Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< September 12 September 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. We can't redirect to a redirect. Should the status of List of... change, this redirect can be created as part of the editorial process. Star Mississippi 00:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Mahmood

Zafar Mahmood (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)

Zafar Mahmood

Cricketer whose only reference is a database entry (no longer permitted as the only reference) and for whom no claim is made that would satisfy

cricket notability because there is no indication that he played test cricket or otherwise played internationally. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 13 September 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 West Boca Raton Community High School. Star Mississippi 00:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WBCHS

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

I find no indication that the acronym WBCHS is used either for white blood cells or for the West Boca Raton Community High School. In fact, a Google search finds "West Brooklyn Community High School" (no article on Wikipedia) and that's basically it. Pichpich (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to Redirect to High School When I originally ran into this page, it redirected to White Blood Cell. I wanted to preserve the original redirect without ruffling any feathers, but if no sources are saying it, let's get rid of that part.
However, multiple sources (see Active Kids, Active Communities, Events.com, the principal of the school himself, and Active.com) all use the abbreviation. I see no reason to remove the redirect for the high school. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:32, 14 September 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 Desi Arnaz. Star Mississippi 00:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Mack Hirsch

Edith Mack Hirsch (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)

An editor even writes in the first paragraph that she is best known for being married to a celebrity. That in and of itself makes her not notable. BostonMensa (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect sounds like great solution! Intrepid203 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have never figured out why you need to redirect rather than delete or merge. But either way, someone interested enough can incorporate the information amd citations to Desi’s page. BostonMensa (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, redirect is probably better. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bassett's Tour 2022

Joshua Bassett's Tour 2022 (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 a concert tour, not

self-published website about himself, another is to an indiscriminate setlist database that still isn't a notability maker, and two more just glancingly namecheck Joshua Bassett in passing without being about him or the tour in any non-trivial sense. And of the just five footnotes that are actually both about the tour and from real GNG-building media, they all just basically verify the tour's existence without saying anything that would satisfy the notability criteria that NTOUR is looking for. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marinus Larsen

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

I can't find any evidence this person served in the Utah state House, but even if he had he fails

WP:NPOL. I would also say that two tertiary sources by themselves are not enough to establish notability. The provided sources are also missing inline citations and I cannot figure out where to access them online so cannot validate anything. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

You're welcome. You should close this AFD yourself. See
Banks Irk (talk) 00:03, 15 September 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! 22:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabse Badkar Hum

Sabse Badkar Hum (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "de prod" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:32, 13 September 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. Keep given recent article improvements. The movie looks terrible but the article is in acceptable shape. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamebox 1.0

Gamebox 1.0 (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)

Tagged as unsourced for over a year, doesn't appear to have ever had sources, and my search didn't come up with any useful coverage. QuietHere (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is one reliable source review at DVDTalk [4] DonaldD23 talk to me 18:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think I saw that in my search but saw the Amazon price listing and assumed it was a sales site, so thanks for the double-check. And the review is most likely good given it's written by Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic Scott Weinberg. Just one review isn't enough to save the article but it's a start. QuietHere (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so it's a movie and not a homebrew thing... Not terribly much else, this on IGN [5], like half a review. One more source and we might be at GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks coverage for notability Andre🚐 18:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite ready to withdraw 'cause I still want more opinions on this, but with the sources that have been added this might just squeeze by now. Thanks all for the searching, love to see a rescued article so hopefully it gets there. QuietHere (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It has two reviews and I was also able to find something to give it a bit of a production section as well. It's not the most stellar article, but I think that overall there's enough to justify a weak keep here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as three reliable sources have been added to the article so that
    WP:GNG is met and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that sourcing is insufficient. Happy to provide n Draft if someone wants to incubate Star Mississippi 00:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Project against Hate and Extremism

Global Project against Hate and Extremism (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)

None of the secondary sources cited in the article are about the organization. They cite some reports or declarations by the organization, or people affiliated with the organization, but they do not provide significant coverage about the organization. The most "in-depth" source seems to be The Irish Times [6], which includes a full paragraph about it, but that is still not significant. So it does not pass

WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

This seems to be an interview by a blogging site. Blogs are, in general, not reliable sources. They can sometimes be used to cite simple facts, but don't help with establishing notabiltiy, and as a result, not with this Deletion discussion. Please understand that we are not trying to do a "premature deletion". I personally find the work this org does to be very valuable, and am hopeful and, by current trajectory, optimistic that they will evantually become notable enough to have this article re-created. Such things are not unusual. However, we can't make exceptions for things we may be sympathetic towards, our policy must apply to all equally. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the argument that Wikipedia could and should have multiple articles on individual reports of this org (from a quick look at least two reports are uncontroversially notable) rather than one article on the org and its work seems unpersuasive. It would be nonsensical make-work to require two (or more) less comprehensive articles in its stead. A band with multiple album reviews should not have its page deleted on the grounds that it should have multiple articles for each notable album but no parent article. If anything it would make more sense to merge the album articles to a parent article.
    I also think that nearly all the many media reports noticing this org tell their readers what the org is. This is by definition non-trivial, not a listing, not a passing mention. To discount it because it may be to a greater or lesser extent “brief” seems tortuous when the rest of the article gets on with detailing the org’s work.
    Thinking of other ways to include this info, a redirect to a new section of, say, the notable Heidi Beirich seems unsatisfactory because she is only a co-founder of the org …and Wikipedia has no page for her in any case. 78.18.239.47 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, report 1:
    Irish Times [9], MSN/Irish Independent [10], PinkNews [11]. Report 3: Irish Examiner [12], Forbes [13]
    The deletion position can only be that no two of these are instances of taking significant notice of the org but I don’t see that that holds.
    Additionally, the founders are cited in their capacity as founders 9 or 10 times in each of the New York Times and Washington Post, as well as by NPR, TIME, CNN, etc. And various general descriptions of the org exist in these outlets and others. 78.18.234.190 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on relisting: It seems unnecessary. Four longstanding editors (counting the AFD nominator), each with thousands or tens of thousands of edits, all gave delete arguments citing relevant policies and/or evaluating the sources. Two IP's participated, which is welcome and appropriate. Anyone is welcome here if they bring relevant new information or present arguments aligning with Wikipedia policy. I find the keep votes unpersuasive in light of Wikipedia policy. They substantially amount to
    WP:INHERITED claims for Notability, misunderstanding of passing mention, and the like. This organization may well be doing good things, it may well pass the inclusion criteria to have a Wikipedia article in the future, but unfortunately it doesn't currently satisfy WP:Notability. I welcome anyone else who wishes to respond here, but I would suggest that the current response is sufficient for a consensus result even if the relisting brings no one new. Alsee (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The relister probably has a few edits too. Among deletion opiners, LordPeterII considers the Irish Times piece a fine source for our purposes, so perhaps he also misunderstands, or you do, or opinions differ. 78.18.234.190 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my vote, as one source is not enough.
    WP:SIRS contains an example of a neat "source assessment table" (which I don't have energy to create here), which illustrates more visually the issue: Yes, the Irish Times is usable here imo, but almost anyone you ask would say significant coverage or multiple sources do not imply one suffices. We would need, in my personal opinion, at least three sources of the quality of the Irish Times, which means two are lacking. I am quite optimistic that in the future, these lacking sources will eventually appear, and the article will eventually be re-instated (at least I hope that, there's no certainty about the future). So yes, opinions differ. The relist didn't hurt though, and the closing editor needs to evaluate the strength of arguments anyway. –LordPeterII (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I added links under my keep which I think rise to the same standard. 78.18.253.136 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked these. Reliable sources certainly, but still only passing mentions. They discuss an issue, quote people, and then briefly mention GPAHE. If I had a discussion with my friend, who'd at some point say "... oh yes, and the report is from Global Project against Hate and Extremism, check them out if you like. Anyway, as I was saying ..." I wouldn't tell others that my friend was talking about GPAHE primarily or extensively (not sure if this allegory is the best, but eh). Mentioning twice or even just once that an organization exists does not suffice, even if some of their products, reports, or members are discussed. But I think we must agree to disagree here, and leave the decision to the closing admin. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:55, 19 September 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. It looks like the majority of editors in this discussion believe this town satisfies

WP:GEOLAND. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Lee, Indiana

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

Here I have come across a new low in edit comments, with the whole section on the Monon added with the following note: "Added more info. Mostly hearsay from men and women who were at there at the time." The section on the railroad museum is also padding, as it is nowhere near Lee. Also in the edit comments is a citation to A Standard History of White County, Indiana from 1915, which on pp. 209-210 identifies the place as a post office and shipping point on the Monon; the writer records an aspiration of the place to develop beyond that, but given the date of publication I would want something later to record that expansion. As it is, we have a few houses sprinkled about with nothing else suggesting a town. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 19:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this might meet
    WP:GEOLAND has given me headaches before), so only leaving a comment. –LordPickleII (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    It is unfortunate that the book is not online, but a preview by the State of Indiana government website regarding legacy projects does reference it and supports the statement: These stops became small towns complete with a depot, stores and early settlers. Lee, Indiana, like so many throughout the state, died out when the rail lines stopped and closed depots. Djflem (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Performed a newspapers.com search. This location is variously called Lee, Lee Station, and Lee's Station. Only coverage I can find is sporadic mentions in obituaries and railway news (e.g. "Man hit by train four miles from Lee Station"). There was apparently a "Lee M.E. church", but other than that, nothing new. Fails NGEO and GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly a post office, a rail station, and church [14][15] are a settlement/community, no? Even if somewhat abandoned? per Bass, Cotter (2020), The Treasure Hunter's Guide To INDIANA'S LOST & BURIED TREASURES: Plus GHOST TOWNS & HISTORIC SITES, BookRix,
    ISBN 9783748767732 Djflem (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sure, but not satisfying NGEO I think as "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." I do not think there is enough SIGCOV. "Lee was place with a post office open from X to Y and had a rail depot and church" is hardly an article. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As as NGEO NGEO says (see below), it's appropriate to redirect/merge. Djflem (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (selective) to
    Wikipedia:NGEO If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. and per Hamelle, W. H. (1915), A Standard History of White County, Indiana: An Authentic Narrative of the Past, with an Extended Survey of Modern Developments in the Progress of Town and Country, University of Wisconsin - Madison, p. 209, OAKDALE, OR LEE The only existing postoffice in Monon Township outside the village is Lee , in the northwest corner , about a mile from the Jasper County line on the Louisville , New Albany & Chicago (Monon) Railroad. and other. Djflem (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Keep per HEY (additions and improvements to article): satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    Pleasant Acres and others tend to be just indistinguishable points along county roads.) It also has documented history; for any small rural community it's to be expected that it'll be sparse, and no less so for Lee that for many others that we rightly retain. Though it's certainly small, Lee appears to be a legitimate town, and deleting it would be contrary to the guidance at GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." ╠╣uw [talk] 11:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    How is it "legally recognized"? It doesn't appear to have ever been incorporated. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not incorporated (at least not that I'm aware of), but even under GEOLAND's guidelines for populated places without legal recognition it's still appropriate to retain the article, in that it has the characteristics and long-term historical indicators of a legitimate and extant (though small and unincorporated) town, and not just a non-notable GNIS/GEOnNS artifact. I support efforts to clean up Wikipedia by getting rid of the latter, but I favor keeping the former. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal recognition and incorporation are not one and the same thing by any means (the former being a poorly defined term Wikipedia term in a geographical context, bantered about for a long time). It's just that incorporated places get a "free pass to "wikinotablity" via NGEO. It's not even clear if townships in Indiana are incorporated, but they, too, get a "free pass". Djflem (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was wondering about the "legal recognition" phrase too since it seems a bit murky, and as you say it's not synonymous with incorporation. For things that are more than just "GNIS fluff" and for which at least a modicum of documentary and historical evidence exists in reliable sources, I think it's best to retain, and it seems like Lee's in that group. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know there have been debates about what "legal recognition" entails. Incorporation is just an example of something that satisfies that. What kind of legal recognition are you talking about? Is there evidence that this is a CDP? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears we moved away from the unuseful debate about legal recognition, which is a non-defining term. What would be inappropriate about following the NGEO guidle line which suggests merge for "informal places"? Djflem (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since GEOLANDS separates guidelines on the basis of legal recognition, it unfortunately seems like something we do still have to consider. Is being formally platted as a town something that would constitute a form of legal recognition? (If so, that's something I could probably verify.) ╠╣uw [talk] 14:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That might depend on who platted it. The town of Pembroke, North Carolina, for example, was platted by a real estate management subsidiary of the railway company which built a station there, several years before the town gained incorporation, so that lots could be sold to people and businesses who wanted to locate nearby. Private platting doesn't seem like "legal recognition". -Indy beetle (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No actual evidence of legal recognition or significant coverage to meet GEOLAND or GNG. Despite its age, A Standard History of White County, Indiana (1915) is the best source we have; The Treasure Hunter's Guide To INDIANA'S LOST & BURIED TREASURES is self-published through Bookrix and many of its entries cite Wikipedia. With these old platted towns, it's often hard to parse whether or not they were ever actually developed, but it's telling that after 30 years of existence the 1915 source only mentions it as a post office instead of including it alongside the town of Monon/New Bradford. If there had been anything in Lee besides the post office and railroad shipping point, then surely the author would have said so. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Conjecture about what and why a writer writes something or not is clearly not a AfD argument, is it? Twenty five years later still worthy of inclusion in this 1908 map. Unclear what is depicted in this 1920 map. Could it be the church, which goes unmentioned above, but certainly speaks to more than a PO or RR station? Djflem (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the 1915 source doesn't say it was only a post office: "Oakdale, or Lee, is an important shipping point for hay. Hundreds of tons are baled at the station every year and shipped abroad, and, with the improvement of the surrounding farming lands, it has become an equally good point for the marketing and shipping of grain." (Multiple other sources also call out the grain market.) So we know it was at least a post office, railway station, grain market, and center for transportation of local bulk agricultural products including grain and hay. The town's roughly 120 lots were also laid out on multiple named streets, three of which are still there today. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I took a trip to the library (and explored more online) to look for additional supporting sources and found several more which I've added to the article. I actually wound up

