Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 18

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Fongo-Tongo

Fongo-Tongo (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 doesn't meet Wikipedia Policy Endrabcwizart (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 19:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – French wp article demonstrates
  WP:POTENTIAL
  .
• Keep – Legally recognized populated places are considered notable under
  BangJan1999 21:00, 18 February 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. Salvio ^giuliano 21:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anaida Deti

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Albania, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:ANYBIO notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete very promo. Press releases and a Forbes contributor piece turn up in Gsearch, otherwise she's just explaining how to keep your teeth white in the Toronto Star, are about all I find. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks indepth coverage fails
  WP:PROMO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:24, 21 February 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. Salvio ^giuliano 21:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Leblanc

Johanna Leblanc (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 have nominated this article for deletion due to concerns about notability. I see nothing notable about the subject in the article. Additionally, the article has virtually no legitimate secondary sources. Most of the sources are essentially blog posts. This is a sign that the subject is not notable. I searched Google for Ms. Leblanc and did not see legitimate secondary sources indicating that she is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FiberTacos (talk • contribs)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, Haiti, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sources seems to be relegated to a couple of promotional university blog posts, as well as some times Leblanc has spoken to the media, but no actual coverage of her, meaning she fails GNG. Article is also heavily promotional Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete she's penned a few articles, but there are no stories about her in RS. Working for famous people isn't GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not sure where the issue is, the sources are fine. I’ve seen articles with 2-3 sources and have only 1-2 paragraphs, why not delete those? Either way, not sure why a user with 10 edits wants the power to delete articles they perhaps don’t find interesting (or perhaps don’t relate to, as the subject is based outside of America). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreetKnockerzEnt (talk • contribs) 12:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This user's first (and currently only) contribution to WP is to oppose this requested deletion and make ad hominem attacks against me in the process. Very suspect. FiberTacos (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I was mistaken on the lack of other contributions. FiberTacos (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, as someone whose entire history is more than 50% associated with this one article, you should be judicious with

  WP:SPA accusations? CT55555(talk) 04:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete This person seems very accomplished based on the facts that I can find, but I can't find any independent sources of substance - the most interesting sources are all from the universities she graduated from, and the independent sources are all just short quotes or some such. I'll check back. Lamona (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: This is a borderline case. I can certainly see the argument for deleting this, but I am very concerned that a new, unregistered account has fixated on two articles (and only two articles) of subjects that apparently attended the same law school. This sends strong
  WP:SPA vibes.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:09, 20 February 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. Salvio ^giuliano 21:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zina Mahjoub

Zina Mahjoub (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)

Ditto with the AfD for Rashad Hashim, no indication that subject actually existed. "Sources" from Arabic-language page is a mirror of WP. Kazamzam (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Poetry. Kazamzam (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - was just about to AfD this one myself. Clear hoax, fails
  WP:V. I can find coverage of Tunisian people of this name but nothing about a Sudanese poet at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete searched in Arabic and found nothing. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks sources fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:25, 25 February 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. Star Mississippi 14:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Hashim

Rashad Hashim (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 indication that this poet existed. Page edits show conflicting accounts of death (murder vs. suicide); no independent search results, no results for the poem "which brought him to prominence" in English or Arabic results per WP:BEFORE. Kazamzam (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Africa. Kazamzam (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unfortunately, this looks to be a hoax as there is nothing in any
  WP:RS as far as I can see. Thank you for bringing this to AfD. If this is indeed a hoax, then it's one of the longest lasting in Wikipedia's history. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Boulder Fist...oy vey. Kazamzam (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: At first I thought this was quite funny as one of the longest lasting hoax articles in project history but the more I think about it, the more concerned I am. This article dates back to April 2007, has had a few dozen edits, and no checks for existence ever took place, let alone sources to confirm notability and warranting inclusion. Drive-by tagging allows junk articles like this to stick around with the presumption that someone, surely, will do something about this eventually and spam will be filtered out. Bots and semi-automated edit tools can tidy the article but there's almost no substitute for the human act of gathering, verifying, and formatting sources.

  WP:URA

  should be bursting at the seams with members and it's crickets over there. Kudos to the editors who run those bots and make those edits for stub sorting and importing the short description from Wikidata, but if we had a tenth of that number doing verification work, I believe this lemon would have been in the compost heap maybe a decade ago.

