Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 6

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. Lack of participation after multiple relists. The nominator's own neutral stance makes even a soft deletion seem inappropriate. RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video Volunteers

Video Volunteers (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've declined a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: I have tagged G11 in this article, as recently I got an offer to join this organization. When I started verifying whether this was a real or a fraud organization, I found the Wikipedia entry. Then I saw there were confusing details and violations of Wikipedia policies. The confusing part was that the lead of this article says that this is a New York-based NGO, but the infobox says this only serves India. Then I went to their website and there were only Indian features, nothing US based. The article was created without any reliable sources. 3 sections are without citations. As a result, I preferred deletion because it appears to have been created for advertising purposes.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not unusual for citizen-journalism type projects to be based in the US even if they don't serve a US market, as the US has constitutional free speech clauses and very weak libel laws, so being formally based in the US offers more protection to people saying things which might on occasion fall foul of national governments. (Wikipedia is based in the US for the same reason.) There isn't any doubt that this organization is notable by Wikipedia's standards; the issue is whether this version of the article (or any of the previous versions in the history) can be brought into line with Wikipedia's standards, or whether it's so irredeemably puffy that it makes more sense to delete it altogether. ‑ 

  Iridescent 07:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:13, 6 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. Even weighing in Tratshin's edits during the discussion, consensus is Jessup is not notable. Star Mississippi 01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jessup (musical artist)

Christopher Jessup (musical artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't appear to pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "While Jessup's career has flourished, his personal life has always been troubled. He opened up in an Instagram post on November 22, 2021 about his turbulent childhood and mental health struggles." Where it isn't puffery like this, the entire article is just a resume, and was created by and is maintained by a small army of socks and SPAs, which most recently have been edit warring to remove the deletion notice from the article and revert any attempts to improve it. It does not meet GNG, and should be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He clearly does not yet meet our inclusion criteria for musicians. He is under 25 so this may well change, but at present there is no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:TOOSOON, at least. He's a talented dude, so he should let his talent speak for itself rather than seeking sympathy like he's the only person who ever had a rough childhood. I can find no evidence that any of the items in his "Discography" were reviewed in reliable media and a few of them are only available in obscure screaming services (if that much). His "List of compositions" is just a personal resume. His awards are from real annual competitions but none of them ever receive significant coverage and they uniformly self-report the winners. However he does have one concert review at [1]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I have made some improvements, removed puffery and fixed citations. I think this article is salvageable now. Tratshin (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've done a nice job cleaning it up, but I don't see any improvements to the

notability issue. The NYT and Santa Barbara Independent sources don't mention Jessup. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:57, 8 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Lovelace

Daisy Lovelace (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 is essentially a typed-out CV for an instructor at LinkedIn Learning. Its sourcing is non-independent and contains a good deal from LinkedIn itself. Her academic career is not distinguished enough to meet any of the criteria at

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No pass of
  WP:GNG. Just LinkedIn material. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Uncertain, I cannot recall that we have ever dealt with someone doing this sort of work, but might possibly pass the WP:PROF criterion 4: The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. which is intrpeted as (a) Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. undistinguished career (so far). The subject comes up blank in VIAF as well. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication for passing either
  WP:GNG. --hroest 15:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete seems more like
  WP:GNG for that. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:07, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sherif Kamel

Mohamed Sherif Kamel (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)

Sources only have fleeting reference to his name. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There's definitely something fishy going on one of the editors of the article is Mohamedkamelerc and it was created by Lotayef, with the reverse happening at Ehab Lotayef, User:Mohamedkamelerc creating it and Lotayef editing it. Making SPI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment Article creator blocked for socking with Mohamedkamelerc. Make of that what you will. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can’t see any basis for notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article fails
  WP:SNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This is referenced entirely to
  reliable source coverage about him in real media. Note that pursuant to Lavalizard's comments above, I've also initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehab Lotayef. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to pass
  WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No RS or in-depth coverage to meet GNG or any other measure of notability. --Kbabej (talk) 17:44, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Elisabeth Münster Halvari

Anne Elisabeth Münster Halvari (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 proven to pass

Associate professors are unlikely to meet the notability criteria Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice 146 citations for Motivational predictors of change in oral health at [2] Is that enough? Vexations (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations the usual expert I turn to in matters such as this is DGG. I have asked them for an unbiased assessment. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete :Judging this has some difficulties: A subject field where i don't know the journals or the publication practice, literature primarily in a less used European language, and a subject where practices in different countries can be quite different. Notability under WP:PROF is normally judged on a global basis, but it may be ambiguous here here. Is the comparison with the overall dental literature, or the Norwgian dental literature? There is only one highly cited article, and it has a much more notable coauthor. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One moderately cited paper falls short of
  WP:NAUTHOR, but the Books section of the article seems to only lists book chapters, not actual books. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Per nom. The subject fails
  WP:NACADEMIC. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Per nom. a single paper with 100+ citations, two awards from tooth paste companies that do not seem to be notable. --hroest 15:59, 10 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.