boldly
rewriting a majority of the article text, not just to incorporate the new sources but also to flesh out the historical summary and geographical descriptions, correct some minor errors and misstatements, add a photo of the town, etc.

A few of the additional sources relate specifically to Lee and its history, features, status, etc. It's noted in Baker and Carmony's Indiana Place Names (1975) and in Baker's From Needmore to Prosperity (1995), which describes it as a village and grain market established by (and named for) ID&C Railroad President John Lee in 1883. The origins are also described by the Monon Railroad Historical Technical-Society (citation added). I note too that Hamelle's Standard History (previously cited) describes Lee as "an important shipping point for hay" as well as a local center for grain shipping and marketing; this point wasn't previously mentioned in the text but is now included. As I mentioned earlier I also wanted to find more plat-related details, and though I wasn't able to check the original records in Monticello I did find multiple volumes of official plat books in the library (published from 1990 through the early 2000s) that identify Lee as a town or village, rather than simply a point. I'll follow up with more details when I get the actual plat.

Some of the other newly-added sources touch only on related subjects in the article such as the history of the railroad that passes through town, the local geography, etc., and so aren't strictly relevant to this discussion; I included them while I was doing my update, though, just in the interest of strengthening the article overall.

(Note: Several of the reference citations I put in have overly length quotation blocks, something I did deliberately as a temporary aid to expanding and reviewing the article. These can and should be trimmed down once they've been reviewed.) ╠╣uw [talk] 16:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources found by Huwmanbeing. A trip to the library, wow! That's kinda old school, I like it :) Coverage is still a little thin, but I am convinced the sources now suffice to establish notability. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This appears to satisfy
    WP:DEL-REASON#8 is off the table. The sourcing is substantial enough to write a brief encyclopedia entry, but this is not destined to be a permastub. As such, I see no convincing reason to do anything other than keep the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"Presumed to be notable" isn't the same thing as actually being notable, something can pass WP:GEOLAND and still be reasonably deleted per consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND
is perfectly sufficient and does not require a GNG pass. That being said, this article also does pass GNG through coverage by multiple independent RS, including:
  1. [16] pp. 209-210, which describes the origin of the town
  2. [17], which per the Indiana Bicentennial Commission is a whole book on the history of Lee.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG with the two pieces of SIGCOV listed above by Red-tailed hawk, which includes a whole book on this town's history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the place had a fucntioning post office for 50 years, that'll generate coverage, even if it's never made it to digital.
    talk) 22:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm not aware that post offices typically generate coverage and our guidelines certainly don't support that assertion.
WP:NRV requires "verificable, objective evidence", not just a vague claim that sources probably exist offline. –dlthewave ☎ 12:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is to Delete this article. But like with many others, an article might be possible in the future should available

reliable sources (not Google hits) improve in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Aya Shalkar