  How can we deal with this, given the size of the problem - 129,000 articles (and those are just the ones tagged!) unreferenced, another 377,000 needing additional sources? This won't be solved in the comments of a random AfD but we cannot continue allowing unreferenced articles to be kicked down the road for someone else to deal with. This should be, edit-wise, priority one. Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk. Kazamzam (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's an interview with a poet who claims to have been reading Rashad Hashim’s work, not a basis for notability, but should put the idea that this is a hoax to rest. God knows where she found a copy of it though. small jars tc 23:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can see other individuals with this name in a search, but not him. Mccapra (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This AFD should be considered alongside Zina Mahjoub's, as the two were apparently lovers. small jars tc 21:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it is probably a delete from me on the basis that we can't verify the information. It might not be an actual hoax, but (obviously) unless someone can find RS which meet the GNG, we can't tell. JMWt (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this deleted arwiki article related? small jars tc 23:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think so - based on Google Translated this person is Yemeni and born in 2001; at least from the claims of the article under discussion and the Momtaza Mehri article, he was most definitely Sudanese. Kazamzam (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks sources fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:29, 25 February 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. Salvio ^giuliano 21:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Mitchum

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - He played for the national team and is a top division player in his country. That's as high as you can go for being a player in a native league. Additionally, I was able to find other sources within seconds.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those points are relevant to

WP:SPORTBASIC. Having reviewed all of the sources added, none of them show significant prose coverage. In fact, most are database sources, which are specifically excluded from conferring notability by SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

St. Kitts and Nevis has 2 newspapers, a small population and limited internet reach. I don't know what kind of coverage is to be expected of someone in that situation. There's not much more he can do that be a top division player and play for the national team. He's in 8 databases or so and has been mentioned multiple times. ESPN or whatever has never covered a player from St. Kitts and none of us are local to get a magazine or something. None of these teams have websites either and social media websites are not allowed for sources. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my source analysis below Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://www.national-football-teams.com/player/27697/Kareem_Mitchum.html			Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these.	✘ No
https://fbref.com/en/players/61b60427/Kareem-Mitchum			Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these.	✘ No
https://www.soccerstand.com/player/mitchum-kareem/vJlr60UQ/			Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these.	✘ No
https://us.soccerway.com/players/kareem-mitchum/158217//			Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these.	✘ No
https://www.flashscore.es/jugador/mitchum-kareem/vJlr60UQ/			Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these.	✘ No
https://www.besoccer.com/player/k-mitchum-358108			Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these.	✘ No
https://www.voetbalkrant.com/saint-kitts-en-nevis/mitchum-kareem/wedstrijden			Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these.	✘ No
https://fr.soccerstats247.com/joueurs/kareem-mitchum-158217/			Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these.	✘ No
https://www.sknvibes.com/news/newsdetails.cfm/34753			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://spiceislander.com/the-spice-boys-look-to-go-one-better-in-2010-and-win-the-digicel-cup/			Squad list mention	✘ No
https://spiceislander.com/honours-a-piece-in-digicel-cup-thriller/			Squad list mention	✘ No
http://www.theplayersagent.com/profile/133784/kareem_mitchum			Database source, WP:SPORTBASIC specifically excludes these.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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. Salvio ^giuliano 21:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geovannie Lake

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found some passing mentions but nothing more Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 25 February 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liberapay

Liberapay (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)

It is difficult to find "significant coverage" to cite. Most content is based on primary sources and insider knowledge of the founder-editor. Yae4 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Software. Yae4 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional details:

(also @0xDeadbeef:)

