Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 16

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!} 23:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bloom

Jay Bloom (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 contemplating a bid for an NFL team, and he was invited to take part in OceanGate, which he declined. Both of these had Bloom in the news, but there's no evidence he's a notable businessman. If and when he becomes an NFL owner, he might be notable but I can't find a viable ATD as the potential Vegas team is not a Thing. Star Mississippi 23:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 23:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The article is unneccessary in itself and believe it was only made to create more links with Rush. 86.17.54.133 (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have rewritten the article, expanding it with several added references and cutting back on the NBA and Titan bits. Not all the coverage is positive: for some reason the article creator removed mention of the Las Vegas Experience, a failed attraction at the Tropicana Las Vegas that went bankrupt after he withdrew as managing partner in the face of accusations of financial malfeasance. There is extensive coverage in the Las Vegas newspapers of these events, and they are mentioned in much of the coverage of the bid to attract an NBA team. However, together those make for a lot of press about him and his business dealings. One of his companies, Pegasus, has attracted wider coverage. Unfortunately since NY Weekly is blacklisted, I can't cite "Jay Bloom Talks Green Entrepreneurship" (May 21, 2021). I was able to cite an interview in Ami, a Jewish magazine, which enabled me to include his being raised Jewish (we had a category but no reference, a BLP violation), a bit about his early life, and several early companies, one of which, Pet Assure, had been covered in the business press in the late 1990s. One of those articles let me replace the uncited date of birth with an approximate birth year, again fixing a BLP vio. There's a gap in his career including when he moved to Las Vegas because the Ami article is not accessible in its entirety, but I believe the enduring coverage as now cited demonstrates notability under GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: After the significant expansion of the article I think it is notable enough for inclusion. Coverage spanning from the 1990s makes it enough for this person to receive sustained coverage. HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 22:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: and thanks to Yngvadottir for rescuing this article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the very insightful and helpful contributions made by @Yngvadottir The article on Jay Bloom has been substantially improved with additional references and a more balanced presentation of his career, including both successes and controversies. The inclusion of the Las Vegas Experience and the subsequent bankruptcy adds a critical dimension to the biography, demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources, as per the general notability guideline WP:GNG. The coverage of his business dealings in Las Vegas newspapers, along with his association with Pegasus Group Holdings, which has attracted attention beyond local media, further solidifies his notability. The effort to address previous BLP violations by providing sourced content for his early life and religious background certainly enhancees the article's compliance with Wikipedia's biography policies. The existing gap in his career timeline does not detract from the overall notability established by enduring coverage. Therefore the article should be kept and further improved as additional sources become available.

Cray04 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article expansion demonstrates notability. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2023 (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 would personally like to keep this, but I don't see how any of the "keep" opinions have provided anything approaching SIGCOV. ATDs aren't discussed in any depth, but this doesn't preclude a redirect, or a future article with better sourcing; perhaps there is sourcing in other languages. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chilaun

Chilaun (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 minor figure in the history of the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Only reference is a very old source and the current article does a poor job of a making a case for notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:
  WP:ATD can be a redirect/merge to his father Sorqan Shira. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Alternatively spelled Chiraun. Curbon7 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. So "non-notable" that pretty much every drama film or series about Genghis Khan has featured him as a character. That says something about his place in the story of Genghis Khan, surely. There appear to be plenty of references in the articles on other Wikipedias (e.g. Japanese). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TRIVIAL. The Japanese version is primarily a genealogy and secondly a summary of a thirteenth-century chronicle. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • As I'm perfectly sure you're aware, neither
      WP:TRIVIAL actually relate to what I wrote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • On the contrary, you outlined two arguments for Chilaun's notability
        WP:OTHERLANGS—just because interwiki articles are referenced does not mean that the references are reliable. Remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • That's not what
          WP:TRIVIAL, that doesn't refer to what I said either. My point was merely that the fact he is featured in most versions of the story of Genghis Khan suggests that he is a notable figure in that story. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
          ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - very notable. Known as one of Genghis Khan's "Four Knights", he was one of 4 commanders of Genghis Khan's personal guard. This Google translation of the Mongolian Wikipedia's article gives a good summary of Chilaun's importance.

