yes Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table 2 follows:


Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
The Weighted Airman Promotion System: Standardizing Test Scores No RAND study for USAF Yes No Passing mention only ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/350305276/ No USAF base newspaper Yes Yes ✘ No
Advancing the U.S. Air Force's Force Development Initiative No RAND study for USAF Yes No Passing mention only ✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/657394693/ Yes Yes ? Can't read as my access not approved yet, assume its just a passing mention ? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/213712864/ Yes Yes ? Can't read as my access not approved yet ? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/image/693219732/ Yes Yes ? Can't read as my access not approved yet ? Unknown
https://www.12af.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/319689/12th-air-force-commander-retires-after-33-years-of-service/ No USAF website press release Yes Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question who made this table an how was it made? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, I have added my signature. Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks, looks like a lot of effort went into it. Please provide some details on the methodology used to make the entries on this table. Did you make all these evaluations, and what criteria did you use? Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The methodology is me looking at the source to see if its independent, which many aren't, deciding if they're reliable, which almost all are and then taking a view on whether or not coverage is significant, which is generally yes for the USAF sources and no or unable to be determined for the non-USAF sources. Mztourist (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is possible to view the articles in some cases as OCR text without an account. The first newspaper source in the table is a namecheck reporting a change of command. The second is also a namecheck, saying he accompanied President Bush in his capacity as commander of the 89th Airlift Wing. The article also identifies his wife as Gwenn, as she seems to have been present as well. The Hill AFB article contains a two sentence quote from Spears in his capacity as director of force management policy and deals with Force Shaping Boards (in other words, personnel cuts). I'm not sure I'd call a single quote significant coverage. The article doesn't credit him with shaping the policy or doing anything over than overseeing elements of its execution in 2005. Intothatdarkness 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I will take a closer look later, but I did add another source to flesh out the command at 89th Airlift Wing. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After initially closing the discussion, I was asked by one of the participants on my User talk page to allow more time, which I have agreed to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous participants to make them aware that the discussion was re-opened: User:Dlthewave, User:Intothatdarkness, User:Drmies, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Polyglot Researcher, User:Mztourist, User:Necrothesp, User:Eastmain, User:Balon Greyjoy, User:FieldMarine. If I accidentally missed anyone, feel free to ping them separately. --RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you access 5, 9, 13, 14 and 26, or at least get the gist of them? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for ref 27, you can see it was used here as a ref, as well as some of the actions taken by Spears during the Earthquake. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:Library, could you please give a quick summary of the coverage in #5, #13 and #26? Based on the Google books previews, #9 seems like very passing mentions while ref #14 looks very short and doesn't really have any meat on the bones. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
There are 10 mentions of Spears in the Air Force One book, two in the beginning as acknowledgements, and the rest about him, his responsibilities before and while at the 89th, about the wing he commands, about the Air Force One airplane itself, and about increase security in the aftermath of 911. In sum, the coverage is not a trivial mention as he is being specifically discussed. Also, can you access the web version on ref 26, the link is included in the ref. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not see the second link for #26. That seems like an extremely run-of-the-mill article with a literal 2-sentence "bio" of Spears. Can you provide the summary of the two other refs I couldn't access? -Ljleppan (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is short, but not a trivial mention, and important because the aricle also includes details about the magnitude of his command. Ref 5 is short, about 3 sentences, and incudes details about his command at Andrews not included anywhere else. Ref 13 is several sentences about his command at the 89th, and his responsibilities as Wing Commander. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the summary. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm seeing a lot of name checks and non-independent sources being added, but not much in the way of content that actually demonstrates notability independent of his last command position (which in my view is inherited notability in any case...major commands turn over about every two years). I looked at some of these, and to give one example the Silver Wings piece is from a base newspaper and is essentially a restatement of his official biography with no new information added. Intothatdarkness 13:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think the sourcing at present is just barely enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While a large amount of references have been added recently into the article, the bulk of them of them are non-independent. Based on the answers of FieldMarine above to a
    WP:GNG. While some other editors have indicated that his rank or position would make him inherently notable, I do not believe there exists any policy or guideline to that effect. As for why this is a weak delete, I'm not able to access all the references used in the article and am relying on FieldMarine's WP:THREE above. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: the 5 sources above are not "trivial mentions", and each contains important details that address the topic so that no original research is required. I agree that command of 89th Wing and Andrews Air Force Base in the aftermath of 911, with increased public and governmental interest in security at that time, especially for government VIPs, adds to his notability. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note my comment above is not claiming those add to his notability, but rather that they are the primary claim of notability. The distinction is important, especially when significant coverage of those primary claims in independent reliable sources is so light. In my view, this is a strike against the notability, not for it. Furthermore, the standard is not "more than trivial mentions", but rather significant coverage which several sentences is very far from. -Ljleppan (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9: I'm not sure what you can see from Google, but in the book on Air Force One, it mentions Spears by name a total of 11 times, with 1 as an acknowledgement in the beginning and one at the end in the Index. Of those, it first discusses Spears himself, and the size of 89th. Then it goes into the response of the command after 9/11, calling the traveling after that event as "unprecedented", with fighter escorts used for the first time while Air Force One carried Bush, and intel reports stating terrorist wanted to ram the plane while in flight, TTPs used to protect the President and the plane, and the new security measures are the tightest ever, stuff like that.
Ref 13: Contains 20 sentences and over 540 words about Spears with a focus on his command at the 89th and Andrews Air force Base.
Ref 30: Between pages 217-220, this ref highlights the actions of Spears did to add resources to free up bottle necks in the response to the earthquake in Haiti, particularly at the command and organizational level, and to hammer out the authorities. He is mentioned by name, as "he" and as AFSOUTH. This was one of the major events for AFSOUTH while he was commander.

Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Still a weak delete from me. Of the
    notability is not inherited). For ref 30, references to Spears specifically are extremely passing and we cannot simply insert "Spears" for every instance of "AFSOUTH". And again, the fact that AFSOUTH is notable does not mean its commander is. I cannot access the full text of ref 13, but even if it's fine, a single good reference does not significant coverage make. I'd also be philosophically fine with a merger of the article to e.g. 89th Airlift Wing and Twelfth Air Force but I'm not seeing much that would be worth merging. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Have you reviewed ref 9, or are you going by the limited parts you can view in Google? In my opinion, viewing the copy in Google misses the context. In sum, ref 9, 13, 14 state that Spears kept the President and national leaders safe in the aftermath of 9/11, and provide details about that, essentially, he was thrown into an unprecedented situation as the commander of the unit with AF1 and Andrews during a critical time. These are not trivial mentions and nor is it inherited notability. They are specific to him. What are trivial mentions is that while commander of Andrews during this time, he was receiving the first casualties of the war overseas, such as Capt Spann, which was basically a one-line mention (but carried in numerous newspapers globally), and certainly an important aspect of his command. For ref 30, my point is that often in the U.S. military, commanders are called by the unit they command, so determining mentions is more than just how many times you count up the name "Spears" in determining coverage. This source provides specific actions he took as the commander during one significant event that occurred during his tenure with 12th AF. I agree that this alone would not make him notable, but the sum total of his actions through several significant commands does, and the sources, some GNG and some not, support that position. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, also Ref 14 is 13 sentences and over 300 words long, and says, Spears "played a vital part in keeping the president safe", and includes details about that. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closing admin, please consider
    WP:INDY as non-independent source. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We have hundreds of similar articles, partly because of he ease of making them from PD-US sources. There is no special reason to delete this one. If we mean to change our practice we should discuss that, not try to establish precedent form a single article. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have hundreds of similar articles because of the old military notability guidelines that were disbanded. So the comparison to other articles is flawed and ignores the fact that Wikipedia proactively changed its policies, but it takes a long time to implement new policies against a collection of hundreds of articles. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have hundreds of similar articles because many editors believe that it is common sense that people in these positions are notable and have therefore created them. If you look at recent AfDs you will see that only a handful of editors continually claim that they are not notable. Unfortunately, AfDs are generally not at all well attended and this handful of editors often manages to successfully push their views. That certainly does not mean that they are suddenly right and are doing the best thing for Wikipedia and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong and is not. That is a complete fallacy. As is the claim that Wikipedia has in any way changed its policies. It has not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • One could say the same of the handful of steady keep voters. Intothatdarkness 14:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I said, this is the problem with relying on AfDs that almost nobody attends. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia used to have a military notability guideline that said that people who held the military position this man held were default notable. We have scrapped that policy. So yes, we have changed our policy, and a large number of articles we have are legacy articles that pre-date that policy change. For the record my vote above was a weak keep, so I am actually persuaded we should keep this article. However editors need to stop villifying those who have other views on a matter. It is clearly not encouraging participation in Wikipedia for editors to violate the assume good faith guidelines, as the above comments do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem to be confusing policies with notability guidelines. No policy has been changed. Editors do indeed need to stop vilifying others with different views. As I'm sure you know (since you have taken part in many of the same AfDs), I have been attacked numerous times recently, usually by the same handful of editors, for asserting my views on notability. It's time editors accepted that a view posted on AfD is a valid view and should not be attacked, insulted, mocked, sneered at or used to attack the poster's integrity or good faith. This is not how Wikipedia should work and not how editors should behave. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have several reliable sources providing significant coverage per the source analysis tables above. I think this article is one occation where we should allow a pass even if the sources aren't independent as there clearly is no shortage of information here and Wikipedia is
    talk) 21:59, 20 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milen Mitev

Milen Mitev (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)

Played 2 football matches over 10 years ago at the professional level but has spent his subsequent career at amateur/semi-pro level. This cited source fails to show any significant coverage of Mitev. Likewise Google searches and a Bulgarian source search yield only coverage of a lawyer of the exact same name. In fact, the only coverage I can find of this particular Mitev is a trivial mention in Plovdiv24, which is far from

WP:NFOOTBALL pass is so trivial. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 12 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Shearon

Janet Shearon (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)

First wife of astronaut Neil Armstrong.

WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 12 January 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 23:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Caaguazú, Paraguay

List of high schools in Caaguazú, Paraguay (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 follow up to the AfD

the notability criteria for lists, and therefore should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 12 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sotiris Fiakas

Sotiris Fiakas (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)

Despite playing the last 15 mins of a single football match five years ago, there is no evidence of notability for Fiakas. None of the hits in a Greek language Google News search nor a Greek language DDG search show significant coverage. Per clear consensus on similar articles on footballers that fail

WP:GNG, the article should be deleted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 12 January 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 23:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Amambay, Paraguay

List of high schools in Amambay, Paraguay (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 follow up to the AfD

the notability criteria for lists, and therefore should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 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 23:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Alto Paraguay

List of high schools in Alto Paraguay (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 follow up to the AfD

the notability criteria for lists, and should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 19:21, 12 January 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. Page deleted by Deb under CSD:G11 and G12 (non-admin closure) Bingobro (Chat) 15:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emtrain

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

Moved to draft space and then declined through AfC. Draft placed back to mainspace by COI editor which is what caught my attention. A

WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Article was moved to mainspace after the edits/citations requested were added. Seeing the optin to move the article is what led me to believe that the article could be moved. For reference, I found this online that does collaborate my experience: [1] [2] I would like however to get this article reviewed and approved for main space rather than be deleted. I've been following the established processes and have complied with the requests, both past and present, in order to get this in good graces with Wikipedia. What do I need to do?

Aamat-webeditor (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing but vanity spam about a generic company with no significance or meaningful coverage. SANTADICAE🎅 17:51, 13 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts by duration

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

The article clearly violates Verifiability. If this article remains in this state, it deserves to be deleted. It is in need of verifying, there are no specific criteria to add a conflict to the list, it does not define which conflict to be added, there are also conflicts that are categorized by month they were started and others only by year. Sakiv (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. GreenC 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
And why do I do that? The article in its current shape needs a great effort to befit Wikipedia, and any conflict, even if it is between two villages and for several minutes, can be added to it. We need to agree on clear criteria for listing conflicts in this article.--Sakiv (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it has its own article, then its on the list. Dream Focus 01:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on keeping but strongly, strongly disagree that it is appropriate to create a list for which Wikipedia is the source.
WP:FRINGE sources and this is a big problem. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Mztourist - Conflict duration is an area of academic study, and there are reliable sources where the duration of conflicts is compared (e.g., Appendix A-1 in Bennett, D. S., & Stam, A. C. (1996). The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816-1985. The American Political Science Review, 90(2), 239–257. [5] ). Where I will agree with you is that the present state of the article is quite bad, filled with original research, and compares apples with oranges because the conflict-durations are not calculated according to a meaningful methodology - but this can be fixed with ordinary editing and is not a DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I disagree. The reference you give is for a theory of conflict duration, which is a rather different topic. Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also includes a dataset of conflicts listed by duration, which makes this a
WP:LISTN pass, and discusses in depth the factors they believe affect conflict duration. All the same the list does need work, otherwise we'll be back here. FOARP (talk) 11:18, 13 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loizos Papasavva

Loizos Papasavva (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)

With only 106 mins of professional football, Papasavva has, at best, a weak presumption of notability here. I am aware that he played two cup games but these were while playing for a club in the

WP:GNG failure means that I recommend deletion here as clearly this sportsperson isn't notable enough to warrant an article in a global encyclopaedia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 12 January 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. Clear consensus that there is something worth keeping. Consensus favors a rename and change of focus, but without a clear target. Further discussion on the best way forward can take place on the article talk page. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heechee

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

WP:TNT or at least major gutting/rewriting are in order (the article is unfortunately focused on the almost certainly-not-notable fictional alien race, instead of on the maybe-notable book series). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:12, 12 January 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.

(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Xanth

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

WP:SIGCOV). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Yes, this article needs to be refocused to be about the series itself (which ostensibly is) and not about the fictional world (which is how it reads now) but I don't see why the article has to be deleted to do that. In my opinion this is a true case of an article needing cleanup, not deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not seeing an applicable deletion rationale here outside of just liking deleting things. Artw (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article needs improvement, as outlined in this discussion summary, but using it as a rationale for deletion is going too far. Just because encyclopedic sources haven't been added, does not mean they don't exist. Discuss major changes on its talk page as necessary. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:59, 18 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Fox

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

Another member of the non-notable

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Non-notable author with most of the sources coming from her own essays. Penale52 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Well,
WP:ANYBIO says someone is likely to be notable if they are chronicled in something like the Dictionary of National Biography, not guaranteed to be. This reads like a love letter to this person, and it seems her journal extracts Memories of Old Friends would be the source of most of her notability, but even that lacks an article. Penale52 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, in this case the likelihood of notability is confirmed by at least two three other encyclopedia entries besides DNB: the Oxford Companion I mentioned above; this in
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or in this case "other stuff (i.e., Memories of Old Friends) does not exist" is not an argument for deleting this article. It is an argument for creating another. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

So Keep, obviously.Bmcln1 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 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

