Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 18

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Church Fathers who quote the New Testament

List of Church Fathers who quote the New Testament (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)

Veverve and I reached the conclusion on the talk page that this list should be deleted, and replaced by a new article named Ancient works quoting the New Testament, but it would not make sense to have this list title be turned into a redirect to that new article, so it should be deleted entirely. The details are on that talk page, but I'll summarise it here:

• This list has been mostly
  WP:V
  problem.
• This list is probably out of scope for Wikipedia: the main motive for creating it seems to be to play a numbers game with the amount of "Church Fathers" (itself a contested term) who have allegedly quoted at least 1 part of one of the 27 books of the New Testament, no matter how small, for the purpose of Christian apologetics (
  WP:SOAPBOX) rather than gathering the sum of all human knowledge. Veverve and I agree that scholars generally recognise that early quotations from the New Testament, particularly before the year 450, can be extremely valuable for textual criticism of the New Testament
  , as well as several other things (such as early Christian theology), but
  • There is no reason to centre a list of such quotations around the authors rather than those actual quotations themselves, let alone the number of authors (implicit
    WP:SOAPBOX
    )
  • There is no reason to play a numbers game with these quotations either (implicit
    WP:SOAPBOX
    )
  • There is no reason to list all these quotations on Wikipedia, as they would number in the tens of thousands and violate
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list at https://www.biblindex.org/en/work-editions does a far better job at that than Wikipedia ever could anyway. Any significant quotation could alternatively be used in one of the subpages of Textual variants in the New Testament
    on a case-by-case basis.
  • There is no reason to limit the contents of this list to just New Testament quotations by "Church Fathers", and in fact the list itself acknowledges that by including works that are known to have been misattributed to various Church Fathers (pseudo-so-and-so) and anonymous works. (So the current title always has been a misnomer, and a mismatch with the list's actual contents).
• It would be much better to write a prose article about the importance/relevance of Ancient works quoting the New Testament in general (including but not limited to so-called patristic quotations), rather than to try to somehow salvage the contents of this one, none of which we think is reusable for our purposes. We better start from scratch, and delete this list in its entirety. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From what point of view is this? Anglican, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox? There are too many questions that would need to be answered; this has been around unsourced since 2008. Just delete it.Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorry, is the set of [Christian] Church Fathers not entirely a subset of "people who have quoted the New Testament"? Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens: no: many writers suche as Lactantius, Origen or Theodore of Mopsuestia quote the NT but are not Church Fathers. Veverve (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to set the Venn diagrams up again; you're not actually disagreeing with what I wrote. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens: The answer to your question is 'Yes'. ;) That's why we think this title cannot continue to exist as a redirect, because it is misleading. There's no reason to focus on the Church Fathers, at least not from the perspective of textual criticism. From the perspective of church history and theology, the very category 'Church Father' is contested along denominational lines, as Oaktree pointed out, so this is probably not a good approach to this subject either. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still struggling to think of any sane sense of 'Church Father' which would exist without quoting the NT, so yes, I'm agreeing that it's fundamentally flawed list. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• From its first version there was a citation "UBS4", i.e. the 1993 edition of
  ISBN 9780310414001); but I agree that this means the list is effectively unreferenced. How about repurposing the page without its lists as a stub on "Patristic quotations"? – Fayenatic London 12:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Indeed, the list is effectively unreferenced. And as I laid out on the talk page, "patristic quotations" is not a good alternative. I proposed 4 options to Veverve:

  1. Patristic quotations? (would implicitly include Hebrew Bible and Deuterocanonicals)
  2. Patristic quotations of the Bible? (explicitly includes them)
  3. Patristic quotations of the New Testament? (leaves out all works by non-"Church Fathers")
  4. Ancient works quoting the New Testament? (proposed cap: the year 500; includes everything regardless of status of author as a "Church Father")

  For the reasons explained above (and in more detail on the talk page), the 4th option is best. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As I explained on the talk page: repurposing an article "List of..." by removing the list creates a contradiction, as the title indicates the article should include... a list (cf.

  WP:LISTNAME). Veverve (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per further reasoning provided by Veverve in above reply. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  outright original research, or a random list of things having to do with quotations from the Bible. It's not our role to to post every interpretation of the scriptures and to debate their worthiness.Bearian (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gastélum

Christopher Gastélum (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 about former footballer who only played a single match in the Mexican second division during his career. Article fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:G5 Only 22, former footballer? However I see too many red flags, link in article doesn't work. No record of this name is the main football player databases, there is no indication of anything. This should have been speedy deleted under G5, created by a sock. Govvy (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  G5 does not apply. GiantSnowman 13:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to indicate notability. Chagropango (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found some passing mentions like El Siglo de Torreón and Noroeste which prove that Gastélum exists but fail to establish notability. I agree with those in favour of deletion unless anyone presents anything substantial. My searches seem to hit namesakes rather than him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Smith (Pentagon)

Jack Smith (Pentagon) (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 is only referenced to two permanently dead links to non-independent sources. However, on its face, it does not speak to any encyclopedic notability. Subject is a deputy assistant secretary who did some policy work. Not unimportant, but not encyclopedia material. A search for the subject yields only a few other passing mentions (see here and here), but not enough to support an article. BD2412 T 20:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 20:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All I see is a
  WP:BIO. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable to be found. The offices he held do not make him notable. Chagropango (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, especially
  it's the consensus. What's good for the school superintendent is good for the deputy assistant secretary. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Kanning

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was going to add "Canada" at first but I wasn't sure if it would be correct. Thanks. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing for GNG, Google goes straight to his social media, then the various streaming sites, then to bandcamp and Shazam. No sourcing of any kind we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:GNG. Coverage is only trivial and most sources are not independent and are primary sources. ProofRobust 23:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Searches did not show any significant coverage. KimOvik (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC) — KimOvik (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Elbatli (talk · contribs). [reply]
• Delete. Makes no claim of notability that would pass
  WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.
  WP:ROTM independent artist. BD2412 T 00:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the AllMusic article on him is bare. There's essentially zero
  reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 23 November 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 here is to Delete this article, for all of the reasons mentioned in this long discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chanale

Chanale (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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gnews is only hits from COLive. Gsearch is her videos, 3 pages of streaming sites then her wedding registry at "theknot". May she grow old with her spouse and live a happy life. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bearcat, @Oaktree b,

While not the original drafter of this article (as noted), I have put significant follow-up editing on it after picking up its creation. I will apologize for not submitting the article to AfC for review, as it is only my second article (even if it's not one that I started and brought to approval itself), however, I will defend its worthiness for the namespace. Though I realize that Jewish artists are niche compared to the entire world as a whole, they do have a following of their own (be it for Jews, or people interested in the variety of Jewish culture), and do merit being highlighted.