The article already cites as a reference

The Secret History of the Mongols

which is described this way:

• • "The Secret History is regarded as the single most significant native Mongolian account of Genghis Khan… The Secret History is regarded as a piece of classic literature in both Mongolia and the rest of the world."

Chilaun joins Genghis Khan's army in chapter 4, section 137, page 65 of this translation of the Secret History. (They're referred to as Čila'un and Cinggiss Quahan in that text). After that Chilaun appears frequently in the history.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:RS—my rewrite of our Genghis Khan article would have been a lot easier if that was the case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I know zilch about the Mongols but if a character has been fake news since the 13th century isn't he/she/it just notable as part of the legendarium that's grown up around the definitely real Genghis Khan? This guy sounds like an important part of the storytelling if maybe not the historical record per se? jengod (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you mean by this
    WP:RS to be notable and thus have a Wikipedia article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @AirshipJungleman29 I was thinking he was something like Friar Tuck in the Robin Hood stories. Like he's not necessarily historical but he's in most of the stories. Like if the unreliable sources are very old, and then people keep repeating those tales, even if they're provably incorrect or something, doesn't that myth making become notable in its own right? Like, "he shows up in movies X Y and Z but they're just making up stuff and it's ahistorical and fictive." The other thing I was thinking of is Sisi's mother-in-law and their relationship which has this whole public fanfic element that's been going on since the 1950s movie that is maybe not at all what it was like. I'm so totally not a Mongol person so I shoulda probably just kept quiet but it seems like (maybe?!) this guy needs some context where we explain--he's in zero reliable primary sources on the Mongols, but here's where people are getting their ideas about him and here's where that quasi-historic de novo character who was created ex post facto appears in the next 600 years of Mongol literature. Ok now I'm shutting up sorry jengod (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't agree with GNG. Apparently he was an important person. I added some new sources. It didn't take much time to find them. Instead of deleting we can find more sources and modify the article. Aredoros87 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read
    WP:SIGCOV, Aredoros87. Two of your "sources" are clearly Google Books searches for "Dai Chopan", whoever that is, another does not mention Chilaun, and the fourth simply says "eles e o filho do guarda, Chilaun, eventualmente se tornaram generais de Genghis Khan". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now it looks like "No consensus". A source analysis of the references cited in the article and discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG. There are no sources for a merge, no objection to a redirect. Source eval:

Comments	Source
About a genetic test, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. Wen, Shao-Qing; Meng, Hai-Liang; Li, Hui (May 2021). "A genetic test for three historical hypotheses of the Mongolian Golden family origin of Tusi Lu's family, a response to a commentary on molecular genealogy of Tusi Lu's family reveals their paternal relationship with Jochi, Genghis Khan's eldest son". Journal of Human Genetics. 66 (5): 551–553. doi:10.1038/s10038-020-00861-2. ISSN 1435-232X. S2CID 254116339.
About a social group, does not mention Chilaun, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ Elizabeth Emaline Bacon (1951). The Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan: A Study in Social Organization. University of California, Berkeley. p. 32.
About a social group, does not mention Chilaun, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ Robert L. Canfield, Gabriele Rasuly-Paleczek (2010-10-04). Ethnicity, Authority and Power in Central Asia: New Games Great and Small. Routledge. ISBN 9781136927508.
Name mentioned, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ "Gengis Khan". history-maps.com. Retrieved 2023-12-13.

The Keep votes provide opinions, but no sources to eval except an unsourced Wikipedia article [1]. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No other wikipedias have sources with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  20:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, you omitted the most important ref. You noted that I provided a link to the Mongol Wikipedia article. I did not cite that as a source but rather to provide quick context for editors at this AfD without their having to read the entire

Secret History of the Mongols

.