(non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Global Newborn Society

Global Newborn Society (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 declined a CSD A7 by

WP:BLP compliant article, but I'll leave that to another discussion. Anyway, my redirect (and hence the A7 tag) was removed by Jhuma1971, so here we are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]


I believe that the suggestions have all been incorporated. Should we close the discussion? -Jhuma1971 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Therapy (Band)

Shock Therapy (Band) (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)

Cannot confirm this meets

reliable sources noted on the external wiki page. A Google search reveals a discogs page, a Facebook page, an Instagram page, a spotify page, and the band's own website - but nothing that independently supports notability. Singularity42 (talk) 17:20, 12 January 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. Except for article creator, everyone agrees to delete it without a clear agreement on a merge. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Committee

AfDs for this article:
Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Committee (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:NORG. This org was set up to pass Prop 127 in the 2018 elections and has had no significant, lasting impact. The proposition failed, and doesn't have its own Wiki article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 12 January 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 Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia. Sandstein 09:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophica

Philosophica (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)

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet

WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by article creator (Gleaman: note that the director of the publisher, the Philosophy Documentation Center, is "George Leaman" but no possible COI was declared) with reason "This journal is indexed in at least two selective indexes, and there are external references that confirm this. Since DOIs were only recently assigned to back issue content it will take a few months for citations to be visible in services such as Dimensions or CrossRef." However, none of the databases listed in the article is "selective" in the sense of NJournals. MIAR does not list any selective databases either. The rest of the dePROD reason is trivial. Hence, PROD reason still stands. Therefore: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Those indexes are selective as to subject matter, but within their field, they try to be comprehensive, meaning that they are not selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the journal indexed in any notable (does it have an article) journal indexing database? SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of databases that are not selective still are notable themselves. A good example is PubMed Central, a notable database but absolutely non-selective, as it takes anything if it's open access and also manuscripts from authors who have been funded by NIH. Indexing in PMC alone is never enough for a journal to be kept at AfD. The same applies here. The databases in which this journal is indexed are selective concerning their subject matter, but strive to be as comprehensive as possible. Such databases can be very important for people working in their field but being indexed in them does not make a journal notable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the journal indexed in any selective notable database? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't. (I obviously disagree on this with the article creator (and director of the publisher) below. --Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, I lean to “delete”. I think that a claim to being indexed (selectively) by something non-notable is a worthless claim. If the databases selectively indexing it are notable, then write an article on the database first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • International Philosophical Bibliography and Philosopher's Index do not aim to cover all journals in this field; they aim to cover all journals believed by the editors to be worth covering. They are comparable to the Atla Religion Index and I believe they meet the WP:NJournals criteria. This is relevant in so far as this info applies to this journal. Gleaman (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please help me understand the notability standard being applied to humanities indexing databases. Is it just whether or not that database has an article? Gleaman (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:43, 12 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh, North Dakota

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

All evidence is that this is a rail spot, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 12 January 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 23:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Simon & Schuster authors

List of Simon & Schuster authors (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 list is far too large to comfortably navigate, but an attempt to pare it down leads to a further question, is this article itself useful? Per

LISTN for a list to be notable it is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. While I can find a few things that mention people as a Simon & Schuster author, there does not seem to be a commonly defined group of Simon & Schuster authors. TartarTorte 16:13, 12 January 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 23:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shantigo

Shantigo (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 company was founded in 2020 and employs 100 people. I do not see any reliable sources describing it in the article. Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 12 January 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 per consensus. Not enough support to draftify in this close. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guddi (TV series)

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

WP:UPE. The only sources are press releases of a projected series. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Times of India reference in Darjeeling as per the article. 2402:3A80:1A4A:7B3E:F7A6:372B:9AA2:A57D (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
But sources confirm only three cast members without the names of the characters. And any of them doesn't mention the name of the show. That is my concern.
Shinnosuke15, 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

 Comment: The name of the show is out in Anandabazar Patrika as Guddi. See this. 2402:3A80:6F7:58C2:B15F:4BB8:A996:D544 (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per the creator they mentioned February 2022 (next month) as the start date but we dont have any reliable source to verify it. 2402:3A80:1A4A:7B3E:F7A6:372B:9AA2:A57D (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Shinnosuke15 It does now. See this. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 06:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Shinnosuke15, 13:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
२ तकर पेप्सी: Don't move pages before the discussion is closed. You are not supposed to take your own decision. Know the rules before you act next time. 2402:3A80:1A48:F5F2:430B:2659:78F3:E93B (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk 07:44, 18 January 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Journey Home: Autobiography of an American Swami

The Journey Home: Autobiography of an American Swami (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:NBOOK due to lack of reputed independent reviews and coverage in media. All sources are either self published or sites associated with the subject and ISKCON. Among the 2 reviews listed, first is a promotional magazine and the second is a blog entry. Venkat TL (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Thanks DanCherek for verifying the source- since there's no other coverage that I was able to find, this just isn't enough to pass NBOOK for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wondered about the review by kirkus as often when one "tradie" reviews a book there are often more, ie. library journal, booklist, horn, with this book plenty of reviews from others so okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 18 January 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Retzlaff