USS LSM-110

USS LSM-110 (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)

Run-of-the-mill ship, just like lots of military equipment used consecutively by a few countries, but nothing remarkable. The awards are generic ones, given for "being there", and the sources are not sufficient to meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• KEEP - The ship served with four navies. The article would benefit from a "Description" section, but as we know, requiring improvement is not a reason to delete. Sources are solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having served with X navies is totally irrelevant. Sources are this photo site by navy enthusiasts, a fan site for boats hit by U-boats[3] which doesn't give any information about this ship actually being hit by a U-boat, and is just a database for this ship, and one line in a magazine[4]. The "sources" at the bottom don't seem to actaully be sources about these ships, e.g. in the given issue of Fairplay[5] I can't seem to find a reference to this ship? So it's not clear to me which sources you believe are "solid enough".
    Fram (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See
  WP:MILUNIT #4, which, despite protests from one or two editors, is a long-accepted standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "We"? Our long accepted standards are
    Fram (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep per Necrothesp, Mjroots. Sources are solid enough for a ship of this type, especially like the details of the civilians killed while in Vietnamese service. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak redirect to Landing Ship Medium or weak delete. Three of the five sources only provide basic information about the ship, but nothing to ascertain notability, and certainly do not amount to significant coverage (without judging the reliability of the sources); and I couldn't verify Philip Gutzman's and George Veith's sources, but given similar page creations, I doubt they amount to a little more than a passing mention. In my mind, we don't have a GNG level of coverage. Happy to change my vote depending on how other editors rate these sources. Pilaz (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Veith is RS and has several paragraphs about the ship's role in the evacuation of Nha Trang accessible online. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has coverage in RS to pass
  WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Passes GNG, and long standing
  consensus is that commissioned vessel = notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This one is marginal, but I'd lean toward keep per Mztourist - Veith is probably enough to get it over the bar. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 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 redirect to Landing Ship Medium. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 for the rationale. Sandstein 11:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS LSM-316

USS LSM-316 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

No evidence of any actual

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See
  WP:MILUNIT #4, which is a long-accepted standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That is not a "long accepted standard", that is an essay. I have no idea who the "we" are you seem to be speaking for, but the long accepted standard is
    Fram (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• KEEP - the ship served with three navies. It would benefit from the addition of a "Description" section, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Sourcing is solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serving with three navies is irrelevant, military material being sold from one country to another and so on is normal procedure and doesn't make that material more or less notable. The sourcing is fan sites and databases.
    Fram (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. The subject does not meet the GNG due to a lack of significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. WP:MILUNIT is only an essay and should not be given more weight beyond that. Pilaz (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has coverage in RS to pass
  WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Passes GNG, and long standing
  consensus is that commissioned vessel = notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Has there been some canvassing to get the Milhist editors suddenly out in droves (on all these AfDs) after so many days? Anyway, a lot of people from a project parrotting that these meet GNG (without evidence) and that they have a local consensus to keep these, doesn't make these true or valid of course.
  Fram (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There were notices posted at MILHIST and SHIPS, but they were posted a week ago. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's why it's somewhat strange that there suddenly are three keeps from milhist people now, after nearly a week, and nothing for 4 days inbetween. Deltasquad was explicitly urged by thewolfchild to come and vote keep at these afds, for the others I don't know what if anything caused this.
      Fram (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I don't know that I'd read too much into it - I was aware of these when the notice was initially posted, but didn't have time to look into them until today. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Mztourist - don't think there's enough meat on the bones to warrant an individual article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or redirect. A database (uboat.net), a self-published website (navsource.org), and a jstor link which doesn't appear to have in-depth and sustained coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG.
  Avilich (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Besides the RS showing passing GNG, one of the reasons of long standing consensus of retaining articles of commissioned military vessels is that it's literally impossible for there not to be extensive government reports on the proposal, planning, production, operation and long term analysis of such vessels. Editors need to instead put their attention to creating new articles and improving existing ones than to endlessly arguing over the literally of thousands of similar military vessel articles. Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government reports are not independent sources and do nothing to establish notability.

Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to suitable class page. Nobody has produced any actual references that would demonstrate this passes
  WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a sufficient argument. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:09, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrettin Güneş

Fahrettin Güneş (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)

Took part and placed poorly in a regional song competition. Prior and later work does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dire. Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed, does not meet any notability guidelines for inclusion. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I wasn't able to find sufficient sources to pass
  WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, not notable.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 18:35, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Mustafaa

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

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

Does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Policy officer with the school board is a "low-level functionary" to be blunt, non-notable bit parts in movies or TV otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The character he purportedly played in the US version Skins exists solely as a redirect to a different character in the UK version of Skins, but is not mentioned at all in that article to contextualize why it redirects there (I had to go to a completely different article to figure that out!) — and being a policy officer with a local school board is not a notability claim at all, so that does nothing whatsoever to lift his notability. Simply having had a television role is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself; the notability test is not "article lists roles", but "article is referenced to
  reliable source coverage establishing the significance of said roles, such as analyzing his performances and/or showing that he won or was nominated for major acting awards for one or more of said roles". But there's none of that here. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, fails
  WP:ENT as he has not had significant enough roles. Suonii180 (talk) 14:00, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next Turkvision Song Contest

Next Turkvision Song Contest (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)

Until last week, this page was at Turkvision Song Contest 2021 and it was changed to "next" as the contest didn't happen. What's more is that it just didn't happen: no information even stating that it was canceled. This is now an awkward placeholder article that is artificially pushing the contest back to some unknown time. All sources included refer to the 2021 contest that did not materialize. The recent updates about the next edition and 2022 are unsourced. Suggest deleting per

Delete per nom.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes deletes this article, please. I have unnamed this page for the future. I'm sure the competition will take place again sometime. I do not mind if the page is deleted . Ramona Schuck (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, no reason to continue to host this as it's not even confirmed when, or even if, there will be a future contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:18, 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 redirect to Landing Ship Medium. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 for the rationale. Sandstein 11:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS LSM-479

USS LSM-479 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

No evidence of any notability. Deprodded on the basis of an unaccepted essay, but similar ships have already been deleted at AfD because there isn't the necessary sourcing available to actually meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See
  WP:MILUNIT #4, which is a long-accepted standard. Which ships would those be? Stationary barracks ships? Not the same thing at all. They're no more than floating buildings. Would you like to tell us which actual warships have been deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That is not a "long accepted standard", that is an essay. The long accepted standard is the
    Fram (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • WP:BASIC must still be satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Redirect to
  WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP - the ship served with two navies. Article would benefit from the addition of a "Description" section, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Sourcing is solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serving with two navies is irrelevant, military material being sold from one country to another and so on is normal procedure and doesn't make that material more or less notable. The sourcing is fan sites and databases.
    Fram (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Redirect to
  WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:BEFORE has turned up nothing useful, just more fanblogs. The Navsource blog lists a book as it's source (LSM-LSMR Amphibious Forces, Vol. II), but that's going to need to be checked on its own to see if it suffices as SIGCOV. If "it's a commissioned military vessel" is really the "long accepted standard", then I suggested those who believe such open an RfC to try and turn that into an SNG. I'll note that the opening para of WP:MILUNIT says The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline. Furthermore, the examples it lists as notable ships are two cruisers and an aircraft carrier with detailed and well-documented histories, not auxiliary transports. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or redirect. Available sourcing fails
  Avilich (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Landing Ship Medium or delete. Clear lack of reliable, secondary, in-depth coverage to satisfy the GNG. Pilaz (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has coverage in RS to pass
  WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Does listing the characteristics of the ship constitute significant coverage? Are uboat.net, navsource.org reliable sources?
  WP:VAGUEWAVE. Pilaz (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Can you please point out which sources make this article pass
  WP:GNG? I mean the nominator stated "sources are either not independent or not significant." and you are in a sense saying "yes they are". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. The ship passes the GNG, and long standing
  consensus is that commissioned vessels are all notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Has there been some canvassing to get the Milhist editors suddenly out in droves (on all these AfDs) after so many days? Anyway, a lot of people from a project parrotting that these meet GNG (without evidence) and that they have a local consensus to keep these, doesn't make these true or valid of course.
  Fram (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per Mztourist and Indy. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Landing Ship Medium, I couldn't find sufficient in-depth sources. Suonii180 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to class page, no indicia of passing
  WP:GNG which is the relevant guideline/policy. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:05, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Osland