The reference I cited was

The Secret History of the Mongols

including links to a translation as well as chapters and sections.

There are arguments above as to this famous piece of literature/history's reliability. As Jengod noted, that may not make a difference. The Bible is the main source of Juedo-Christian history about Abraham. Did Abraham really exist? Is the Bible historically reliable? Abraham is notable however you answer those questions. I argue that the same is true of Čila'un/Chilaun. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As was explained above by AirshipJungleman29, The Secret History of the Mongols is not a historically reliable source, and it does not contain WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  22:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So no more Abraham or Bible, then? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding. There is

reliable sources. The Bible is not a reliable source, and neither is the Secret History of the Mongols. Thanks TimothyBlue for doing the source analysis. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply: If your comparison was valid (the Bible with the Secret History of the Mongols), you'd be able to show plenty of reliable sources showing notability and the discussion would be closed. I'm not taking your discussion bait on the Bible or Abraham, the discussion needs to stay focused on sources and guidelines, not speculative OTHERSTUFFEXISTS claims.  // Timothy :: talk  22:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We’ll see. Right now, Timothy, I don’t think there’s consensus either way. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Timothy I don't believe GNG is met, and I'm not persuaded that we should
  ignore GNG in this situation based on the arguments above. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2023 (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. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goldback

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

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

This article is very clearly

To start with, the entire article was written to heavily imply that Goldbacks were either issued by or endorsed by the states where they're marketed. (see the Diff from before I made the edits to remove a lot of that).

Secondly, a lot of the sources were... not actually saying what was claimed. For example, from the pre-edited article:

'Reuters has reported as of 2022 that as many as "a quarter to half of small businesses in Utah will accept the [Goldback] notes"'

But the cited link that went to was uncritically quoting the ceo:

"Jeremy Cordon, founder and president at Goldback Inc, said that around a quarter to half of small businesses in Utah will accept the notes."

And likewise, this statement:

'Meanwhile, Nevada has seen some buyers purchasing Goldbacks as part of an inflation hedge investment vehicle.'

Cited a local news organization paid advertorial written by the company behind these. Basically every source I checked was either an advertorial, uncritically quoting the company's CEO without verification, or contained in video format which I haven't verified.

The article was heavily edited a single purpose account who proceeded to add links to Goldbacks on every article even vaguely related to gold or the iconography used:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertas&diff=prev&oldid=1189028582
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_(mythology)&diff=prev&oldid=1189028418
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold&diff=prev&oldid=1189027929
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complementary_currency&diff=prev&oldid=1189027776
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Local_currency&diff=prev&oldid=1189027293

All of these were the same account, which appears to have an affiliation with the company. This looks heavily promotional, and the combination of that and the lack of

That Reuters article was the only RS showing notability there. Why did you remove it? Owen× ☎ 23:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very common in certain parts of Utah, numerous sources online. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Most of links now in the article are of iffy quality, but there seems to be enough to cover the concept. This PBS story [2] and a public radio story [3]. This Reuters source (to a lesser extent) [4] Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I restored the Reuters reference. If the article body didn't correctly describe what the source said, we need to change the article, not remove the only RS we have for this page. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that was actually a poor edit on my part. Appreciated. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 22:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, these things happen to me all the time. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think that is common enough in the five states it has made notes for, especially Utah, to be relevant enough to keep. As previously mentioned, there are also numerous sources online. Random123games (talk), 13:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Reuters coverage establishing notability. And with Utah passing Section 59-1-1502, and several other states on its heels to allow specie legal tender, notable coverage will only accelerate. Owen× ☎ 14:02, 20 December 2023 (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!} 23:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Kulture

Alien Kulture (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are a number of secondary sources on this band - including print/web media, books, and academic. See for example
  WP:sustained level of coverage this band has attracted, even though they were active circa 1980-1981 there are a number of recent sources discussing them. ResonantDis_tortion 14:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Meets GNG with the added citations. Sam Sailor 06:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as clearly meeting GNG, as demonstrated by recently added citations. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per
  WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the edition of a number of reliable sources references such as The Guardian, Evening Standard, and reliable books Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (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.