Parker Retzlaff (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 in the article and in a

WP:TOOSOON for an article on this person at this time. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I've been alerted about the deletion nomination of my article, Parker Retzlaff. Yes, I did use his website a bit, but it was the only resource I can find of his early career. I don't know what else you want me to do with the article, because I got all the information I could. User:Tyman9348 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
General Notability Guidelines. If that is all of the information on this person that exists, then they do not meet the GNG and therefore is inappropriate for inclusion on the encyclopedia. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I misworded a little bit there. I did see some more resources about his career and etc. I will try to improve it once I get out of school. User:Tyman9348 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to the article, with more references and resources to it. User:Tyman9348 (talk) 12:19, 13 January 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of last descendants of notable individuals

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

Seems to me this is not encyclopedic and not about anything notable. An excessively broad (to the point of being universal) and pretty random "list" (it's also not really a WP list). - Special-T (talk) 15:08, 12 January 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. Star Mississippi 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melody (Brazilian singer)

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

after removing the unsourced stuff, appears to fail

WP:NMUSIC: only non-independent sources (the EGO piece is an interview, the entretenimento piece is a photo gallery of her sister, two youtube videos (of the songs)) and a list of recipients of some awards from a single ceremony (most of which don't appear to be major per NMUSIC criteria 7), a search turned up nothing other than the usual spotify, youtube etc which are not reliable and interviews Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep it passes

✉️ ! 18:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 14:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 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 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hanumatpresaka Swami

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

All

WP:ANYBIO. Promotional bio based on self published or dependent (ISKCON) sources. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gour Govinda Swami) Venkat TL (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - excessive self-citing; possible undisclosed paid editing. Couldn't find any significant independent sources on the subject. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 02:33, 14 January 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 Hilton Hotels & Resorts. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space Islands

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

Merge of this single-referenced stub has been completed. Suggest redirect into Hilton Hotels & Resorts where the content now sits. Mountaincirquetalk 12:51, 12 January 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. Also applying

WP:SALT to match protection previously applied to Vungle. RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Vungle Inc.

Vungle Inc. (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 flagged for speedy deletion, but has been contested. I think it's a straightforward

Iridescent 12:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Added two more notable sources mentioning the deal, techcrunch and business insider. Not sure if it's notable enough. All ok if the decision is deletion, no probs :-) --Taiko (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 12 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBAND$

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

Subject doesn’t meet

WP:NMUSIC and GNG. Xclusivzik (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 12 January 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. Per current consensus. Should this become a G5, I have no objection to my closure being revisited. Star Mississippi 22:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele A. Calogero

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

Does not appear to meet

WP:GNG. Highest accolades are not sourced independently. In fact there is no significant coverage in secondary sources. ––FormalDude talk 11:59, 12 January 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Penang Middle Ring Road

Penang Middle Ring Road (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)

Unreferenced since 2006, no

WP:BEFORE (just traffic reports/brief mentions), no obvious redirect either. Not a DELREASON per se but the creator of this article is indef blocked for copyvio. FOARP (talk) 11:13, 12 January 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 14:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arella Devorah

Arella Devorah (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)

American singer who doesn't seem to meet

WP:COI. John B123 (talk) 10:56, 12 January 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 per consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arfius Al-din

Arfius Al-din (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:NMUSICIAN, Wikipedia:Record charts says... iTunes: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Theroadislong (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://dailyasianage.com/news/276674/arfius-al-din-elita-karim-habib--top-musicians-collaborate-with-spotify-bangladesh No No 'AA Online Desk' rather than a journalist No Passing mention ✘ No
https://www.jamunaprotidin.com/archives/41030 No No 'Special Correspondent' rather than a journalist Yes Extremely promotional and looks like it was written by Arfius himself or someone close to him ✘ No
https://asiannews.in/arfius-al-din-the-tale-of-a-digital-creator-entrepreneur-and-the-famous-musician/ No No Advert masquerading as a news article Yes Contains depth but is spammy ✘ No
https://www.risingbd.com/positive-bangladesh/news/433954 ? ? Running through a translator, the content seems promotional to me ? ? Unknown
https://thevistek.com/here-meet-with-arfius-al-din-a-person-with-versatile-talents/ No No Pure promotion No Just duplicates content already covered above ✘ No
https://www.bd24live.com/bangla/418819/ ? ? No Duplication of content posted across other sites ✘ No
https://www.nowadays24.com/arfius-al-dins-song-beautiful-become-tops-bangladeshi-itunes-chart-no-01/ No No Blog, not proper journalism No Routine song announcement ✘ No
https://ventsmagazine.com/2021/10/03/the-famous-musician-arfius-al-din-shares-his-own-experiences-to-motivate-the-new-young-music-entrepreneurs/ No No Covert advertising No Rehashing of the same content ✘ No
http://www.pure24news.com/news/437?fbclid=IwAR3WF3VjnZ1pAz0AV-3rC2gwko1jlhQHUXMISdGaWtz-2lxnChCOUjGUGkI ? ? No Brief and not substantial ✘ No
https://bdchitro.com/%e0%a6%a8%e0%a6%a4%e0%a7%81%e0%a6%a8-%e0%a6%ac%e0%a6%9b%e0%a6%b0%e0%a7%87%e0%a6%b0-%e0%a6%b6%e0%a7%81%e0%a6%b0%e0%a7%81%e0%a6%a4%e0%a7%87-%e0%a6%86%e0%a6%b8%e0%a6%9b%e0%a7%87-%e0%a6%86%e0%a6%b2/?fbclid=IwAR0xBYliZTTyCAb9GVJ_0LxvZe7GTVXM1c-WkTs6YibL-DOQYvKAWq6zmdk ? ? No Lacks substance, rehashing of same material ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was about to tag it (page seen from the Teahouse). My source assessment roughly matches Spiderone’s. The only difference is that I would not have called thevistek.com "pure promotion", but it is indeed a duplicate of the content in [18] (maybe either of the two is a copyvio of the other, but press-release-through-shady-outlets seems like a better theory). I copied my intended below without modification because I am too lazy for transparency.
Intended AfD nomination