I had to make a similar argument in regards to my first published article (which I did put through AfC, and which was eventually approved with considerable help from experienced editors), and the main issue that came up there seems to be the same as here. A lack of familiarity with properties such as Arutz Sheva (one of Israel's national networks) is not a reason to disregard it as a useful reference (I am referring to this interview, as referenced in the article).

Jewish personalities and artists, whether from Toronto, New York, Florida, Israel, or anywhere do deserve to be highlighted outside of Jewish spaces, and I think Chanale is of particular note because of how prolific she is. The fact that she is also a female working in a space in which only men are typically given a spotlight is quite interesting as well (especially in regard to the issues of artist credit and female erasure).

When I picked up the article, I saw a lot that didn't fit with Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality, and there was quite a lot of external linking that came across as promotional rather than informative. I put the work in to make the necessary adjustments on both fronts, as well as fix up the general writing, and add greater detail. I can still do more, if necessary, of course.

Thank you for your consideration, GreenEli (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but we need sourcing that proves notability. We can't conduct the research ourselves and need proof of widely published reviews of their work or features about them as a person in media. We aren't here to make them notable as Wikipedia isn't used as a promotional source. Perhaps unfortunate for certain segments of the population that are otherwise under-represented, but we still have to follow certain guidelines or this becomes a free-for-all and we lose any credibility Wikipedia has. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment GreenEli I'm confused about the sources listed in the article because a number of them don't even mention her. I think that you've talked about a type of music and have referenced that, but sources that aren't about the person of the article are not ok. You need to remove anything in the article that isn't about her, and use only sources that give information about her. The Salt Lake Tribune is the only substantial source I see here. You need to find at least one more, one that is more than just mentioning her name. Perhaps this should be taken back as a draft and gone through AFC? Lamona (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply @Lamona While it wouldn't necessarily be my ideal, if a redraft and run through the AfC process is needed, I'd give running that gauntlet a go again (as noted in my previous reply, that was a considerable challenge with my first article, on Shlomo Simcha, for which I actually was the original creator, and who is an artist in the same space - except he is male, and that has, with all due respect to his talent, made his career, and, therefore, tracking of it considerably easier).

  That said, I will again acknowledge that I picked up this article after it had been started by someone else. I kept certain original reference footnotes in because I thought it important to keep the point of connection, for instance, to her great grandfather, and the claim regarding his introduction of the nigun noted within the article (upon re-read, I'm now catching that that sentence was almost entirely quoted from the referenced source - problematic?). I kept the Mishpacha Magazine reference because it, while not mentioning her directly, backs the claim about the impact the song continued to have following the events which lead to its creation. This may simply been a bad use of the reference system which I kept in.

  Regarding other references, I think it important to bring up, as I did in my initial defence of the article, that the first reference is an article about Chanale, the second is a nearly-16-minute interview with her, the sixth is an digital archival copy of a newspaper article prominently mentioning her, and then, as you mentioned, there's the Salt Lake Tribune article. I'm noting this alongside that defence because the consideration for deletion seems to, first, devalue how big of a deal COLLive is (I am not Chabad, myself, but I am well aware of its stature as a news source in the Orthodox world, especially Chabad - and I have seen it used as a valid source in multiple articles on Orthodox artists as well), second, disregard the fact that she was literally interviewed on a show on Israel's national network, Arutz Sheva (whether I agree with the politics of that network or not, it is a mass media network), and third (or, as far as the references go, sixth), look at cultural-specific publications as having no significance, or as being unsubstantial. I worry that such thinking could lead to cultural erasure.

  (My defence excludes my addition of referencing her podcast episodes as backing of claims of those specific Jewish personalities having been featured on said podcast. I understand it may have been an inappropriate use, but I felt it was better than simply external linking to those episodes within the article lines, as that, to me, would have come across as promotional.)

  All this in mind, I hope you will give this article, and its core references, further consideration for a continued place as a public article (even if it is one that requires improvement and adjustment/removal of some references). GreenEli (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources, and therefore do not support notability. Podcasts, her appearances on TV, etc., are primary sources. Sources that do not mention her do not belong in an article about her (they may be used in an article about the musical form, however). This has nothing to do with "how big a deal" anything is. To have an article it must be sourced as per WP policies. Lamona (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona I happened to check in again on this thread and was lucky enough to spot your reply. If you could, please tag me in future replies directed to me.

Thank you for the point about interviews being primary sources. I was not aware of that being an issue.

WP:RS

seems to suggest that secondary sources are the preferred source material, rather than entirely disqualifying primary sources, but I take your point regarding its use as a core supporting reference (though would still argue for its use as a reference in general).

Following a few minutes taken to remove Chanale's podcasts episodes as references, replacing them with external links (I am not sure that I have done so in an appropriate way, as I both believe it's important that the episodes are noted, but also do not want them to appear as promotion), and removal of externals links that do not mention her at all (please advise regarding the nigun reference), I took a few minutes to find and add a couple of additional articles from The Jerusalem Post and The Sydney Morning Herald. They should, at the very least, support the fact that who she is and what she does is notable to at least two (non-interview) international publications for her work (I realize that the SMH article quotes her, but it is not an interview about her work as a musician or content creator).

Finally, you may disagree with the use of COLLive as a reliable source, but the fact is that it's been used as one since at least 2014 (based on my dive into a couple of View History sections of some long-existing articles). That is well before I began dipping my toes into editing here. I get that "how big a deal" something is wasn't a particularly good defence of its importance (that was on my mind at the time of writing and, admittedly, it was lazy), but my concern is that what you are suggesting borders on promoting cultural erasure. If Jewish culturally significant information sources (even within the subset of Orthodoxy) are considered unreliable sources, what other groups' culturally significant information sources are unreliable because they don't meet your standard for what WP should consider as RS? I do not like the fact that the question comes out as it does, but that is the question that comes to mind here. Please keep in mind that I am not even Chabad or ultra-Orthodox, but this concerns me.

I've continued to make other edits while writing this reply. Please read through, and comment/provide assistance as necessary.