Kelsey Griswold

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

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

Subject does not meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Oklahoma. Let'srun (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 16 December 2023 (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 00:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss American Beauty 1963

Miss American Beauty 1963 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete. Generally this would be something to redirect. But Miss American Beauty was speedy deleted in 2009 and has never been properly created, and I don't think there's any broader series of pages like e.g. Beauty pageants in 1963. —siroχo 03:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (twice) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per a request on my talkpage, I'm reverting my closure and relisting the AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This beauty pagent is obsucre, lacking established notability. TH1980 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG per the nom, as well as
  WP:NEVENT. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This subject fails
  WP:GNG as another user states. --Artene50 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ABM Yunus

ABM Yunus (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 guideline for academics:

• Does not have any major contributions-I see six papers from him, none of which seem to be influential
• Has not held a top-level post at a major academic institution--I'm pretty sure that head of the Department of Haematology at Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University does not satisfy this requirement.

AriTheHorse 22:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) (Updated 22:42)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A few respectable cites on GS but really not enough for
  WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Hello,

The article ABM Yunus has been edited with authentic source from the official website of BSMMU. Please review it and approve it. Jmnabil (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Citation counts look far short of
  WP:NPROF; no sign of any other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Whilst I'm convinced it's a real person, I'm not convinced it's a pass of
  WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Cannot meet
  WP:GNG. Azuredivay (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2023 (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 leaning keep. No consensus to merge or redirect, none to delete, and 'complicated' by significant changes during the discussion. Explicit permission granted to renominate (very) early in 2024 if any editor wishes to explore potentially deleting this again, based on the above factors. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