There are some sources, but I believe none that counts toward notability after close inspection.

To start with, [19] and [20] are passing mentions, although the latter does verify the "top Bangladeshi itunes chart for a month" claim.

I contend the rest are puff pieces, paid for and controlled by the subject, even though there is no direct mention of paid-for editing in any of those.

  1. [21] is a full-length biography. But come on, From a young lad in a village to one of the most successful adolescents in the country,Arfius Al-din kept no stones unturned to establish himself. - really? We are supposed to believe those are words chosen by an
    independent
    journalist? Notice the photo (black and white, holding a guitar over the shoulder).
  2. [22] is at best an interview, at worst a puff piece. I would bet on the second due to the site banner "make your brand far and wide, get featured on Asian News". Notice the photo (smiling on grass background).
  3. [23] is quite puff-y. In isolation I would say "low-quality but usable". What kills it for me is that it has the same photo as the Asian News piece, so at the very least the "journalist" outsourced that part to the subject; the obvious suspicion is that the writing has been outsourced, too.
  4. [24] Another puff piece, with the Asian News photo.

I cannot read Bengali, but [25], [26] have the "Asian News" photo, [27] and [28] have the "Jamuna Protidin" photo.

WP:BEFORE turned up [29] (which is a copy-paste of the "thevistek" piece, supporting the "press release laundering" theory, although one could be copyvio of the other) as well as yet another puff piece with the same photo
.

TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are more references added for prove the person's notability and person is not promotional nor my personal close. Please do what best for wikipedia. But, most of the time some notable person is neglected by the community and who like me try to take forward there are always some resistance. Newspaper never write a person with researches or without knowing a person. But, yes he is underrated. Do whatever best for wikipedia. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadu1212 (talk • contribs) (moved from the talk page by TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)) [reply]

  • Newspaper never write a person with[out] researches or without knowing a person - anyone who has looked at the articles for deletion long enough knows that is false in the general case, and here we have two articles (this, that) which are supposedly from independent publications but are in fact 100% identical.
I see you have added three new sources. [30] would be useless from a serious source (it is at the very best an interview) is from a website that is somewhere between a blog hosting service and a PR press (see the "submit news" tab). Similarly, that one comes from a website with a "write for us" form. And the third one is a passing mention.
@
WP:42 for the kind of sources we want. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Dadu1212 answered the conflict-of-interest question on my talk page. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:40, 13 January 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted CSD A7. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearKaif

NuclearKaif (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. Keeps being recreated by author after being draftified. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:10, 12 January 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. Consensus is they do not yet meet CORP. Star Mississippi 23:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Khan Productions

Aamir Khan Productions (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)

Page is currently a catalog that roughly reproduces

WP:NCORP. hemantha (brief) 05:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete since it fails the notability guidelines for companies. The only thing that might work for notability is films that they have produced being notable, but most of their films aren't notable and the article would still have to be more then a glorified directory listing even if there was more then only a few films that are notable. At this points essentially what it is though, a glorified directory listing of trivial information. So I'm going with delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 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

(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

List of international goals scored by Mohamed Salah

List of international goals scored by Mohamed Salah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

WP:NOTSTATS. The little amount of non-stats-database content that can be included without difficulty in the main article is probably already there, and the rest is an unnecessary exhaustive listing (which might be interesting to dedicated fans, might be even useful to some of those, but is not encyclopedic). This was boldly redirected when originally created, that course of action should now be reinstated. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:53, 12 January 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 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Winiker

Evan Winiker (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)

Claim to fame is being a member of the bands

WP:RS.OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 12 January 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 02:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renfroe's Market

Renfroe's Market (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 grocery store with only 6 locations. Meatsgains(talk) 00:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The name of the subject was likely spelled incorrectly, unwittingly. I believe it is "Renfroe's Market." No reliable sources are cited in the page; however I did find a few from local news outlets through a quick online Google search. [31] [32] [33] [34]. The Montgomery Advertiser story is the strongest source and coverage. The page should have multiple reliable, independent sources cited to avoid a deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
    HighKing++ 20:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I could only find the sources listed above. The chain may expand, but it's just
    WP:TOOSOON for now, with just 6 locations and limited coverage. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:12, 18 January 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.