Thank you GreenEli (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV. It is generally thought that one needs at least two significant sources for an article, and especially for biographical articles. My guess is that more thorough sources may be found in sources in Hebrew, which means enlisting someone with those language skills to fill in what is missing here. Lamona (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

We'd consider a peer-reviewed journal as the gold standard for sourcing, then a feature in something like the New York Times (or other prominent newspaper or magazine) about the individual, then a book chapter/entire book about them. Then the sourcing quality goes down from there. The more sources you can provide like the first two or three examples I've listed would help; interviews can't be used as a primary source, but can be used to flesh out the article once we have decent primary sources. If the subject doesn't have any mentions in any of these, there isn't much we can do to keep the article on Wikipedia. Notability standards are used here to help prove notability, thus helping to build a credible encyclopedia. Otherwise, this would be just a random collection of just about anything, from memes to video game characters to anyone who creates an article on xyz subject. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the sources mentioned again, and I still don't see GNG. I can't find any others that have popped up since my !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was hoping that the creator could find more sources. I haven't found any that would bring this up to a keep level. I'd recommend that
  WP:NMUSIC). I tried to look at the Israeli charts but, but course, they are in Hebrew so I couldn't check them. Lamona (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Lamona Please note, again, that I am not the creator of this article. There was the original creator, and another two people prior to my picking it up (Keith D appears to have been someone who took the original pass at reviewing the article, though I am unsure.)

  I have time to edit this article when I have time, so the fact that I have not replied since last Wednesday doesn't mean that I've either been unable to find additional sources, nor that I've abandoned the article or my defense of it. As you point out, Hebrew language sources are tough to work with if you don't have an understanding of the language. I do, however, it's at a lower-to-middle level, so I have to jump between reading (slowly), using Google Translate, and then double-checking the words that Google Translate is translating to see if they make contextual sense. That takes time.

  I appreciate that you're at least willing to consider some of the sources from which this article started, though I'm still not understanding what your issue with the COLLive articles is. If it is, as you admitted "probably a reliable source", then how is the very first reference (literally an article about how her move from Florida to Israel inspired the creation of one of her albums) not significant? It's about her, and it's not a couple of sentences. Along that line, and probably with greater significance, The Texas Jewish Post article is about an event, but features a mini-bio on her, over the two pages on which the article appeared in that paper (Top half of page 7 and bottom of page 21). That, too, is not just a couple of sentences. It's not a national Jewish publication, like the

  Salt Lake Tribune

  article already met the standard. That's three, before even noting the interviews, or the passing mentions (and, again, the reference about her great grandfather, which, again, I need advice on how it should appear properly, if not being used as a reference).

  This, however, brings me back to my previously-noted concern, especially with Oaktree b's commentary. If it's not a North American (or, what, European?) publication, it's not "prominent" enough? Comparing her to a meme is just degrading. She's not a passing joke, and is obviously known and established within the Jewish world. Beyond that, what Oaktree is saying is precisely the kind of issue I was raising with my previous reply to you, just far worse. Not only is it disqualifying a culturally significant publication as a source, because they don't deem it prominent enough, it's also (I would assume, completely unknowingly) helping the already heavy push for the erasure of women from ultra-Orthodox establishment, by only allowing male ultra-Orthodox artists to get recognition in these spaces. Is Oaktree's plan to start hunting down and eliminating Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish artists from WP? What kind of message does that send?

  I will continue to find more sources in both English and Hebrew as possible, but the Hebrew ones will take more time.

  I'd integrate more sources like the following, but, based on the previous discussion, have to assume they don't meet the standard:

  A debate article between Orthodox Jewish artists and comedian Mendy Pellin from the Jewish News Syndicate (a Jewish wire service) - the article appears in other Jewish publications, but I saw that JNS is the source.

  A short interview with her in Kveller (it's short and an interview, so that must be a double-hit against it)

  This Hebrew-language article that I found from the major Israeli site

  Walla!

  , but still have to translate (I only just found the article, so it's going to take me a bit to translate)

  This nearly-12-minute interview with her on major Hebrew-language site, Kikar HaShabbat (website) (it's Hebrew, so it would take a while to translate, and, again, it's an interview) GreenEli (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the "reliable sources" as here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources. Interviews are a primary source, we can use them to flesh out an article but not as a main sourcing text. I've not commented on the ethnicity or source country of the sources, a reliable source is a reliable source. I really don't care if it's African, Haitian or North American, the source needs editorial oversight and one that checks facts is best. You have one decent source, the rest aren't RS (reliable sources) as given in the list I've shared at the start of this comment. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Should make a decision on this one way or another, I feel SNOW is coming. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oaktree b Can you please clarify:

  A) What the SNOW comment means?

  B) Which is the one decent source to which you're referring, and what makes that one a better reference than the others?

  C) How the Perennial sources list you shared doesn't even include The Jerusalem Post. For that matter, how it's possible that neither Arutz Sheva/Israel National News, nor The Times of Israel appear either, but Haaretz, a left-wing Israeli publication is (and is the only Israeli publication that's on the list, period). I am not even in the same political spectrum as INN or The Times of Israel, but those are internationally-recognized publications, not purely culturally-significant ones. To say that list of sources isn't exactly comprehensive would be an understatement.

  Lamona I haven't heard back from you (perhaps you have other things you're attending to, as I was regarding my delayed reply). Do you have any further input? I still have to properly read through and translate the Hebrew articles, but, that aside, are you able to address the other parts of my previous reply. Beyond that, if I have not made this clear in previous replies, I want to ensure that I am properly using the sources being referenced, be they the existing ones, or new ones, and I have been requesting some guidance in that regard. Have you taken any issue with the use of the existing references (I keep bringing up the one about Chanale's great grandfather, and how to properly mention that, since it has already been noted that non-mentions cannot be references), and, if so, how would you like them to be corrected?

GreenEli One of the problems that you have is that there is a fair amount of content in the article that is not sourced. Especially in biographical articles it is essential that all information be cited to a specific source. Any information that is not sourced should be removed and may be removed by other editors. A statement like: "The song left a lasting impression on Fried's fanbase...." absolutely has to have a source. And the sources cited have to have the content that is written in the article. The #1 source does not say that she is a "classically trained guitarist". The #2 source does not support the statement about her great grandfather, at least I can't find anything with her name in that document. The "significant sources" problem is that if you delete everything in the article that is not in one of the cited sources you will have a very thin article. Most of the sources say only a small amount about her. It's tedious, but you have to demonstrate where all of the information comes from. If you can't provide sources at this time, but think that you will be able to in the future, one option is to take a copy of the article as a draft and give yourself the time to complete it. Lamona (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this exaggerates the difficulty a bit. It's not a problem for AFD if the article contains unsourced material or that it would be short if unsourced material is removed, that's just a cleanup problem. As long as there's enough information for a short article that's fine as long as the information is reliable and the coverage is significant. Jahaza (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamona Thank you, once again, for taking the time to consider the subject and sources, and to reply. If you look at the article's history since I picked it up, you'll likely notice the things that I did end up removing because they were either too promotional, or had nothing to back them up. I kept may other elements because, to me, it didn't make sense that they would fit as unsubstantiated claims up for scrutiny or potential debate.