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG. Kadı Message 21:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants, Popular culture, and Kazakhstan. Kadı Message 21:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable influencer, no sources found. Ones given appear trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Weak, because there is no critique of the soruces present (in Russian). Plus a Russian-language search should be carried out to confirm there are no sources. No, I am not doing either, neither, but at least I admit my shortcomings, hence the weak qualifications. That said, responsibility to clearly indicate why the subject is notable, and format footnotes correctly with info on publisher, etc. to indicate they are relable, translate names in citations templates, etc. is the responsibility of the creator. Since they didn't do so, the article looks like it fails GNG/NBIO, hence - leaning delete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep instead of deleting, using it as stub and expending the article would much make more sense cuz this article doesn't even mention LoL copyright controversy. ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, @ZeusAmmon1. According to your Turkish and English Wikipedia edits which belongs to Aya Shalkar makes me think about WP:COI. Do you have a connection with Aya Shalkar? Kadı Message 19:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahaha This is exactly what you're doing here. You started a deletion request here after deleting it there. By the way on English wikipedia i don't have any edit. So what are you talking about? Check the authorship ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to understand the first part of this comment, but I must explain that there is a trwiki side of this story as well. ZeusAmmon created the article of this subject on trwiki on 6 September, which was speedy deleted per M6 (similar to A7 of enwiki), then recreated by him the next day, then deleted again and salted as well. He took this to
~StyyxTalk? 20:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
AfD isn't different, but speedy deletion is. Trwikis M6 allows you to pretty much tag everything that doesn't have two sources (GNG pass), while enwikis A7 applies to only a set of limited articles that don't have a credible claim of significance. This would pass a trwiki M6, but not an enwiki A7. Why the two patrollers on trwiki went for CSD and not AfD is beyond my knowledge, but there is no such requirement of sending everything to AfD, and two seperate admins have deleted it. Being eligable for speedy deletion isn't a "ridiculous reason".
You do realize that this very edit of yours is an Aya Shalkar related edit, right? And that's the point here: you come to participate in an AfD discussion in a project where you have no idea as to how its deletion process works.
~StyyxTalk? 22:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You do realise we're not at wiki/Aya_Shalkar or /wiki/Talk:Aya_Shalkar ? ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently commenting at the deletion discussion of Aya Shalkar.
~StyyxTalk? 17:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch monkey

Scratch monkey (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)

Wikipedia is not a jargon guide or dictionary. The original University of Toronto story has been mentioned in book sources outside of the Hacker's Dictionary/Jargon File, but likewise only as a dictionary entry 1 2. This is not significant coverage that indicates the

information on the social or historical significance of the term required to justify this term having its own article. Pinguinn 🐧 20:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Socialists of Vojvodina

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

I don't believe there is enough out there to meet

WP:NORG
. I've found only passing mentions of the political party, in both English and Serbian.

Everything I've found. Books: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. News: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. PDFs: [30] [31]. Websites: [32] [33]. SWinxy (talk) 19:37, 13 September 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. BD2412 T 06:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Kirillov (born 2002)

Ilya Kirillov (born 2002) (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 any evidence of notability. To date, he has played 9 minutes in a semi-pro league, which is not a valid claim to notability. Google News and a Russian source search have only trivial mentions of Kirillov. Does not appear to pass

WP:GNG as there appears to be an absence of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 13 September 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 Water features on the Canal du Midi. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Déversoir de St-Jean

Déversoir de St-Jean (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)
Déversoir de Marseillette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Déversoir de Villepinte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Stubs from 2010 about

WP:GNG. dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 18:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete/redirect to Water features on the Canal du Midi. No evidence of notability. Reywas92Talk 02:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per

(non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Failed ping Blaze Wolf —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Hicks (musicologist)

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

Per a PROD that was removed, this person doesn't appear to be notable, and a quick search for reliable refs only returns 1 result which appears to just link to this page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spencer Kimball’s Record Collection: Essays in Mormon Music
  1. in Notes[34]
  2. in Dialogue[35]
  3. in Utah Historical Quarterly[36]
  4. from the Association of Mormon Letters[37]
  • Mormonism and Music: A History
  1. in BYU Studies[38]
  2. in American Music[39]
  3. in Dialogue[40]
  4. in Pacific Historical Review[41]
  5. in Western Historical Quarterly[42]
  6. in Studies in Popular Culture[43]
  7. in The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal (original edition)[44]
  8. in The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal (reissue in 2004)[45]
  9. in The Journal of Arizona History[46]
  • The Mormon Tabernacle Choir: A Biography
  1. in The Wall Street Journal[47]
  2. in Notes[48]
  3. in BYU Studies[49]
  4. in Nova Religio[50][51]
  5. in By Common Consent[52]
  6. from the Association of Mormon Letters (which I can't access at the moment)
  • Henry Cowell, Bohemian (his work on Cowell is referenced in the NY Times[53]
  1. in Notes[54]
  2. in American Music[55]
  • Sixties Rock: Garage, Psychedelic, and Other Satisfactions
  1. in Notes[56]
  2. in Labour[57]
  3. in Ethnomusicology[58]
Jahaza (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xander Kostroma

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

Not finding any better sources. Fails

WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Vampola

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

Fails

WP:JUDGE (district level judge, not state level) Paul W (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Did not find coverage in reliable sources which would indicate that
WP:BIO can be met. SmartSE (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears that the main impetus for the WP article, that the subject of the article resigned as a judge under suspicious circumstances, is from resources dated Sept. 11, 2022 - just days ago. The only significant resources all are from the same date and are primarily about the resignation but do include background information that has been added to the article. The sources are lengthy and suitably about him, but I don't see notability. It's not quite a WP:ONEEVENT because the articles recount a small number of transgressions, but none of the events are of encyclopedic interest. Lamona (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:JUDGE, the "part of the enduring historical record" clause isn't met here. Unless something major happens with this case, I see no reason to keep this. Etrius ( Us) 19:51, 18 September 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action Deaf Youth

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

Promotional article on a subject which is non-notable. Searched around and found nothing much Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional articles can be edited to be more neutral. When using search engines, adjust your location settings to find more relevant results (e.g. google.co.uk). Make use of the Internet Archive and Wikipedia Library. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is the largest deaf youth organisation in Northern Ireland, and current sourcing satisfies
    WP:NONPROFIT. Most in-depth coverage is the 2017 article in BelfastLive – although it includes quotes from two members from the charity, it is a lengthy piece which also includes many paragraphs of text written by reporter Sarah Scott. Other significant coverage includes two articles in Belfast Telegraph – one of which doesn’t count toward notability, as it’s contributed by co-founder Malachy McBurney, but the other focuses on a landmark report co-authored by the Northern Irish Deaf Youth Association (as Action Deaf Youth was previously known) which was presented to the Ministry of Education. The 2022 article in Larne Times is also helpful in providing a summary overview of the charity. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:54, 18 September 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 Indian Predator: The Diary of a Serial Killer. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Jindal

Dheeraj Jindal (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)

He is by no means a notable filmmaker. Still has a long way to go.