(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Greaves Park Hotel, Lancaster

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. Having stripped out all the irrelevant detail about people who lived here, there is nothing left. I don't think that being a Grade II listed building confers notability: I would like to see some substantial coverage in architectural histories or suchlike; this might make me change my mind. But it looks to me like a fairly unremarkable mid-victorian pile.TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely disagree that all listed buildings are notable. I happen to live in a Grade II listed building, part of a Georgian terrace. I've looked it up in a couple of books on local historic buildings and it is barely mentioned, which I think is a fair indication of a lack of notability. It's pretty but really not very interesting. This is only a Grade II building, not even II*. The details on the English Heritage site would serve as cites for a description of the building (architectural descriptions do not interest the author of the article, which I find highly suspect): what is needed to establish notability is mentions in books about architecture or such.TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you agree with it or not, it clearly meets one of our notability standards. Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. This clearly includes all listed buildings, even Grade II. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point, but the way to play that out would be a change in the applicable
WP:SNG policy, via talk for GEOFEAT. Chumpih t 15:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Is there a difference between 'presumed to be notable' and actually notable? I'd argue that 'presumed' means that there is a bias in favour of notability, but that some other confirmation would be desirable. I see little point in articles with nothing interesting to say, and there is a huge number of Grade II buildings around. Does the house in which my flat is merit an article? And its the twenty-dd companions: There are limits.TheLongTone (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A valid question. 'Presumption' is all we have. And indeed
WP:GEOFEAT we should apply those criteria fairly, IMHO. Chumpih t 16:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
There's probably actually a fair amount to say about Greaves Park, given its history ("Large suburban villa, later a school, now a public house."). The fact the article doesn't say it yet is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. AfD is merely to determine whether the topic is notable, not whether the article is a good one. As to your own house, if the entire terrace is listed then I would say the terrace is notable enough for an article, but I wouldn't write one about each individual house within it (that's just a personal opinion). But standalone listed buildings like Greaves Park are certainly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Historic England gives very detailed coverage of this historic house.[35] I'll note that the nom deleted over 6,000 bytes of sourced content that they termed "off topic" just before nominating this. Since when is the history of the occupants of a property "off topic" to the article of a property? Removing almost all content just before an AfD, especially if it has sources, is seldom a good-faith effort. Oakshade (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A load of wittering on about ininteresting people. I suppose I should have filleted this, but there was almost nothing of interest; simply a list of people of whom nobody has heard. The sources deleted are run of the mill references or about the people.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 19 January 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Aslan Gagiyev

Aslan Gagiyev (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:ANYBIO, the notability tag since Dec 2019, but with no improvement. Kolma8 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 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 Chris Gore. Sandstein 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Cartoon Kingdom

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

This article doesn't adequately establish its claim to notability. I can't find any significant coverage (most web results are just selling back issues of the magazine) and I don't think it meets media notability guidelines either. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assess improvements made by TheNewMinistry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Chris Gore, I checked the additional references, and they are all passing mentions, not anything that contributes to SIGCOV, so GNG is still not met. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at this point, I'd love to say keep. But it just doesn't meet the notability requirements and I don't think it appears particularly significant or influential. I think there's a lot of content here which could be merged into Chris Gore. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - since the magazine is an offshoot of Film Threat, would it be alright if I merged a relevant passage into that article instead? The first issue even had "Film Threat presents Wild Cartoon Kingdom" in its header (link), so it wasn't a separate project of Gore. I think the Film Threat article would be a better home for the information, and it would give me a reason to cleanup that article. TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. I am not seeing any SIGCOV of this, some passing mentions, but I am afraid that's not enough. Assuming the current entry is not ORish, a merge would be good, since the content does appear referenced. Ping me if SIGCOV is found or arguments based on
    Wikipedia:Notability (magazines) are made. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:09, 19 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Osman (politician)

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

Fails notability. Being elected to a non-major office and just existing does not warrant notability

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The page shouldn't be deleted. It is clearly of a high-profile local populant in Minneapolis. Here are more reliable, independent sources that should be added to improve the page. It passes WP:GNG. [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. Multi7001 (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no argument being presented that every councilor deserves an article, nor any floodgates issue; the GNG allows us recognise that some councilors are going to be notable and have a high degree of visibility (while most do not). This Star Tribune editorial endorsement is precisely one of those points of higher recognition. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:16, 13 January 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 Mathematical analysis#Other topics. Sandstein 17:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-classical analysis

Non-classical analysis (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)

Prodded by

WP:GNG). Deprodded without explanation or improvement by Jim Grisham (talk · contribs
).