In terms of the Fried song, that's a bit of a funny one, because I ended up removing that reference in response to your earlier points about sources having to mention the subject. The originally-referenced Mishpacha Magazine article (a 2019 article about the 2001-performed song and its impact on the author) didn't mention Chanale (this comes down both to issues of crediting the people involved with the creation of music in general and, more specifically to this, of crediting women in religious Jewish works). So, while the reference backed the claim, it had to go!

Regarding the #2 source you listed, it sounds like you're referring to reference #3. This was the one I've brought up multiple times in my previous comments, saying that I understand that it needs to be removed as a reference because, as noted, it doesn't mention her - but that it, like the Mishpacha article, is directly related to the claim being made (in this case, about her great grandfather).

Now, I'm still happy to continue putting the effort in on bolstering the article with more sources as I find them and am able to translate them (though I've spent much of the little time that I have available to work on this taking part in this discussion rather than actually doing that part), but I'm also confused because someone like Jahaza is coming in and saying that a short article is not a problem (while also saying that they don't find the coverage to be significant in their own comment [or just that the SLT and JNS articles would not be significant coverage by themselves?]). I've seen WP articles that are a couple of lines long, with minimal referencing, or articles about people with a single reference that was just a record of employment from their workplace's website, and they're up without issue (and I would not advocate for them to be taken down for the same reasons I've noted earlier about those peoples' cultural significance), so I just end up being left wondering why an article like this, longer and with better references than those gets such scrutiny.

It doesn't mean I won't put the effort in to keep improving upon what was left when I got here, and on what I added/altered, but you can't blame me for wondering about the whole thing. GreenEli (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally, if I do have to take this back through AfC (as I said from your initial input, it's not my ideal, but I would do it were it deemed necessary), what is the process for doing that so the existing article can be preserved and further improved? GreenEli (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SNOW means we're just turning around in circles. I have no further comments on the rest of it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Not so much that it's foregone conclusion that this will get deleted or not deleted, just that we've talked about it enough at this point. Let's just decide one way or another and move on with life. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oaktree b Still new to the editor lingo. Thanks for explaining that.

  I'm not sure how you can have no further comment when I am requesting a direct answer to a direct statement you made. You stated that one of the sources is RS. Which is it, and what makes it better than the other ones (especially given the points in my reply, yesterday, to Lamona)?

  Of course it will get deleted or not. That's the point of the discussion.

  But you're talking about removing one of (if not the) first female ultra-Orthodox Jewish musicians to have an article written about her on this platform, and an article that's better-referenced than some of her male peers, and even the longer-established, bigger names in that space, using (at least) the exact same publications used as reference for those articles. That's before even getting to the source use of a print publication that's been around since 1947 and has an editorial structure (or at least had - I don't read it, and it was already a reference before I picked up the article). And I was still willing to put the extra work in to find "better" sources!

  I don't dare mention a single one of those artists, because I actually do worry about the deletion nomination spree you may decide to go on. I may not have created this article, and I may not be of her sect (I don't even share her political views), but I do stand by its importance in the turn toward recognition and representation for women in ultra-Orthodox Judaism. And, if it wasn't clear, I stand by the importance of Jewish representation on a platform like WP in general, because even ultra-Orthodox Jews deserve to be highlighted and discovered (and not just ones that appear in the NYTimes). GreenEli (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing further to say about this to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although I'm concerned that there may be undiscovered sources offline and/or in Hebrew and Yiddish and in the Jewish press here in New York and elsewhere. I would add that it does not, in fact, bear mentioning that the article was created in draft space and moved to mainspace without
  WP:AFC review, as AFC remains an optional process and that the article was not created through that process has no bearing on the deletion criteria.--Jahaza (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'd note that several of the comments above seem to be unaware of the Salt Lake Tribune and Jewish News Service articles, which are solid contributions to substantial coverage, but not enough by themselves. Jahaza (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your input. That's an interesting note, regarding the method by which I moved the article following my picking up of its editing. I'll probably still put articles I create personally through AfC going forward, nonetheless (and if it's possible to do the same with drafts I pick up, like this one, I would do the same as well). The process was difficult with the article I personally created and put through the AfC process, but it was approved in the end.

  I'll say that it's disappointing to see that the SLT and JNS articles would not be enough to fortify the arguments for keeping the article (though I've yet to actually add in mention of the JNS piece within the article itself, at this point. I was more interested in looking into the Hebrew-language sources of which I know (and others I might not yet have found) before adding in the JNS piece (unless you think it's worthwhile adding it in sooner). I just haven't had the time to devote to properly sitting down, reading, and translating them over the past few days (heck, I've barely had time for these replies).

  Not happy with the further vote for deletion, of course, but I do appreciate that you took the time to fully consider the article and its sources (even ones that have only been discussed thus far). GreenEli (talk) 01:10, 24 November 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.

Anna Lubomirska (died 1763) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She is notably enough as a diarist. I do not understand why is a problem with Polish noblewomen when nobody want to delate article about members of English noble families. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the case that nobody wants to delete articles about members of English noble families. Just in the last two months we had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Howard, 22nd Earl of Suffolk, which ended as a redirect; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, which was kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try change Anne of Gloucester to redirect. Good luck. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzog von Teschen What sources say that she was an important diarist? I am all for saving this, but we need soruces, not claims. The article doesn't say this, and you didn't provide any soruces. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All diarists from the 18th Century are important enough to have a biographical entry. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What policy supports this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the subject is notable as a diarist, then we need more information in the article about that (reliably sourced). When were her diaries published? Who published them? What is notable in those diaries? Are they still in print? I assume that a lot of the relevant sources will be in Polish, so I would recommend Polish-speaking editors to at least give us more sources in hopes that some of them will be accessible via online translation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that Lithospian and Onel5969 checked sources first before making a redirect. Didn't they? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her husband,