40 Bank Street

40 Bank Street (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)

Hesitant to BLAR a 20 year old article, but I cannot find any evidence this is a notable building. Its current and former tenants don't make it so, Heron Quays could be a viable ATD as could César_Pelli#1990–2005. Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and England. Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm perplexed. I may yet offer a formal opinion. There is a (false?) premise of inherent notability for many large buildings.yet there appear to be very few sources about this building per se, rather than about the various occupants. This is the only additional reference I have found, and it is simply a set of tabulated facts. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It has quite a few language links but the sources listed don't appear to show notability but I'm not sure. You would expect London's joint 36th tallest building to have coverage though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. It's the premise @Timtrent alludes to. The guidelines were created out of "there should be", but it has turned out these buildings never quite attained the anticipated coverage. I think because they became so relatively common in the construction booms of the last two decades. Star Mississippi 15:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect we have List of tallest buildings and structures in London, and either the "1980s, 1990s and 2000s" or "Tallest buildings and structures" sections of that article would also make useful redirect targets. Alternatively, merging to a new article about tall buildings at Canary Wharf (as I expect several other skyscrapers there have similar issues, although I've not looked) might make sense. This title shouldn't be a redlink though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: after taking sometime to consider and to perform a detailed
  WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or merge to
  Left guide (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the coverage demonstrated by Left guide.Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete this stub because there is no evidence of notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I find it funny that a village or hamlet of 50 residents would be automatically notable per WP:GEOLAND, even if their "notability" is limited to appearing in some land survey, while the notability of a building that is the workplace of thousands and often mentioned in the news is questioned. I bet more people routinely sleep in that building than do in, say, Nine Ashes, Essex. I realize that WP:NBUILDING and WP:POPULATED have very different notability thresholds. It just sometimes strains credulity the extent to which the two vary. Owen× ☎ 15:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yes Nine Ashes may be legally recognized as its an OS settlement but yes it does seem otherwise a bit funny, the notability of OS settlements has been debated and we don't appear to have a clear consensus on this. Nine Ashes was created (by me) over 13 years ago and GEOLAND may have got tighter since then. Personally my instinct is to say the building is notable but the only presumed notability are for things protected on a national level and even that has been questioned, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/172 High Street, Elstow (2nd nomination). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love it that we have articles such as Nine Ashes here. This is exactly what our WP:NOTPAPER top-level policy encourages us to create and keep. When flowed down to the subject-specific guideline level, however, we ended up with wildly varying degrees of notability requirements. So 40 Bank Street, if it were to be classified as a "settlement" (and its "population" is larger than that of many towns!), would automatically qualify under WP:POPULATED. As a building, it struggles for notability. Anyway, this debate would be more suitable for a policy RfC than on this AfD. Still, it's an honour to meet the author of a goodly portion of all UK place articles! Owen× ☎ 17:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess it could be argued that because settlements contain buildings they are more likely to be seen as notable than a single building but clearly the 36th tallest building in London is more important than a hamlet even if it contains many buildings. I guess though it could also be argued that streets contain many buildings yet we tend to be strict with notability of streets. @OwenX: Just out of interest was it chance that you mentioned an article I created when I commented above questioning notability? Just wandering. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pure chance; I didn't even check that article's history. I was looking for a hamlet outside London, ideally with a number as part of its name, to contrast with the street-numbered building. In retrospect, seeing your massive article creation list, it's not exactly shocking I happened to land on one of yours... Owen× ☎ 18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think these four sources (two already mentioned above) suffice for GNG, especially when combined with a high probability of offline sources: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I found some additional sources (most of them minor; but at least one book, London High, that might be more significant). The most significant new source is this one, which discusses the architecture of the building. I incorporated all of them into the article. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Left guide (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• All of this discussion of population is entirely wrongheaded. Notability is not about population at all. Nor is it about importance. It's about documentation. Nine Ashes is actually Nine Ashes Farm and has a documented history, more extensive than our article supplies, going back to the 19th century some of which is in the Victoria County History. Whereas I struggle to find more than a mere mention of this building even in the coffee-table book that is entirely about the architectural firm that designed it (
  ISBN 9783775713290). That is why Nine Ashes passes the test and this building is borderline. Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "Nine Ashes Farm" is a listed house in Nine Ashes hamlet they are not synonymous. There are at least another 2 listed buildings in Nine Ashes namely Walnut Tree Cottage and Hardings. Both the hamlet and 3 listed buildings all have names wile the building we are discussing doesn't even have a name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, they are. Go and dig up the history, and you'll find things about houses being built at Nine Ashes Farm for farmworkers. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Arbitrarily0. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if this ever turns into a notability guideline, it'll probably get the shortcut "WP:9ASHES"... Owen× ☎ 23:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Uncle G/On notability has explained this for 17 years, of course, and is how the guidelines came about. Uncle G (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Interesting to compare this with 25 Bank Street and the way the narrative is spun and sources used in that article. Rupples (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, if one thinks about this the right way, the simple and obvious way given that Wikipedia is all about verifiable knowledge. That building is documented with things like who unveiled a plaque in front of it in 2004 (
    Fame and importance were rejected in 2004.) and "But, but, but population!" and even "But, but, but it is on the same street!" and just looks at how well the world outwith the article subject's creators/promoters has noted the article subject it all becomes very easy. Nine Ashes Farm made it into a history book.