• nextinpact.com 2017 citation is biased. It ends, translated, "What I hope for Liberapay is that the project reaches its goal: to allow a better financing of free software, not only software but also art and everything else. I also hope that the public will recognize the huge work that a project like Liberapay represents and support its development more" concludes its co-creator. The next evolutions should be detailed during a conference at the Libre Software Meeting (LSM) in Saint Etienne, France, in early July." It looks based on an embedded Youtube video, which was self-published by Liberapay. Not very independent. Nextinpact Not yet discussed at
  WP:RSN
  . Cited about 40 times.
• linuxfr.org 2016 heading says "Posted by Zatalyz (personal website) on 11/30/16 at 08:32. Edited by 7 contributors. Moderated by ZeroHeure." It appears to be a user-generated group blog post; therefore Unreliable for wikipedia per
  WP:RSN
  ; Cited ~27 times.
• WP:RSN
  ; cited ~70 times.
• Opensource citation, which I added in Special:Diff/1139491501, is the one apparently reliable source with significant coverage. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There are several sources available that should push this to meet GNG, but I'm not entirely sure about the reliability of some of these sources: [3][4][5][6] 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has over 100 incoming links from other Wikipedia articles. The 2018 opensource.com article[7], along with additional sources, establishes notability. (opensource.com has been publishing for over 13 years, and longer under different names before that.) Primary sources in the article (links to liberapay.com) are used primarily to support statements of which projects and organizations use the platform. --Bensin (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bensin: There are many more primary sources, including Libera pay Weblate, About (a couple times). Also a Patreon Support post, self-published about Patreon. A few Liberapay Tweets (mea culpa for adding one). -- Yae4 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are others, but most of the links to liberapay.com are the ones I added as sources for statements of which projects use Liberapay. If there are better sources for other statements you are of course free to change to them, or remove unsubstantiated statements. --Bensin (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources about this website, already included in the article. I really don't understand what made the nominator start this. —Alalch E. 17:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    Alalch E.: There was no response to my Notability comment at Talk:Liberapay, and I felt getting uninvolved editor opinions would be good. Yae4, Bensin and Alalch_E. are involved at Liberapay.[8] -- Yae4 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Involved in what sense? —Alalch E. 18:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Editors of the article. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not much of an editor of the article, and even if i was my opinion in this AfD is as welcome as anyone else's. —Alalch E. 19:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed. Even Changaco's opinions are welcome, as primary editor of the article.[9] Uninvolved opinions are usually good or better, however, when backed by guidelines. Yae4 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • My opinion is better than yours at the very least, judging by your inadequate assessment of a source such as Next INpact. That journalist, Guénaël Pépin, rooting for Liberapay at the end means nothing for evaluating that source([10]) for the purposes of this discussion. The website is independent from Liberapay, it is a registered, regulated, journalistic outlet that passed CPPAP admission criteria (link); it exists in the highly-regulated French media landscape. The article is substantial and contains predominantly statements of fact. Mixing some personal opinion with the news at the end is perfectly normal in journalism. That just makes for better, more lively, journalism. This is not just a reliable source. This is the highest-quality source, that is actually usable for determining notability, that I've seen challenged in an AfD for a while. —Alalch E. 20:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yae4, when you write (here) that "Yae4, Bensin and Alalch_E. are involved at Liberapay." what do you mean by that? --Bensin (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of the article. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Added another source, this time Linux Format: Special:Diff/1140182151 —Alalch E. 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

another... Special:Diff/1140184656 —Alalch E. 21:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question @
  WP:AFDFORMAT and put your replies in the usual places? How is someone supposed to reply to you when you clutter the top with your replies to everyone? It isn't chronological and it's highly odd. —Alalch E. 19:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - With the coverage in sources like Linux Format and opensource.com among others, the article's subject certainly meets
  WP:MEDIUM but as a subject notability is there. - Aoidh (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The sources demonstrate notability, though the article is in need of cleanup and has some potential COI issues. That isn't an issue for AFD, we aren't at the
  WP:TNT tipping point. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep Article has lots of problems but that is not an AFD issue. Looks like GNG is borderline but satisfied to the normal degree. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 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 Pink Floyd#2010—2011: Further performances and rereleases. Viable ATD. None of the keeps are policy based. Star Mississippi 14:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why Pink Floyd...?

Why Pink Floyd...? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this was already discussed previously. I am staunchly against removing information. If it can be improved upon, then let's do that. But deleting information is not helpful. Jmj713 (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, deleting information is often extremely helpful, as many types of information are out of scope or inappropriate for Wikipedia. See the policies

  WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Popcornfud (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Yes and I very much disagree with those policies. Jmj713 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it wasn't deleted the first time around - has the quality of the article declined since then? If it wasn't deleted then, why now? Moreover, any attempts in the past to include the information in this article in the articles for individual albums has been reverted by people who believe information on reissues and box sets to be unsuitable for the albums' articles. – Dyolf87 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  it wasn't deleted the first time around - has the quality of the article declined since then?