• Redirect to Wacław Rzewuski. Dubious stand-alone notability, but redirects are cheap. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important She received the Order of the Starry Cross and has a biographical note in a biographical dictionary (Dunin Borkowski, Panie polskie przy dworze rakuskim). Herzog von Teschen (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I fail to find anything about her. It's not an easy search because there was someone with the same name in the 1600's who gets a lot of mentions, and there is even someone with that very name writing today. I note that her one publication is listed in VIAF under the name "Rzewuska, Anna". Her daughter seems to have had extensive correspondence with Honore de Balzac, which was published, but she herself does not appear in Google Books or in any databases that I can search. Lamona (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Herzog von Teschen: If you access offline sources, please show them like this [4] via Camshot. It would help. Taung Tan (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's online, I will add url. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable historical nobility figure and princess consort. I found this historical source in the Polish language [5] has a biography and discussion on her royal portrait, - that states [sig]: W 1748 r. w Wiedniu zostałauhonorowana najwyższą austriacką państwową odznaką dla kobiet – Orderem Gwiaździstego Krzyża (In 1748, she stayed in Vienna honored with the highest Austrian state badge for women - the Order Starry Cross). Clearly paasses
  WP:ANYBIO as recevied the highest Austrian state badge for women. extra- Searching with her name in Polish, "Anna z Lubomirskich" has some sources. Taung Tan (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That she was a "princess" does not mean she was royalty (royalty is always notable), she was married to a noble prince, not a royal prince, and nobility are not automatically notable.--Aciram (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable person and the
  WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I see no personal relevance in her article. An individual should only have an article if they have personal relevance. Her article only contains geneaological information, nothing about her as an individual: no acts of importance, only names and dates. Regardless of nationality, no person (except royalty) should have an article in wikipedia just because they belong to a certain family. If the family is important, it is enough to have an article about the family, not each individual from it. The Order, it seems, were given to many people just because of their social status, and not because they had performed any particular act themselwes.--Aciram (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aciram: Noo...you are wrong. Royalty are not always notable.... What policy supports this? I've deleted many royalty articles around the world. I reject your comment. the Order Starry Cross is important award per source say. All recipients are notable and are high-ranking members of royal and noble families. Taung Tan (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty are almost always regarded to be notable. Nobility is not. Royalty and nobility is not the same thing. They are not judged the same way so they should not be compared. To be given an Order does not necessarily make a person notable. She was only given the order because she was noble, and because of this, the Order does not make her notable. If she had been given the Order because she had performed some sort of notable act, then the Order would have made her notable. But because she was given the Order only because she was a noble, the Order does not make her notable.--Aciram (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly bias on royalty!!! First, you need to know who I am! I only create royalty articles on Wikipedia and am an expert on Asian monarchy. You also need to understand what

WP:ANYBIO is ! It is not a joke but a policy. Taung Tan (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't be ridicoulous. Since you choose to insult me with calling me bias for nothing I will not dignify you with further response. This person has no relevance in her article and that's it.--Aciram (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to husband - the article is more than old enough to meet
  WP:R#HARMFUL. No need to get bogged down in yet another fruitless discussion about merit vs status vs sources. Ingratis (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment according to
  WP:ANYBIO. Why are users not aware of this? It is not fair. Wikipedia accepts stub articles if the subjects are notable. @Necrothesp: what do you think admin? Taung Tan (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Per reference to
  WP:ANYBIO, that section states: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." So with the award the person is likely to be notable but not guaranteed to be notable. Saying that this clearly satisfies ANYBIO is a bit of an exaggeration. I personally would like for there to be at least one source explaining WHY she received this award. I did a search on her name in the #3 source here (Jerzy Sewer Dunin Borkowski: Panie polskie przy dworze rakuskim. Lwów 1891, p. 77.) and her name there is Anna Lubomirskich Rzewuska. I'm hoping that page gives sufficient info, but I'll have to try to translate it in order to find out. Lamona (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Lamona: Thanks, Please also look on this [6] if you can read Polish. Thansk. Taung Tan (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taung Tan No, I do not read Polish but after doing a bunch of pasting into Google Translate what I get from this is that it is about a painting that was done of her. She is said here to have been given the starry cross but nothing says why. About her we only learn whose daughter she was and who she married. If I have missed some key information in this document, please let me know. Otherwise, merging to her husband's page seems the most sensible thing to do. Lamona (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input from additional users would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge She maybe a diarist, but without sourcing, we can't keep the article. For all of the 10 lines (give or take) of text it is, we could simply plunk it down in her husband's article and call it a day. She might be an interesting subsection in his article, but appears to be lacking sourcing for her own article. I'm not seeing GNG, but she could help flesh out the the spouse's article, thereby giving her some sort of coverage. Or let me explain it this way: she's notable when we discuss him. We take him out of the equation, she isn't notable as she doesn't appear to have done much on her own that isn't noted in relation to the spouse. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like if her notability rests on being a diarist, I need to see those diaries in published form. Her other claim is belonging to the Order of the Starry Cross. Even after reading the article, I can't get a grasp on it. Do you get that because of something you DO, or just because you're born into nobility? The Polish-language version says (via Google Translate, and what in the WORLD did we do before that?) The number of ladies of the order is unlimited, but admission to the ranks of the recipients requires a strict proving of nobility (German: Adelsprobe ), which requires eight noble generations on the father's and mother's side and sixteen noble ancestors of the spouse. This makes it sound as though just being born into a strict line of nobility qualifies you. Joyous! | Talk 01:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Order was simply given to women because of their social rank, not because they had performed any particular act of merit. That makes the Order irrelevant to her notability. The only possible relevance hangs on the word "diarist", but there is only one word about it, a word that is not sourced and gives no further hint about it. It might even be put there by mistake for all we know. --Aciram (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Notability is a stretch, reference links don't work, information is scarce, even in Polish. Although she may have received a notable award, we have no information about why to include in the article, and the other Anna Lubomirska seems to be quite a bit more notable, although not all that notable herself. For this reason, it does meet
  WP:R#HARMFUL, and there is no real harm or loss from merging her to her husband. Chagropango (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge or Keep. She won an award, Order of the Starry Cross, which was only granted to women of high birth. I think she meets my own standards for consorts of nobility. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharanya Pradeep

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. AmirŞah 17:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not done any significant role in the films listed in the article. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 17:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Besides Fidaa, her role in Baama Kalapam is also significant. She is listed as main cast in Gaalivaana as well. The filmography is about 13. So definitely accounts as significant person. Sivaraj (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails notability guidelines. Most coverage comes from her role in 1 film in which she didn't play a major role. Searches show that coverage in other sources is trivial. ProofRobust 23:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  She is an up and coming artist. She is not being talked because she is being cast in poor person roles like maid, even if the role is big like in Baama kalapam. Sivaraj (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sivaraj: "Up and coming" basically means "not yet notable". In rough terms, on Wikipedia, "she's talked about" equals "notable". "Should be talked about but isn't talked about because of reasons" does not equal notable. Largoplazo (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject has not got lead roles in multiple notable films as required for
  (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  biographies of living persons. I also note that it has all of the telltale signs for deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 23 November 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.