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

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

A very short article with no references, doesn't demonstrate notability. Not to say that this person isn't notable, they very well could be, but it it's current state this article doesn't demonstrate that DirkJandeGeer (щи) 14:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DirkJandeGeer (щи) 14:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I cleaned up the page a little. I think he passes
  WP:PROF#C1, but it's a high-citation field, most of his papers have many coauthors, and I couldn't find much about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. General newspapers were of little help, most hits are for Per Osland the swimmer and swimming coach. Per Osland's CV shows that he among others is a fellow of Norway's second-most important learned society, DKNVS. Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes the case clearer then. DKNVS should be enough for
    WP:PROF#C3. And president of the Norwegian Physical Society (also in CV) should be enough for #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep as seems to meet
  WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:Prof#C1 with h-index 42 and 20 papers with 100+ citations as well as the other C#3 and C#6. --hroest 16:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Meets
  WP:PROF #6 as president of the Norwegian Physical Society. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olimpia Smajlaj

Olimpia Smajlaj (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 from draft twice avoiding reviews, so bringing here, fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Protect Against Re-Creation - There's a reason this singer's article didn't get through the AfC process and was declared non-notable in her first AfD about a year ago. The article is clearly an attempted promotion that fails to deliver evidence of big claims about her popularity. She played a few shows with old bands, reached the middle levels of some talent contests, and currently has just three unnoticed solo songs. She is only visible in typical social media and paid promo sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the sourcing on this recreation still does not constitute
  WP:SINGER. Netherzone (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - only mentioned in passing in relation to Festivali i Këngës 60; no significant coverage. Maybe she will become notable later but I'm not seeing any current notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. It unfortunately fails notability. Iaof2017 (talk) 22:37, 6 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) 14:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering

Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering (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 first two sources in the article are by the creator of this theory, and the third source[6] doesn't seem to mention Aminoff at all. This definition seems to be only used in publications by Aminoff [7]. Google Scholar reinforces the image that this definition has not been picked up by many others[8]. The other articles around this editor (

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NRV-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. By my research non-notable, at the very least for now. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 8 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. Article speedily deleted before the AfD completed its course. (non-admin closure) — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heer & Ranjha (2021)

Heer & Ranjha (2021) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Also fails
  WP:NPOV with "Puffery" words. U683708 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I wish the writer/director well, but there really isn't anything out there to establish notability. Hopefully one day they'll make it big and pass notability guidelines, then they can laugh about this in an interview so it can be added to their future Wikipedia article. It's what I hope for with everyone who has an article on them or their work deleted. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Because of the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation I have now nominated the article for speedy deletion under G5. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:16, 9 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. There's a fair amount of skepticism about some of the sources, but the overall sentiment of the discussion is that there is enough acceptable sourcing to keep the article. RL0919 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juglans regia 'Zijing'

Juglans regia 'Zijing' (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 Ganbaruby's analysis on the talk page, this appears to be a non-notable walnut cultivar. Sources are largely of dubious reliability, database listings, and there's also citation stuffing where unrelated sources have "紫京" (the cultivar name) appended to make it appear to be related. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking at the analysis on the
  Xinhua applies here. Source 1 and 9 appears to claim that the original publisher for the article is China Daily, while China Daily claims it's from https://eastday.com/, I am unable to find the article on the website. I was able to find an archived version of source 5, although I was unable to play the video (which is basically the whole page anyways), agreeing with Ganbaruby that source 5 is quite dead. Source 7 seems really promising but does not appear to give much coverage to the topic. Archived version of 8 (or 15) found here appears to give significant coverage. Rest seems to be governmental sources/deprecated ones. Essentially: 1, 6, and 9 might count as a source if it's reliable, 8 (or 15) might count if it's reliable. Pinging Ganbaruby for thoughts on source 8 (or 15) Justiyaya 08:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete Source 8/15 appear to be based on source 1, 6 or 9 with a paragraph directly copied them (word for word), this equates to one reliable source (at most) in the article right now if source 8/15 is not counted, I was unable to find other sources that contribute to GNG with a simple search. Justiyaya 08:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 1, 6, 9 still look questionable in terms of reliability and independence. Looked at the archived version of 8/15 above (thanks btw) and can confirm that it's exact text copied over. A Google search turned up even more websites with the exact same text again. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With this being a mundane non-political topic, Mainland Chinese articles can usually be used for notability per
  WP:XINHUA
  . Regarding the sources, I found two more sources that seem to not be derived from any sources currently in the article:

• "紫色核桃树，绿化怎么用？". China Flower News. Retrieved 2022-01-04 – via Soha.
• "北京国际核桃庄园成功研发紫京彩叶核桃树-千龙网·中国首都网". China Internet Information Center. Retrieved 2022-01-04 – via qianlong.com.

Jumpytoo Talk 01:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this article:

• "紫京核桃，" 浑身发紫"的乡土树种" (PDF). China Green Times. Retrieved 2022-01-04 – via Google.