  Yes. The article has deteriorated into an extensive series of track lists in violation of the policies

  WP:NOPAGE

  .

  If it wasn't deleted then, why now?

  The previous nomination was more than a decade ago. Standards change, as do opinions, and editors. Popcornfud (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has always been track lists... it has barely changed in a decade. – Dyolf87 (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Is there any reasonable hope/potential for expanding this at all? As is, this feel mores like a halfway point between a Discogs entry and a promotional campaign from the band more than an entry in a encyclopedia. I don't know if it needs to be entirely erased from Wikipedia, but more of a very selective merge to the respective band and discography articles? Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is essentially what I'm proposing. We can summarise the contents of each reissue on each album page — for example, see

  WP:ALTTRACKLIST. Popcornfud (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Redirect to Pink Floyd#2010—2011: Further performances and rereleases per nomination. The coverage is minimal and I don't see much for a notability pass here. The two Billboard articles are quote-heavy and probably based almost entirely on a press release, and the NewsRoomAmerica article (a dead link, this is an archive) is definitely that. I doubt the other sources' reliability. Given the popularity of this band, I would assume this is all already covered in the album articles. If not then merge whatever's good to those. QuietHere (talk) 17:31, 24 February 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Really confused and would deeply appreciate some help. I saw the film Tell My Story, and as a father felt compelled to create a wiki around Jason Reid, who I found notable. Where did I go wrong? LoveofEverything (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Reid

Jason Reid (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)

notability is inherited from the Tell My Story documentary 180.150.37.213 (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Canada, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is far too heavily dependent on
  WP:GNG, and even that's just a film review that's much more about the film than it is about him. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Just left a message above. I saw the documentary Tell My Story, and I was moved to create an article about Jason Reid, the subject of the film and someone who I saw has done speeches of note (I thought?) - where did I go wrong? The film really impacted me as a father and a human being. Can you please help me? Maybe I can create an article about the film? LoveofEverything (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with Bearcat on all counts. -- asilvering (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:33, 25 February 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 merge to Language Integrated Query. (selective merge) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cω

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

)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Without 3rd party neutral sources, should be deleted until any can be found that establish notability. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added one to the article (at least I think it's independent). This seems to have been a precursor to

  Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Merge is a reasonable outcome here. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 14:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:UNDUE. Joyous! | Talk 17:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Partial merge to
  Polyphonic C Sharp there as well, which has been unsourced for 8 years. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:23, 20 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Ramot Junction attack

2023 Ramot Junction attack (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 does not pass the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Strictly speaking it's 4 dead now, if one includes the attacker. If 2021 Jerusalem shooting with 1 dead can pass muster, why not this one? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selfstudier, is it too large to fit in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It can fit, of course, historically it seems there has been a trend to create small articles for every event including those that are relatively minor like the example I gave above. Something occurs and within an hour or two, someone has created an article and once created they tend to stick around. Citations are not usually a problem, all of these events get good citations initially, but then there is no lasting impact in a lot of cases. Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is just like all other articles on ramming and stabbing attacks, and it has good citations, so I don't see why we should delete it.

RowanJ LP (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It does meet the
  WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, notable and violent events in the Middle East and elsewhere keep coming. gidonb (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep; it meets
  WP:NOTNEWS. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Leaning keep per above. 4 deaths, and the incident does pass
  WP:GNG. Mooonswimmer 23:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Leaning Keep for now anyway. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is absolutely no indication this event passes
  WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to be a bog-standard event in an increasingly bloody area, that only received coverage over a period of a single news cycle. Deadlier events do not have an articles, so there's no indication why this one should be an exception to NOTNEWS. If there is more coverage down the line, there is nothing stopping the article from being recreated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep passes
  WP:LASTING cannot be determined now so keep for now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:42, 25 February 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. Star Mississippi 12:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Nicol

Gavin Nicol (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)