    Uncle G (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    My comment doesn't imply 25 Bank Street is notable (not that you said it did). At first glance it gave me an appearance of such compared to this article and led me to believe this article had good potential for expansion. Though when one checks 25 Bank Street through much of its sourcing seems primary and/or not independent. Rupples (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thryduulf, Timtrent, Doczilla, Uncle G: please consider re-evaluating based on the sources now in the article. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wasn't sure what to recommend yesterday. Thanks to User:Arbitrarily0 the article is in much better shape today — in particular the new architectural points highlighted from additional sources, sufficient to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2023 (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 List of Sesame Street Muppets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yip Yips

Yip Yips (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 small stubby article with little to no citations. I did a search for sources and for the Yip Yips, but there is little to no discussion about them as characters overall. I found maybe a couple of okay sources, but there are nowhere near enough to build a whole article on. I feel a good AtD is to the character list, where they are mentioned. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:GNG, most of the article is unsoruced OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect. Funny as heck? Yip, yip, yip-yip-yip. Independently notable? Nope, nope, nope-nope-nope-nope. Cheers! BBQboffingrill me 19:04, 19 December 2023 (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!} 08:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayowa Adenekan

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

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

Just another non-notable bio.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep: The page has citations from notable and credible media houses. Bear in mind that the subject is from a third world country with media gagging. Putting that in context in mind, the citations are good enough. Amaekuma (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete refbombed with lots of links to various stories but overall lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Obviously doesn't pass
  WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I couldn'see anything that make this article notable. The sources are mostly advertorials and cannot be use as RS for
  WP: GNG

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 Roxbury. This is a difficult discussion to close due to lack of participation, however redirect is less of an imposition than a delete close, and on that basis there's enough support above to action this. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billings Field

Billings Field (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'm interested to see what ohers think. This appears to be a standard park, not anything I could find sources for to show it meets

• The Arcadia book has who it is named after and what it used to be named before it was named after xem. The Arcadia books are good indicators when it comes to this, so I suspect that there are going to be a fair number of local history sources on this. Uncle G (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sammarco, Anthony Mitchell (2004). West Roxbury. Arcadia Publishing.
    ISBN 9780738534596
    .
• It looks like this might give some historical context, for the sheepskin blokes who came after the one with the lumberyard, although I have no access to it. Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wolkins, George G. (Spring 1941). "Village Enterprise". Old-Time New England. 41. Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities: 83–88.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• More work needs to be done! Micheal Kaluba (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:ATD, until such time as someone actually adds something to what is there. Ingratis (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2023 (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.

Palcrafts

Palcrafts (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 orphan article for 12 years. No significant coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Palestine, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. There is a source from

  WP:ORGDEPTH The Night Watch (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fail
  WP:GNG and the lack of edits on it points to this conclusion. --Artene50 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2023 (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 00:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time to completion

Time to completion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be just a dictionary definition Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Estimated time of arrival: little more than a DICDEF by itself. Owen× ☎ 21:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of the article subject being more than a
  WP:DICDEF. Oppose merge as the contents are unreferenced and contradict use in sources where the term is used to refer to the time to completion of the project rather than the task (the latter is described in Duration (project management)) PaulT2022 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Important
  Estimate to complete is a related project management term but seems to be specific to Earned value management and refers to remaining work, not total work. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Is there a scholarly source related to project management, a body of knowledge or a textbook that would define it in the meaningless way the Time to completion article does?

  The first link is an SEO blog on a job website, possibly based on the definition taken from Time to completion, the second refers to 'time to completion of a degree', which appears to be a widely used term in education not related to 'time to completion' in project management. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here are the first 4 Books search results: [13], [14], [15], [16]. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't describe a single concept alleged to exist by Time to completion.

  The first two books say it's a date when tasks are scheduled to complete.

  Third and fourth say it's a date when the project is estimated to be completed.

  These sources merely use these words in a dictionary sense and don't indicate that 'time to completion' is a specific metric with a commonly accepted meaning that can be expected to be discussed in literature in-depth. None offer

  significant coverage. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DICTDEF of a concept that is valued by a subset of project managers. I think that an article might be eventually constructed using PMI publications and related materials, but I can't see this version being salvaged. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Agree with nom, this is a dictdef. Oppose merging unsourced OR into another article based on WP:V, WP:BURDEN, no objection to a consensus redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  18:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]