MUD trees (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)

Just a list of family trees. What is it for? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 12:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without a valid rationale for deletion. Article includes a lede section, citations and "See also" which should answer the nom's questions. Elizium23 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Merge or rewrite I'm looking at this and it seems like a lot of this is
  WP:SYN. Is there actually a reliable source that has documented these relationships as a tree? This might be appropriate for merge into MUD, or rewritten as prose. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: No reason was given for deletion, so it appears the rationale is more or less
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: not knowing what MUDs are isn't a valid rationale for deleting articles about them. -Vipz (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  original research. The fact that one codebase descended from another can be covered in context in the individual notable codebase articles or generalized in the parent article. The article's sources do not assert the independent notability of "MUD trees" from their codebases. It's a bunch of passing mentions used to justify a dedicated article of tree templates. czar 04:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Refactoring my comment to agree. We could synthesize trees for all sorts of game lineages based on who was influenced by who, but it would be
  outside the scope of Wikipedia. We don't do original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment I'm coming at this with no technical background, but in looking at the two "merge" comments above....

synthesis issues. So, my question is: What is in the article that should be merged? Joyous! | Talk 18:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it looks like consensus is divided between those advocating Keeping this article and those proposing to Merge it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this is too technical for the average joe without explaining what it is or why it's important/why we need a flowchart for it. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merge which part? Joyous! | Talk 18:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't understand what it is, so I'm not sure. I'd suggest a merge to the main MUD article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a flowchart, it's simply a family tree of which code was derived from which codebase. I'm not sure what sort of technical knowledge would be necessary to understand a concept that exists in all sorts of disciplines. You don't seem to know what a flowchart looks like in actuality. I guess that's a level of technical knowledge we don't need here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even more proof that this article is too technical and would be better served in the main MUD article I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Joyous!, re: what to merge, there really isn't a lot since there is no sourced text, but I would merge the Bartle quotes where relevant. Otherwise it's functionally a redirect as a valid search term and should link to a section that describes how MUD codebases are interrelated. czar 19:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The part worth keeping/merging are the reliable third party sources. The relationship between the code bases can be described in the main MUD article in prose. But as a stand-alone article, this fails
  WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Shooterwalker: you say it fails these 3 things. Why didn't the nominator bring any of that up? Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd have to ask them. But Wikipedia is
  WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and a procedural issue shouldn't be a reason to reject a proposal that makes sense. There just isn't another video game genre that has a stand-alone article with a mostly graphical family tree. The proper way to cover these topics is in prose, in the main article about the genre. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I don't see a valid reason to delete this, this is a waste of everyone's time. Peetrstahl (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strip out original research and merge to MUD or List of MUDs per Shooterwalker, Czar. There's a lot of speculation/synthesis in here based on not a lot of sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Axem Titanium. These trees are
  Wikipedia:STICKTOSOURCE. Keep the reliable part and write it somewhere as prose, not original diagrams. Archrogue (talk) 01:24, 23 November 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.

Thermic

Thermic (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)

As it stands this is an invalid disambiguation page because all the entries are

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete key peroxide nomenclature. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There does seem to be some scope for disambiguation here. In instances in Sierra de Almijara it refers to warm climate, in ustic and vertisol it refers to warm soil, but in thermic siphon and Thermic fluid heater it refers to the transfer of heat from one place to another (?) and in negative-calorie food it refers to the effect of food on body heat. In all of these cases it is "thermic", rather than the "X-thermic" of all the entries on the dab. But I'm not sure there are suitable link targets for any of these. Maybe we could instead consider a soft redirect to wikt:thermic? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move back to
  WP:IAR, since it doesn't fit normal suppression criteria), or setindexify over the redirect at Thermic reaction prior to deletion of Thermic. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Our core readership, students, will look for this. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The word "thermic" on its own doesn't have enough "meaning" that someone is likely to look for it. As the page stands, it's just a set of article titles that contain that set of letters. Joyous! | Talk 19:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And I'll suggest also letting "Thermics" redirect to this disambiguation page. (I'm probably nearly on the same page as Bearian, 19:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WStrBinA (talk • contribs)

Hello, WStrBinA, today is November 21st, not November 10th. I think you copied some of Bearian's comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 22 November 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. Given that all of the Keep voters (and one Delete voter) are sockpuppets, I would not be surprised to see this article recreated in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levi C. Maaia

Levi C. Maaia (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Rhode Island. [User:Fram|Fram-en] (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with independent sources and removed unreliable and not independent sources. I have included information about his film awards as well as congressional testimony to support his notability [User:Cinecubano12381|Cinecubano12381-en] (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In my opinion, this article would be better to be nominated for speedy deletion. The sources of the article are deeply awful! For example, the first reference is IMDB, in second one he only is mentioned at the end article and other sources are unreliable. [User:Alimovvarsu|Alimovvarsu-en] (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd disagree that the sources are awful. The first link is to an IMDB awards listing page which is backed up by source 23 from the festival itself. The second source is a Boston Globe op-ed written by the subject (which is why he is mentioned at the end author's bio). [User:Mar3ini|Mar3ini-en] (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article cites a wide variety of local and regional news sources (e.g. The Boston Globe, East Bay Newspapers/EastBayRI.com, East Providence Reporter/reportertoday.com, Santa Barbara Independent) as well as a few well regarded TV and business trade publications (TVTechnology, Businesswire, Providence Business News). There are also a couple primary sources but most all of those are backed up by citations to news coverage and other independent sources. It seems that there is some noteworthiness; additional citations would further improve the article. [User:Mar3ini|Mar3ini-en] (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since initial publication, the article has been modified to remove unreliable and, where possible, primary sources that did not have independent sources providing additional verification. Several well-respected news sources were also added, particularly regional sources. Overall, I believe that these modifications, changes and additions demonstrate a person of notability in their geographic region, fields of study and industry.[User:Cinecubano12381|Cinecubano12381-en] (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't see which sources are supposed to give notability. The Boston Globe, cited by Mar3ini in their "keep", is a letter to the newspaper by Maaia, not an article about Maaia. Businesswire, also cited by Mar3ini, is a press release publisher, not an independent source. The EastBayRI source[7] doesn't even mention Levi. The Santa Barbara Independent source is a column[8]. Something like TVTechnology is just a very passing mention.

Let's try

These four sources should sufficiently establish the subject's notability in the sphere of executive leadership in education and technology to a level that exceeds the current threshold in many other published articles about notable people in media and education.

This citation establishes that the subject was covered as a notable businessperson early in his career in telecommunications and broadcasting.

Nesi, Ted (2009-08-19). "Five Questions With: Levi C. Maaia". Providence Business News. Retrieved 2022-11-12.

[9]https://pbn.com/five-questions-with-levi-c-maaia44311/

This citation is a critical review of the subject's radio program.

Jun 01, Colin Marshall Tue; 2010 | 6:00am (2010-06-01). "Morning Radio, but Interesting". The Santa Barbara Independent. Retrieved 2022-11-10.

[10]https://www.independent.com/2010/06/01/morning-radio-but-interesting/

This citation further establishes the subject's notability in telecommunications and education when public radio news covered his appointment to a NASA program committee.

"South Coast Man Helps With Education Efforts Linked To International Space Station". KCLU. 2017-05-30. Retrieved 2022-11-12.