Jumpytoo Talk 01:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally to add, I was also able to fix the link for the BTV source, however the video player gets stuck at a loading state for me. But the description & title seem to suggest

WP:SIGCOV. Maybe someone else can try and see if it works for them? Jumpytoo Talk 01:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Jumpytoo: Thanks for the hard work looking for sources. I'm hesitant to use a source reposted on Sohu by a random person, and the video doesn't work for me either, but the other two look good to me, assuming that they're reliable sources. That brings us to basically three sources, but all read a bit promo-ey and raises questions about whether they're written independent of the subject, so I'm going to say weak keep. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to further evaluate sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a brief summary to Juglans regia, as it's probably just about worth a one-line mention there in the "Cultivars" section. Or half a line. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  reliable sources
  .
  1. "紫京彩叶核桃树大起底" [Zijing Coleus walnut tree with big bottom].
     Eastday [zh] (in Chinese). 2018-03-01. Archived from the original on 2022-01-10. Retrieved 2022-01-10 – via China Daily
     .

     This article extensively discusses the Zjing walnut tree. From Google Translate: "Zijing Coleus walnut tree has strong resistance, adaptability and ornamental value. The Zijing walnut tree grows on the hillside at an altitude of 800 meters. The flowering period is May and the fruiting period is September. The Zijing Coleus walnut tree is adapted to the ecological environment with deep, loose, fertile, humid, warm and cool climate."

  2. 白兆会; 朱玲 (2019-07-30). "紫京核桃，" 浑身发紫"的乡土树种" [Zijing walnut, a native tree species with "purple all over"] (PDF). 中国林业新闻网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-01-10. Retrieved 2022-01-10.

     From Google Translate: "“Zijing” walnut was granted a new plant variety right by the State Forestry Administration in October 2017. From 1998 to 2014, it took Wang Xiupo more than ten years to successfully cultivate the "Zijing" walnut. In 1998, in the mountains of Qingshui Town, Mentougou District, Beijing, local villagers discovered a unique wild walnut. The walnut tree, the whole plant is purple, not only the leaves and branches are purple, but also the outer skin of the walnut fruit is actually purple, after opening the hard shell of the walnut, the kernel inside is still purple!"

  3. 张博, ed. (2018-03-29). "北京国际核桃庄园成功研发紫京彩叶核桃树" [Beijing International Walnut Manor successfully developed Zijing Coleus walnut trees]. China Internet Information Center (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-01-10. Retrieved 2022-01-10.

     From Google Translate: "Compared with the "purple walnut" in the United States, the Zijing walnut produced in Beijing, China is very special. Because this walnut tree has five characteristics of purple branches, purple female flowers, purple leaves, purple peel and purple kernels, it is also called "five purple walnuts". Zijing walnut trees are currently mainly distributed in Beijing International Walnut Manor. ... It is reported that the Latin literary name of the Zijing walnut tree is Juglans regia Zijing, which belongs to the genus of walnut. become"

  4. "紫京彩叶核桃树 惊艳世界 特立独行" [Zijing Coleus walnut tree, stunning the world, maverick] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. 2018-03-01. Archived from the original on 2018-03-10. Retrieved 2022-01-10.

     From Google Translate: "The Chinese name "Zijing Caiye Walnut" was named by Wang Xiupo, chairman of Beijing Zijing Walnut Technology Development Company, and on October 17, 2017, it obtained a new plant variety right certificate from the State Forestry Administration of China. The Latin name of Zijing Coleus walnut is Juglance. Because of the five characteristics of purple branches, purple female flowers, purple leaves, purple peel, and purple kernels, Zijing Coleus walnuts are also called "five purple walnuts"."

  5. "紫京核桃十分稀有 年产量只有十几个？" [Zijing walnuts are very rare and the annual output is only a dozen?] (in Chinese).
     Beijing Television. 2017-09-30. Archived from the original
     on 2022-01-10. Retrieved 2022-01-10.
  There is sufficient coverage in
  reliable sources to allow Juglans regia Zijing to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I oppose a merge because there is substantial coverage of Juglans regia Zijing in the sources. The
  Eastday [zh] article in particular is very extensive: When translated into English in Google Translate, the article is 3,270 words. There is more than enough information to support a standalone article. Thank you, Jumpytoo (talk · contribs), for your work cleaning up the article and finding more sources. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per the sources found and improvements made by Cunard and Jumpytoo. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks to sources found by Cunard and Jumpytoo. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:15, 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. Sandstein 11:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timberloch Tower

Timberloch Tower (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, only real coverage is of its demolition in 2017. Mvqr (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can only find coverage about the demolition. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge few details into
  chatter) 22:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]