While certainly accomplished, not enough in-depth coverage to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Falls considerably short of
  WP:NACADEMIC and not evident what other notability there might be. Jeppiz (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. GS
  WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete, clearly doesn't pass NSCHOLAR. I also checked for possible GNG, but the newspaper coverage out there is for other individuals with the same name. --Mvqr (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would this person meet
  WP:ANYBIO #2: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"? From the write-up it seems that could be true. I don't know if that overcomes the lack of biographical sources, however. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If his role was truly pivotal in the history of the internet, there would be significant online sources recognizing his specific contributions. Not everyone who was in the WWW consortium is notable. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• comment If you look through the W3C archives and also at the IETF you can see that he made significant contributions to the DOM, I18N, XML, XSL and other specifications. For example, he was responsible for developing the first version of the DOM specification, as noted in the specification: https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/production-notes.html, and is also responsible for driving HTML internationalization. (Not having a lot of press coverage doesn’t mean people didn’t have an impact... many pre-internet people have less coverage on the web) if you look at the archives, many of the people that contributed are not widely covered. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1996Sep/author.html - that group ultimately created XML. Rick Jelliffe noted his contributions in http://xml.coverpages.org/jelliffeERCSRetro.html and noting citations in Google Scholar, and the original XSL proposal https://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-XSL-970910

And

The key part of NPROF you're missing is that the person's role has been recognized as significant by independent researchers: In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. You cannot assess someone's impact based on the content they publish or what non-independent organizations say about them. JoelleJay (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the first 6 pages of G-Scholar I rack up at least 610 cites to his works. I also find his works cited in at least 2 dozen books (I quit scrolling at that point), and mentions of him outside of cites, like this. He seems to also have his name on at least one patent. It's very hard to judge this because a tech standards developer is not the same as an academic (no 'publish or perish' push). I'm remaining neutral. Lamona (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

610 cites is very small for this high cited field and h-index is tiny: far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

What is the field to which you refer? And where do you see what cite numbers it normally has? As for "too soon" - this person is nearing retirement from what I can tell. He was giving talks at web-related conferences in 1995: Nicol, G. T. (1995, December). DYNA WEB Integrating Large SGML Repositories and the WWW. In Fourth International World Wide Web Conference (pp. 549-558). Lamona (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The field is computer science. [11] gives nearly 22,000 cites for a person known to some of us. Such numbers are not uncommon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think that a standards developer should be compared to a professor. Those are very different activities. That is why the second bullet of NACADEMIC fits this case. If you develop standards that become used by millions of web sites and thousands of developers, you have had an impact that is not measured by cites. Lamona (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The impact still has to be noted and attributed to the subject in secondary, independent scholarly sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He may have done stuff but few have noted it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

continued His name is on 2 standards that are used by every browser, and the work established the technical foundation for I18N on the web... so it's incorporated into things people use every day. Mentioned here by Francois as seminal: https://www.w3.org/International/francois.yergeau.html Mentioned as being seminal by Rick: http://xml.coverpages.org/jelliffeERCSRetro.html IETF draft that led to rfc2070: https://www.w3.org/International/draft-ietf-html-i18n-05.txt RFC7303 attribution: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7303 (standard) Rfc2110 attribution: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2110 (standard) Attributed here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-html-cda Attribution in this presentation: https://slideplayer.com/slide/4709286/ Referenced here: https://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/html-authoring.html Referenced here: https://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#Nicol (standard) Referenced here: https://www.w3.org/International/tomas.carrasco.benitez.html Referenced in this thesis: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=cs_etds Referenced in this thesis: http://people.hum.aau.dk/~ulrikp/PhD/Sandborg-Petersen-PhD.pdf Referenced in this thesis: https://digibug.ugr.es/bitstream/handle/10481/48333/26785195.pdf?sequence=1 Referenced in this thesis: https://theses.hal.science/tel-00006373/document Referenced in X.1141 : Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML 2.0) (standard) https://www.itu.int/itu-t/workprog/wp_a5_td.aspx?i...https://www.itu.int › itu-t › workprog › wp_a5_td Bio/attribution: https://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc16/b040.html Notes on standards: https://www.xml.com/pub/2000/10/18/standards/index.html Quote: https://www.w3.org/Press/DOM-core.html XSL History: https://www.delightfulcomputing.com/xslfaq/xsl/sect1/history.html Elastos: https://medium.com/@CyberRepublic/elastos-rights-management-platform-suggestion-6b44f4e0182 WWW 2005 conference: https://www2005.org/tutorials.html Examplotron: http://examplotron.org/0/4/ LMNL mention: https://www.xmlhack.com/read.php_item=1790 XTND: http://xml.coverpages.org/xtnd.html Referenced in Foundations of markup languages https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110224948.83/pdf Basilage: https://www.balisage.net/Proceedings/vol7/html/Johnsen01/BalisageVol7-Johnsen01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechMak (talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are all of independent, reliable, secondary, and substantial. Bare citations, his name being in documentation, accolades from companies he worked for/colleagues, etc. do not count towards NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continued I am sending these things because the field is different and I hope someone would look in to it. A reference from Tim Bray https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2019/03/11/Lights-Going-Out Similar people on Wikipedia Rick_Jelliffe,Steven_DeRose,Dan_Connolly_(computer_scientist),Dave_Raggett,James_Clark_(programmer),Bert_Bos,Jon_Bosak. Something a bit more recent: https://open-music.org/our-api and https://open-music.org/blog/2016/10/3/deploy-deploy-deploy-dispatch-from-the-omi-tech-meeting - and this project most recently https://www.commoditygenomeproject.org/resources He wrote the ontology for this, which is available at: https://github.com/commoditygenome/CGP-core-description-framework — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechMak (talk • contribs) 20:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per above. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