WP:NOTCV. RPSkokie (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft redirect to wiktionary entry. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caput

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

This seems like another

WP:GNG. Wikitionary entry will suffice for such entities. Ps. Note that this was transwikid even back in the very early days (2006) but apparently restored and survived till now. A quick glance at Category:Latin words and phrases suggests we have some major house cleaning to do here... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy delete - performed by User:Ponyo. UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Study Techniques

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

I had to decline the speedy on this, as it didn't fit A11, nor any of the others. Fails

WP:NOTGUIDE at the very least. GedUK  13:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mental plane

Mental plane (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)

Although there is content on the page it is all unsourced. The page is quite unclear about what the article is about, claiming to be about

WP:TNT to allow a new targetted page on whatever the subject should be. However, my research suggests that the Mental Plane is largely a sub element of Theosophical Cosmology and would be better treated in that subject as a whole, or as Blavatsky's cosmology rather than as a separate page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not a fan of "No consensus" but there seems to be a fundamental disagreement here about whether or not this subject passes

WP:HISTMERGE the two articles and an admin handling article merges can consider the request. I appreciate the participating editors not moving this article around to different titles during this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Caylee Cowan(actress)

Caylee Cowan(actress) (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 was deleted before because of

WP:SIGCOV can causes notability. Please check out notability of subject. AmirŞah 11:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

In 2019, her significant role was only in
WP:RS. ZanciD (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Also the title of article should be fixed and moved to Caylee Cowan. ZanciD (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There reliable sources and several leading roles.
    talk) 17:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western Province Prep

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

Non-notable school. Not a secondary school. Fails

WP:NCORP. All three references are from connected sources. No improvement since I tagged for notability four years ago. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

E) 10:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cai Haoyu

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

Fails

WP:NBIO Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 09:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
    reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject

    .

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    1. Feng, Yunyun 冯云云 (2022-07-15). ""野蛮生长"米哈游：济南小伙在上海创业，身价直逼李彦宏" ["Barbaric Growth" Mihayou: The Jinan guy started a business in Shanghai, and his worth is close to Li Yanhong]. Shandong Business Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12 – via Economic Daily.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "According to local media reports in Jinan, Cai Haoyu, who was born in 1987, is a native of Jinan. He attended the primary school in Jinan Baliqiao Primary School. At the age of 11, he was elected as the "first batch of junior academicians of the Chinese Academy of Youth Sciences". In 2005, he was admitted to Shanghai Jiaotong University. In 2011, 24-year-old Cai Haoyu and [his co-founders] founded Mihayou after winning 100,000 yuan from the "Eagle Program" of the Shanghai Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Center Student Entrepreneurship Foundation."

      The article further notes from Google Translate: "In the "2022 New Fortune 500 Rich List" released in May this year, Cai Haoyu ranked 73rd with a wealth value of 55.35 billion yuan. ... This is the first time that 35-year-old Cai Haoyu has been included in the 500 rich list. Among the top 100 in the list, Cai Haoyu is the only entrepreneur who was shortlisted for the single item "game"."

    2. Lin, 林红艳 (2022-03-09). Kang, Linghua 康玲华 (ed.). "米哈游CEO蔡浩宇上学时就研发网游 公司却因"兔女郎"引轩然大波" [Mihayou CEO Cai Haoyu developed online games when he was in school, but the company caused an uproar because of the "bunny girl"]. 运营商财经 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12 – via NetEase.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "According to public information, Cai Haoyu was born in 1987, was admitted to Shanghai Jiaotong University in 2005, and then studied for a master's degree in computer science at the school. In 2011, Cai Haoyu, Liu Wei and Luo Yuhao, who were in the second year of graduate school at the time, jointly established Mihayou Studio and started his business."

    3. Tang, Zhenglu 唐正璐, ed. (2022-06-21). "三位年轻人，造出游戏界"印钞机"，席卷全球，缔造千亿估值" [Three young people created a "money printing machine" in the game industry, sweeping the world and creating a valuation of 100 billion]. 七禾网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "According to public information, Cai Haoyu, who has just become the richest man in Jinan, is the CEO of Mihayou. He was born in Jinan, Shandong in 1987. His parents are teachers who teach computer-related subjects. Cai Haoyu has shown a strong interest in computer games since he was a child, and he has also shown an intuition that is unmatched by ordinary people. After his parents discovered that he was gifted in this area, they began to systematically teach him relevant computer knowledge. With the computer knowledge he learned, in 1996, Cai Haoyu, who was only 8 years old, made "Alien Envoy" by himself and won the second prize in the animation group of the National Computer Competition. Two years after winning the award, at the age of 10, he was elected as the "Little Academician" of the Chinese Academy of Juveniles with his professional knowledge in the computer field."

    4. Bu, Jing 步静, ed. (2019-02-22). "别人家的孩子太优秀！这些"85后"正踏上IPO征途" [Other people's children are amazing! These "post-85s" are embarking on the IPO journey]. Shanghai Securities Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12 – via National Business Daily.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Cai Haoyu, chairman of Mihayou, was born in a businessman family. Influenced by his parents, he had the gene for "doing business" since he was a child. When he was in junior high school, he was a little smart in Japan, he sold watches in high school. He opened an account to speculate in stocks when he was an adult. When he was in college, he could earn more than 300,000 a month. But doing business did not delay his studies. After graduating from Shanghai Jiaotong University with a master's degree, Cai Haoyu ran all the way on the road of entrepreneurship. In 2012, Cai Haoyu and two classmates from Shanghai Jiaotong University founded Mihayou, whose business mainly focuses on domestic animation mobile games, comics and other fields."