Do we have any sources for all these items being grouped under such a heading? Tkuvho (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we do actually, the distinction here clearly isn't in the non-classical logic sense, given the topics. And while there are many books on "Classical Analysis" it is not clear to me we should group these topics together because they are are not in these texts. Thenub314 (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a nice umbrella term, although the list as its stands seems to be OR. Felix QW has PRODded it, although I winder if draftification might be better until we figure out what to do with the idea. I'd be prepared to steward the article through AfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd be happy to take back the PROD. I wanted to tidy up the page, as I couldn't figure any sensible grouping which included p-adic analysis and intuitionistic analysis but excluded non-standard analysis. So I did some research on the concept, and I only found one pertinent reference. That is a philosophy paper by Harrison on Zeno's paradoxes, in which the author explicitly states that we he calls non-classical analysis is usually called synthetic differential geometry (p. 279 there).
So I became convinced that the term isn't actually in general use, and since I couldn't figure out the inclusion criteria used here either, I thought it appropriate to PROD it. Felix QW (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mess of OR (I don't suppose there is a reliable source that gives the same definition as in the lead) and false claims (all widely accepted constructive analysis can be formalised in ZFC). We're better off not having it in articlespace as it stands. I just think it isn't a terrible skeleton on which to build a defensible article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! So how do we go about this?
WP:DRAFTIFY seems to suggest that we would have to go through AfD to draftify an "old" page? Felix QW (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait for the PROD to run out. If it's soft deleted, I can ask to draftify it, if it's deprodded, I can list it at AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
De-Prodded by Jim Grisham already. Would you like to list it at AfD then? Felix QW (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
Paraconsistent analysis and Smooth infinitesimal analysis are still missing from the target section, I would suggest merging those items into there. I would also be happy to perform the merger, should this become consensus. Felix QW (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge or redirect to Mathematical analysis#Other topics as the simplest course of action. This AfD really seems to have arisen out of a misunderstanding: the original PROD was not actually contested but I think Jim Grisham took the discussion of a possible merge to be contesting the PROD. Note that there is a certain amount of misinformation in the article as it stands: all of those topics can be formalised in set theory; this is not the sense in which, e.g. abstract Stone duality is said to be non-classical. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:49, 18 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chirmi

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

The article has gone unreferenced for nearly a decade. I have done

WP:BEFORE and found no reliable source discussing this subject. It is not notable. Neo-corelight (Talk) 01:13, 12 January 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. Sandstein 17:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sex differences in eyewitness memory

Sex differences in eyewitness memory (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)

Prodded by

WP:DUE for inclusion in Eyewitness memory? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:09, 12 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inkawar

Inkawar (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)

Im on the mindset that this game is a hoax. The article was written by the game developer and there isnt any information of the game online. There might have been a demo for the game but I think the full game must have never been released. GamerPro64 01:04, 12 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Komolafe-Opadeji

Helen Komolafe-Opadeji (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:PROF. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 12 January 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 02:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aadi (2005 film)

Aadi (2005 film) (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 film doesn't appear to be notable. RockstoneSend me a message! 00:11, 12 January 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. Sandstein 17:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Security Task Force

Cyber Security Task Force (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)

user:JustAnotherEditHere. Not sure why the PROD was objected to... RockstoneSend me a message! 00:10, 12 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States casebooks in current publication

List of United States casebooks in current publication (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:LISTN. (originally proposed by user:JBchrch) RockstoneSend me a message! 00:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • It almost makes me think that the user is just doing that to be disruptive. Should I report him to
    WP:ANI? It's not intractable, but it would be nice if the user would respond to us instead of forcing us to go through AFD each time... -- RockstoneSend me a message! 10:31, 12 January 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. Sandstein 17:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between U.S. states and sovereign states by GDP per capita

Comparison between U.S. states and sovereign states by GDP per capita (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)

What is the point of this article? How does it not violate

WP:NOTDIR? Why are US states being singled out here? RockstoneSend me a message! 00:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Adding the similar

  • Weak keep I'm sympathetic to the nomination given the article's current state; this is pretty close to a case of
    WP:TNT. Nevertheless, there is reliable sourcing for this topic, and despite the somewhat niche libertarian origins, there is still mainstream coverage, eg The Economist and Voice of America (although the former is somewhat libertarian).[3][4][5][6][7][8]

References

  1. ^ "University of Notre Dame" (PDF). University of Notre Dame.
  2. ^ "Quora". Quora.
  3. ^ McMaken, Ryan (17 February 2016). "How US States Compare to Foreign Countries in Size and GDP". Mises Institute.
  4. ^ Suneson, Grant; Stebbins, Samuel (17 April 2019). "Does Texas or Russia have the larger GDP? Here's how US states compare to other countries". USA TODAY.
  5. ^ "Putting America's enormous $21.5T economy into perspective by comparing US state GDPs to entire countries". American Enterprise Institute - AEI. 5 February 2020.
  6. ^ "Stateside substitutes". The Economist. 13 January 2011.
  7. ^ Mekouar, Dora (22 March 2019). "How US States Are Richer Than Some Foreign Nations". Voice of America.
  8. ^ "Map: GDP of US states compared to other countries". Star Tribune. 10 February 2014.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:15, 15 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_12&oldid=1067383911"