[11]https://www.kclu.org/local-news/2017-05-30/south-coast-man-helps-with-education-efforts-linked-to-international-space-station

This citation establishes the subject's notability as an award-winning filmmaker in the Los Angeles Independent Film Festival.

"Alumnus Levi Maaia directs award-winning film "Pathways to Invention" | The Gevirtz School (GGSE) - UC Santa Barbara". education.ucsb.edu. Retrieved 2022-11-12.

[12]https://education.ucsb.edu/news/2022/alumnus-levi-maaia-directs-award-winning-film-%E2%80%9Cpathways-invention%E2%80%9D Cinecubano12381 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The University one is not independent, an institution writing about their alumni is a related source. The Independent.com source is a column, again not a source accepted to establish notability. Which leaves us with a very short article from a local radio station, and the Providence Business News. Not really convincing to me, others may disagree of course.

Fram (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 16:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained above, the sources are pretty much useless. I don't see much more we can use for sourcing. Socks also tell me this isn't notable. If you have to create a fake account to support your case, it likely isn't notable (or it would stand by itself). Oaktree b (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are straight into his social media channels, something called flyways then a podcast. He was appointed to city council, then it peters off to nothing. Nowhere near GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the two keep votes so far have been blocked as sockpuppets and very likely have a major

A Delete opinion was also from a sockpuppet. And none of them seemed to know how to sign their comments. Maybe this AFD should be run a second time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)×××[reply]

FYI, the relist was from another sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of a lack of independent sources. I was hopeful about The Reporter Today link but it allows you to post your own articles and photos and there is no independent by-line on the article. Mostly what we have is articles by him, and ones coming directly from his employers. Lamona (talk) 16:41, 19 November 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. czar 18:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Chase: Criminal Termination

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)

Several issues for multiple years, plus no references in the main article body. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 12:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most games before a certain point were hard to distribute without a major investment, and that usually led to some verifiable record that they came out. The problem is these are usually print sources that are hard to find. But I found them. Someone should also check Japanese sources if they can. Archrogue (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Archrogue. Although the article is in heavy need of cleanup, the game itself does seem to fulfil notability criteria. Ding Chavez (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 16:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reviewed in several contemporary magazines as demonstrated in the article plus [13] [14] and [15] plus
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:52, 21 November 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 and retitle, with a title to be determined. There is consensus that the sequence of events here is notable, but there is little support for a standalone biography. There is insufficient discussion here to decide between "Death of Michal Sela" and "Michal Sela Forum"; the arguments in favor of the former are slightly stronger, in my view, as that title has a broader scope that could include the NGO; but a talk page discussion is likely needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Sela

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 social worker who suffered a tragic death which was reported in the country of her death. She does not appear to be a notable person. Does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bruxton (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Israel. Skynxnex (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this recently-created article may be more clearly notable as an
  WP:ORG notability in sources about the NGO. Either way, alternatives to deletion appear to exist. Beccaynr (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Would a merge to the NGO be appropriate? This isn't in my field of knowledge (NGO's and the like). Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a move to

  WP:NGO guideline, based on my initial search for sources, and this title is a more likely search term than the preceding event of her murder (and a redirect from Murder of Michal Sela to the Michal Sela Forum article can also be created). Beccaynr (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - unbold 'move', per comment with keep !vote below Beccaynr (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. I don't think that being stabbed to death makes a person notable. If it did there would many millions of notable people worthy of Wikipedia articles. In addition, I have a question: is it possible that there has been a confusion with her near homonym Michael Sela, also Israeli but not a relation as far as I know, who until he died this year was the oldest living distinguished biologist? Athel cb (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Discussing

  alternatives to deletion is within deletion policy, because If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, but there appears to be no confusion between a dead male scientist who lived for a long time and a woman whose untimely death from domestic violence has had notable impacts documented by multiple independent and reliable sources over time. Additional sources include Wired, and national coverage of political impacts and an exhibition at the UN. Alternatives to deletion include refocusing the article on the NGO founded after her death, or refocusing the article on her murder, because sources can support articles under different notability guidelines (which do not include subjective importance). Beccaynr (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment. Unlike victims of terrorist attacks, victims of domestic abuse - like victims of professional criminals - are typically murdered one at a time. This creates a situation where domestic murders often are not notable. Because it can happen to anyone, the victim is on average NN. The murder itself receives limited attention, in general and especially over time. Sometimes a murder sticks out and serves as of a wakeup call for society or, more sensationally, the murderer disappears and the search becomes a major news item, or it is a complex or a multiple-victim domestic murder case. In such cases an article certainly can be justified. I will check if any of that appears to be the case here. gidonb (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have expanded the article with a focus on notable impacts, not sensationalism. Beccaynr (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for all your hard and excellent work. BostonMensa (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What you said. When I was a kid, the Murder of Kitty Genovese was still a popular topic of conversation even though she died when I was five months old. She died at her home maybe ten or twelve miles from where I lived, in a very safe neighborhood where we often went. Many of her neighbors were witnesses yet no one called the police and from what I remember, at least initially, no one wanted to talk to the police. By the time I was maybe ten, there had been TV movies amd I suspect books about her death. I do know her death was constantly in the news. Her death basically terrified me. The main lesson I learned was things like being aware of my surroundings.

  the reason I am bringing this up was initially, I was not going to continue with the article because I realized she was not notable as a social worker But as others have mentioned, her death, through her sister especially, has a tremendous legacy. Too many people don’t like to discuss things like domestic violence for many reasons but if you want it to end, you must discuss it. I really don’t care if you keep the title as is or if, like Kitty Genovese, you change it to murder of …. But I do care that it stays. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. BostonMensa (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Based on my research, I think the balance of the sources favor refocusing and retitling the article
  WP:NGO notability - I continue to find various announcements of activities that suggest if notability of the organization is not fully supported at this time, it likely will be in the near future. Beccaynr (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  As an update, after I found and added significant coverage from a 2022 book to the article, I think