    There is sufficient coverage in
    reliable sources to allow Cai Haoyu (Chinese: 蔡浩宇) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

That's good and all but I don't think they have made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". Futher the whole article reads like a cross between a promo and resume. Just having money and running a company is not notable. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" is a quote from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography, a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, which says:

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.

A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

Cai Haoyu is notable under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.

While the article can be improved to be more neutral, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

Cunard (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Merge - to
    mihoyo, which much of the current prose is more about. If someone can muster up a proper bio with reliable sourcing, I don't have a problem with splitting it back out. But we're far from that in the articles current prose. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm not sure User:Dr vulpes. I've seen this happen a couple of times where, during an AFD, an article isn't just improved but changed, in one case, to be about a different subject. I'm not sure why editors can't wait for an AFD to close before making major changes or merging articles. I'll ping Sergecross73 to see what they think. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Cunard has done anything wrong - Ive many times in the past rewritten articles in efforts to keep poor/lazy deletion nominations. Not that this nom was either - it was a very good nomination for the articles original form. Honestly, I'm probably more of a "neutral" in all this right now. Cunard did address my main concerns...but at the same time, it's still a pretty rough bio. Which isn't to slight to Cunard either, I imagine the goal was merely do enough to keep the article, not write a comprehensive bio on the subject. And they didn't so much "change the subject" as much as they removed the off-topic stuff and added on-topic content.
Sorry, that's a lot of musing without a solution. Here's what we could try - maybe we relist it one more time, and I could leave a neutral note at
WP:VG asking for more input because we're at a bit of a stalemate. WP:VG usually has a bunch of regulars that participate at AFD, and for whatever reason I was really the only one who jumped on this time. A nudge could help. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I have substantially rewritten articles at AfDs numerous times in the past too. I did so in this particular case because two editors (Sergecross73 and Jumpytoo) said they were willing to reconsider their "merge" position if the article was reframed to be about the person rather than the company he founded. Per
WP:VG asking for more input.

Cunard (talk) 07:46, 21 September 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! 07:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ad interim

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

This seems to be a classic case of

WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps a redirect to List of Latin phrases (assuming this is a phrase, technically...?) would be best WP:PRESEVE-minded outcome? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak keep We have an article on ad hominem but why not on ad interim?
Madame Necker (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (follow this link to see the critique of your argument). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Orkhan Valiyev

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

Not clear why he is notable. Cant find any references in English for him. Rathfelder (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no sources found, article says he travels, plays sports and has a pending book. ROUTINE. No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 13 September 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! 07:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Isidore Village

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

Non-notable subdivision. Fails

WP:GEOLAND. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@HueMan1: Okay. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:GEOLAND per nom. There are several villages in various towns and cities which carry that name. SBKSPP (talk) 01:37, 17 September 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! 07:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Marea (village)

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

Non-notable subdivision. Fails

WP:GEOLAND. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Meltzer (writer)

David Meltzer (writer) (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)

Unable to locate

WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Only source for
WP:SIGCOV would be the Forbes article, even with that it's a clear fail. QuietHere (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep bad faith nomination by a sock account. BilletsMauves€500 07:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that the nominator is a sock isn't really relevant since a non-sock has presented a good-faith argument to delete, so we should look at the merits here. I don't think either of the listed awards are "well-known and significant" for purposes of
    GNG-qualifying coverage didn't turn up anything that is independent (not, e.g., an interview or press release), is reliable, and discusses Meltzer in detail. Not notable, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 13 September 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

WP:GNG issue. Content can be merged from the history as deemed appropriate. Sandstein 07:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The Conway Photographic Library

The Conway Photographic Library (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 sources are present in the article. Fails

WP:GNG. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

comment That an article is unreferenced is not ipso facto a reason for deletion; there may be sources. In this case I'm not sure that what I've found suffices to establish notability independant of the Coutauls. However I think that the list of photographers held is useful & much too long (150 entries, most if not all blue link) to lump in with teh Courtauld article, which would suggest a rename and keepTheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 13 September 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! 07:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Lattorff

Camilla Lattorff (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)

Lacks

Fram (talk) 06:57, 13 September 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. Going slightly against the grain of Liz's relist here, but I believe there is consensus that the article as presently defined isn't notable enough for a standalone article. If anyone wishes to propose mergers or renames they are welcome to do so, and I would be willing to provide a userspace copy to anyone who desires it. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nalchik War (1720–1721)

Nalchik War (1720–1721) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've tried to find sources to verify that this war actually occurred and I'm frankly not able to. As such, even if this is not a hoax, I believe that this war has not been covered significantly by multiple independent reliable sources and therefore fails

WP:NEVENT. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Revising my reasons: the source cited in the article has been used elsewhere, so it's plausible that these events did take place (Nalchik refers to the river Nalchik). However, there is so far only the same single source behind all non-RS tertiary references to these events so fails notability per
    WP:NEVENT. I am also concerned there may be OR in the framing of several events as part of a single "war". Surely, a war of months-long duration would have other sources attesting to it.OsFish (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep. This source, which is RS, says "Après la signature du traité de Passarowitz, le khan mena une expédition punitive contre la Kabarda (1720-21)." This source: "In Spring 1720, Sa'adet-Giray Khan camped on the border of Greater Kabarda..." and "the Crimean Khanate ... together with Nogays, raided Circassian lands in 1710-1717 and 1720". I'm convinced it's not a hoax, so unless the cited article is bogus... I need more evidence that it is truly non-notable. Article should probably be re-titled. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both those sources are footnotes. One does not tie any battle in 1721 to events in 1720 and basically exists to say that the source material it comments on is probably confused over the identity of two different leaders, which seems a little worrying. The other does not describe any specific events in the time frame. The problem is in taking these events as a coherent whole as an article. OsFish (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couln't get the book, however, I find another page on Russian wiki quoting this Malbakhov source and talking about the 1721 and Nalchik: ru:Исламбек Мисостов. No war. We are talking about very local fight between military sub-subunits (отряды). --Suitskvarts (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Whether the title is right or not, there seems to have been a conflict. The problem is that this is all based on a single non-English source. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards deletion but would like additional evaluation of the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- There is still only one reference listed in the article itself. I cleaned up the references in the article to make that more apparent. As for the other sources proposed by srnec, the posted excerpts don't seem like more than mention of raids, skirmishes, or small battles, which may have been worthy of comment about some larger scenario. But to me, they don't show evidence that this was anything that is in-and-of-itself notable enough. I wouldn't mind renaming it if a suitable title could be found and if the possible OR could be better documented. Radzy0 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument that started this is "this didn't happen and if it did it wasn't important". The sources I located in <5 minutes of searching online support in broad terms the content of the article, which is cited (it seems) to RS. It is three paragraphs long. What is the problem here? How will deleting this improve the encyclopaedia? Srnec (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist. There seems to be a basic division on the reliability of the sources mentioned or in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as nom. I don't think that the sources are sufficient to support the notion that there was some sort of notable event (i.e. a war) with
    WP:NEVENT. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

John H. Hughes (academic)

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

Fails

WP:NACADEMIC. Search does not bring up notable awards or accomplishments. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An academic with a long and varied career (the vita at the first link is quite comprehensive) but I don't see anything there that would satisfy NPROF or GNG criteria. Unless featuring in regional Who's Whos is now a factor, which I doubt? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:46, 19 September 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! 05:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nithra Apps

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

Non notable company. Many sources cited in the article don't actually mention it. (t · c) buidhe 05:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what I can do to make my article better. Mpromax (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability can't be fixed by any amount of editing, so I'd recommend deleting the article. (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of discussion is Nithra Apps, a start-up company about which I plan to write an article.
Please advise what area I could improve. Mpromax (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe,
Hello, I've just modified and revised my article. I hope my changes make the information more balanced for you. Mpromax (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was unable to find any SIGCOV. Some database sources (e.g., [66]), but nothing that would establish notability. HouseBlastertalk 16:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the SIGCOV sourceMpromax (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mpromax,
    SIGCOV is a good thing. Articles need SIGCOV to be included in the encyclopedia. HouseBlastertalk 14:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment – I'm not sure they really get what the purpose of an AfD is? See our interactions on my talk page. They seem to think that the article meets NCORP, but other than just saying that they haven't really addressed anyone's concerns really? Sources not even mentioning the subject concerns me. They also didn't confirm nor deny when I asked them if it was possible they were a paid editor... I'm not incredibly familiar with what UPE looks like, but I would think the average person would say something along the lines of "no, I'm not being paid for my edits"? Clovermoss (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They also--what I can only describe as--sneakily removed the article from the AfD category, which is not something a new user would know how to do, nor would have any reason to do. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they did it again. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: advertising. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mean as custard,
    The article was edited and removed the promotional advertising content Mpromax (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've just modified and revised my article. I hope my changes make the information more balanced for you. Mpromax (talk) 11:06, 16 September 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 14:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nayakkar Chenai

Nayakkar Chenai (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)

One sentence and two links can't ever justify a Wikipedia article. WP:GEOLAND says places in general are notable. I doubt this would've applied. Virtually all mentions outside Wikipedia is copied text. As an aside, Sorry if I did something wrong here, it's my first time doing this. Jenkowelten (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: You did nothing wrong at all by following the process. Good job. I agree that this page should be deleted. The village simply isn't notable. Now let's see what others think. Best wishes,
    talk) 02:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 04:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The only real clue to this is the map link which is vague but which does seem to point to a temple of the same name, which doesn't seme to lie in a significant settlement of its own. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betta Home Living

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

Non-notable furniture retailer. The only source that could potentially be used on the article is the Sydney Morning Herald source; all the rest are

under role bylines or outright unattributed. A search turns up nothing useful sourcing-wise (string:"betta home living"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Jahaza. The SMH articles clearly show notability, and spurious claims about a lack of a byline don't demonstrate otherwise. Deus et lex (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jahaza's list of sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music Box (software)

Music Box (software) (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)

Insufficient significant coverage located on a search using "music box" + Topologika in order to reduce noise. Aside from the current source (an industry publication for teachers), there was one paragraph in an article from The Independent, and after that, trivial mentions in articles about music software in general. I searched using Google, Newspapers.com, TWL, and JSTOR, so overall I think I've been fairly thorough here. It's not enough to meet

WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

CommentKeep Full page review here[83] in Child Education (also brief mention in same journal w/giveaway when version 2 came out, but may not be editorially independent[84]), additional TES mention here[85], besides the one already cited in the article[86], included in a group review in British Journal of Music Education[87] which I can't access, another mention in The Independent many years later[88]. Archives of substantial reviews in RISC User[89] and Archimedes World[90]. Jahaza (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there isn't enough to warrant a full article, perhaps it can be on a list of Acorn software? ScienceFlyer (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have included a reference on Music Box in the article on Topologika. Please consider mentioning Music Box in the article on Acornsoft. Meanwhile, I will remove the orphan tag. On the basis of the references provided by Jahaza, I would keep the Music Box article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources found by Jahaza. Andre🚐 18:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It seems like the sources Jahaza has provided above shows basic notability through
    WP:NSOFT. I wish I could see what the British Journal of Music Education ref actually says, but the others are more than sufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 20:38, 18 September 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. Clear consensus to delete but unsure if this is a hoax. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek expanded universe

All prior XfDs for this page:


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

I stumbled on this article during a voice call at

☖ 03:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@Retinalsummer: Allright, then we should have some evidence or solid indication that indeed "Some lazy academics" "copied that term from Wikipedia" in this case, before acting on it. Said source has a valid explanation for getting to that term independent of Wikipedia, and as long as there is no indication that the authors are not among the "more rigorous academics", we should not place a hunch from our side above a secondary source. For the second use of the term, the work of the academic sources seems to be mainly in analyzing STAR TREK Expanded Universe Wiki. We should not ignore such analysis just because the name of that wiki may or may not have been taken from an erroneous Wikipedia article. Daranios (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Rob Heeney

Rob Heeney (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)

Nominated for deletion, as there is not a single reference, and comedian does not appear notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven (talk • contribs) 23:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Durgham Maraee

Durgham Maraee (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)

Hello all.