  WP:BASIC notability due the high-profile murder trial, public advocacy by her family, public education campaigns, and the work of the Forum that followed her death, so I think keep is a reasonable outcome for this article, even with a substantial amount of content moved to a separate article about the Forum. Beccaynr (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC) - update comment after removal of predatory publisher source Beccaynr (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. This is one of these exceptions, mentioned in my comment above, where a single murder of an NN person created such waves that keep is easily justified. Kudos to the creators and contributors for adding an important article to Enwiki! My modest help: I added the name in Hebrew, connected the article to the excellent article in Hebrew that has additional sources, and moved some stuff around. My recommendations: rename to Muder of Michal Sela, do NOT move to Michal Sela Forum that covers only some of the legacy. Translate at the very least the section on the murder itself from Hewiki. Make the subsection on Michal Sela Forum a bit less wordy. I can make all or some of these changes after the article is kept, just as I just did here. Whatever rolls out. gidonb (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move, based on the discussion above, to a "Death of" article. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment with consideration of the direction of this discussion, I have started
  Draft:Michal Sela Forum. I think the question of whether the article being discussed here is kept with its current name or moved to a Murder of or Death of title can be an editorial decision determined by later consensus. This may be one of the first articles that contends with the notability of someone who has been 'recreated' by artificial intelligence for a public education campaign [22] after their death. Beccaynr (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Why not wait for the conclusion of this discussion first? Recent opinions were simple keeps and/or requests to move by death of. gidonb (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few reasons - the discussion is trending towards either the current title or a Murder of or Death of article, with a consensus at least developing about the notability of this article. From my view, the establishment of the notable Michal Sela Forum is part of the support for this article, even if the MSF has its own article. Your comment above about a need to Make the subsection on Michal Sela Forum a bit less wordy also encouraged me to start drafting, because I think there is more to add about the organization from the sources. I have also conducted a lot of research while developing my perspective on this article, and drafting tends to be easier when the work is fresh in my mind. Beccaynr (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the Forum is wordy, for example, in the quote from Wired. It's possible to say the same with fewer words and finish stronger. I don't think that we should spread this content over multiple articles right now. The fact that we know more should not always lead to more text or articles. Always ask yourself if something is missing, rather than if you know something else. gidonb (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, The Michal Sela Forum is a notable organization, and it seems to be

Women in Red), and I think both articles can stand on their own and support each other, and it improves the encyclopedia to have both. Beccaynr (talk) 14:58, 24 November 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 14:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptograph (organisation)

Cryptograph (organisation) (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)

Can't find sources about the company, only about auctions that occurred on the platform. Current sources are about auctions that occurred on the platform. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As mentioned, coverage in the sources listed is about the auction itself not the company. Coverage is routine per
  WP:GNG. ProofRobust 23:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Topic fails
  HighKing⁺⁺ 16:54, 22 November 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 List of The X-Files characters. ✗plicit 14:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Bond

Jimmy Bond (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)

Minor character from X-Files who should probably be redirected to List of The X-Files characters as there is nothing in the article, or my BEFORe, that suggest he merits a stand-alone article. No reception section, only 'character creation' goes beyond plot summary, and that's sourced to DVD audio commentary... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this a relevant source? Daranios (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:SIGCOV anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Merge to List of The X-Files characters. The character appears in some secondary sources, like the one discussed above or The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-Present, p. 807, and others, so it should be included somewhere on Wikipedia. I did not see enough coverage for a full article so far, however. A redirect, on the other hand, would not suffice, as the character is not yet included in the List of The X-Files characters. He is briefly discussed at The Lone Gunmen (TV series), but that's not an ideal target as the character appears both in that series as well as in The X-Files. Daranios (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 01:50, 23 November 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.

Alex Krycek

Alex Krycek (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)

Minor X-Files character, the reception seception section is unreferenced and de facto fake (it's more plot summary). My BEFORE failed to find any sources that discuss in him in a way that meets

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only sources I could find were passing mentions that do not meet
  WP:NOTPLOT. Jontesta (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to List of The X-Files characters#Alex Krycek. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's see: Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet: New Essays, p. 139-143 talks a lot about the character, including analysis and impact! Daranios (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daranios With Z-library offline, I am having trouble verifying the SIGCOV, although the snippets do look promising. Do you have access to all pages? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: found the book at IA: The analysis concerns not so much the canon Krycek but one that appears in "Torchi's 197 Ghosts, a 96,000-word X-file [fan-fiction] novel that pais Fox Mulder with Alex Krycek". Deborah Kaplan, chapter's author, has the following to say about canon Krycek: "Krycek only occasionally appears in X-Files canon... Krycek is a minimally drawn secondary character". There is some analysis, but of fan-fiction/non-canon Krycek. I am concerned that this is a decent source to add a note about his portrayal in fan-fiction, but not necessarily for estabilishing notability of the main character. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:OVERLAP.) There is a bit more characterization of the canon Krycek there in those pages I can see: He's a villain, "a complicated villain with unclear motivations", "a multivoiced character", "a double-crossing double or triple agent, wickedly clever", a murdering opponent who also helps and does not want to harm the main characters. And goes on to analyze that the canon version has led to "a common fan interpretation of Krycek as despicable", while at the same time, despite its "unsavory aspects" it allows without contradictions for a comparatively sympathetic depiction in Ghosts, which in turn has "taken such a strong hold". Taking everything together I think a reasonable paragraph of analysis could be written to balance the plot summary (and we already have the conceptual history bit). That's enough for me. Daranios (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep In addition to the one above there is a good half-page section at The X-Files FAQ with plot summary and commentary, surely not a passing mention (+ more throughout the book). There is also shorter non-plot commentary in many different sources, like [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. So it should be easily possible to improve what we have to a non-stubby article that fullfills the requirements of both
  WP:ALLPLOT. No reason for deletion. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  For the FAQ, I'd call it borderline. The last paragrah, two sentences long, is an analysis, the rest is plot summary. The other shorter mentions seem very short and not SIGCOV, some of them are as short as just passing descriptions of Krycek as "Moulder's nemesis" etc. I'd say the notability of Krycek, if those are the sources we have, hinges on the first source. Would be good to get access to entire pages and verify the extent of analysis there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Calling a character memorable or notable is something of a tautology, but the
  significant coverage of a recurring character is quantifiable. The article needs improvement, but that's not the purpose of AfD. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 23 November 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 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2026 ICC Men's T20 World Cup

2026 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (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)

Tournament has no coverage other than that it will occur, so currently fails GNG. There is a prior instance of this tournament in 2024, so case of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - restore the redirect
  WP:TOOSOON.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:TOOSOON. Also, the redirect should be protected to stop the restoration attempts. BcJvs | talk UTC 11:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sri Lanka and India. Skynxnex (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: You can see this category which has the list of all years ICC Men's T20 World Cup which means every years' ICC Men's T20 World Cup are notable, but this ICC Men's T20 World Cup has been made long time before the event organized, so it will have to be draftify. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 18:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Redirect to ICC Men's T20 World Cup as per norm. ProofRobust 23:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ICC Men's T20 World Cup Restoring the redirect seems like the sensible solution here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Arun Sood

Arun Sood (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)

Mayors of a small cities are not notable to have an independent article. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  significant and more than merely routine coverage outside of the local media. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 23 November 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.

Ravi Kant Sharma

Ravi Kant Sharma (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)

Mayors of a small cities are not notable to have an independent article. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  significant and more than merely routine coverage outside of the local media. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 23 November 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 Sprinklr. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ragy Thomas

Ragy Thomas (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)