  1. The character is an Arab and Palestinian and has no article on the Arabic Wikipedia, and the article on the Arabic Wikipedia has been subjected to rapid deletion.
  2. The character does not meet the criteria for notability and fame in Wikipedia.
  3. There is not enough coverage, and there are no references.
  4. References are disabled and there are references that contain advertisements, and their purpose is not to introduce the character.
  5. The article is too short, and does not achieve sufficient quality. --Osps7 (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet criteria Nzs9 (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 01:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

University of Perpetual Help System JONELTA – Isabela Campus

University of Perpetual Help System JONELTA – Isabela Campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NSCHOOL. Zero hits on Google News and Google Books. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Allen, Indiana

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

A random spot that doesn't appear on the topos until, yes, the 2013 edition, indicating that it was probably copied there from GNIS. Other than that, I got nothing. Mangoe (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Somewhat difficult to search for a common name in a county of the same name, but there doesn't appear to have been a notable community here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Vijay Kumar (British filmmaker)

Vijay Kumar (British filmmaker) (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 Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Why is an article needed when there are no sources that could be used to make content. The only article of use is this. That sources talks about Ajay (his brother) and Vijay but more sources are needed on Vijay. The article was written by this user and have no idea where they got access to sources 1, 6 and 7, but based on the current article almost all of it (if not all of it) is original research that does not explain why he is notable. Could not fins any suitable wikilinks that can be sourced. DareshMohan (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:36, 13 September 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. I see a consensus for deletion but not a consensus for salting or changing this page into a redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Formula One World Championship

2024 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been created then

BLARed three times. I disagree with the BLAR as there is no suitable target, certainly Formula One makes no mention of 2024 except for mention of a tv rights deal. As for the article, it consists entirely of speculation based on existing long-term contracts, and no sources I can find discuss the season itself, but only speculation or articles about aspirations etc (eg [91] which may belong on team/biography articles but are not enough to warrant an article about this season). The season is simply too far away to support an article (noting that 2023 Formula One World Championship only left draftspace permanently in August). So I think deletion or draftification is suitable here (and not redirection). A7V2 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Okay, I had completely missed that you had restored the article from a redirect just to nominate it at AfD. That to me seems confusing and quite ridiculous. Why would you have not just left it BLARed and listed it at
    WP:RfD
    instead?     Reverting the redirect back to an article just to nominate it for AfD makes no sense, and in this case has only ended up distracting discussion participants with answering the question of "should the article exist" (upon which it seems the answer is no, otherwise it would not have been previously BLARed) when the question the discussion ought to have been focusing on was "should this redirect to anywhere" upon which there is some clear division, but not a clear consensus (yet) since that's not what we were asked. Maybe I'm missing something about some obscure technicality in the processes, but if you don't think an article should exist, why would you put it back just to point out how it shouldn't exist? That seems rather counterintuitive and silly. Though at this point that toothpaste is out of the tube in this particular case, so whatever.
Maybe I'm totally off the mark with this comment and reverting a BLAR to start an AfD is a completely normal thing to do, in which case my opinion on it can be disregarded and I'd much appreciate being educated. Ignore this everyone, I'm a dumbass.
inquire within) 10:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to
    WP:TOOSOON to create a page considering the 2023 season has not even started yet and the 2022 season is still in progress. Due to persistent edit-warring, I would also support page protection of this redirect until 1 July 2023 (and no later than that date). Frank Anchor 18:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: Way
    WP:NOTDATABASE apply here, as listing these contracts is unencylopedic in nature, until we get closer to this contracts actually being in force. I also oppose a redirect (perhaps even strongly oppose) as Formula One#Future doesn't discuss this season in any way, shape or form. SSSB (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: There is no point in keeping the article now.--Island92 (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think we can all agree that the page should be deleted. However, there are two issues to further discuss here. First, I felt that the 2023 page was created too late, and should've been created earlier. Second, those suggesting a redirect to Formula One#Future, that section, firstly contains details that's already happened, and second should be updated to discuss long term driver contracts, the calendar expansion etc. etc. Phoenix84621 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That being the case, I strongly support adding that missing information, and maintain my previous opinion that the page should be redirected to
    inquire within) 21:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oppose the addition of contracts to Formula One#Future. The scope of this section is to outline the planned evolution of the series, and it would constitute a database (which Wikipedia is not) to list contracts there simply because the relevant season article does not exist. SSSB (talk) 10:51, 19 September 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. But clearly this article needs some immediate improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilashi University

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

Fails notability criteria MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Himachal Pradesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As the page creator, I wont !vote higher than a weak keep, but I have concerns with the deletion process. The nom has made 12 deletion nominations in 10 minutes, so I doubt they have done a very through
    WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, shows that most such institutes have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. I don't speak the language, but an online news search does show some promise, and local print newspapers might have more. Also, alternatives to deletion were certainly not considered. --Muhandes (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

— Note to closing admin:

XfD. --Muhandes (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. State-recognised universities are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Some measure of notability exists for universities. Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability is there but it is horribly sourced. Gusfriend (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simle

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

The page title is likely a misspelling of

WP:NPLACE. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Google News search for "simle" "nepal" shows plenty of local news for the area. Also, the first point in
WP:NPLACE justifies an article even by itself. — Gmarmstrong (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment Even if they no longer exist the N for the community doesn't expire so there's likely a different definition we can put it under.
    chatter) 22:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_September_13&oldid=1111578696"