continued comment As noted by Lamona, holding standards developers to the citation requirements of academics is inappropriate. Better measures of impact are inclusion of the standards into other standards, and adoption of the standards into everyday life. In the case of this person, their work on I18N directly led to standards that were included into the HTML and XML standards, and they made significant contributions to the DOM standard, and XSL among others. Those contributions are credited in the standards themselves, and those standards are some of the most widely adopted and influential standards on the web. It would be fair to say that if you are using Wikipedia, you are benefitting from the fruits of this labor.

That this should suffice is evidenced by the pages referenced above, and many others like them, where the primary notability of the individuals is in their standards work. Some of those people have more citations because they are more academic, or were more widely promoted, but few can claim to have their names on more than a single standard in use every day by every participant on the web. Note that some of those people - themselves experts in the field, directly credit this persons work.

Wikipedia is at least partly about capturing the historical record - the people, events and technologies that have influenced society. Obviously it needs to be protected from garbage and this is far from the case here. Being included and credited by name in multiple international standards (which are about the most independent and reliable documents you can get) is notable and these standards are universally adopted. In terms of citations - it’s like every application on the web citing the work.TechMak (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change policy you should do that on a policy page, not on an AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. It's clear from the article, from Google Scholar, and from the discussion above, that Nicol is not an academic and does not meet our standards for academic notability. That's not itself proof that he is non-notable; it only means we must use another standard. The only plausible standard to use is
  WP:NBIO, which demands in-depth coverage of the subject in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. But we don't have that, either; all we have is primary sources about the technology he developed. One might hope for some articles about the history of WWW standards that might go into detail about the role he played in developing those standards, but I didn't find any. So unfortunately, he doesn't appear to pass NBIO either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 23 February 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.

Government Degree College, Amarpur

Government Degree College, Amarpur (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)

Institution with no evidence of

• Tripura University
• Amarpur, Tripura
• List of institutions of higher education in Tripura

All equally as valid as each other so I didn't consider redirecting to be an appropriate action. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tripura. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 18 February 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.

Darren Coleman (cybersecurity)

Darren Coleman (cybersecurity) (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)

BLP lacks in-depth coverage to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Two local newspaper articles announcing that he was invited to speak; failed verification at sources Toastmasters and Harvard; participated in a book from "Celebrity Press" which exists to promote. I don't find anything else, and rather suspect PAID. Lamona (talk) 17:43, 20 February 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.

San Martin, California

San Martin, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources consist of government records, mostly census records. No SIGCOV. Strictly local interest. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 18 February 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. Star Mississippi 12:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citrix Technology Professional

Citrix Technology Professional (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 on a certification sourced entirely to the company that provides it and to one guy who holds it. I was unable to find anything else useful. Maybe mergeable to

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a internal award/certification that doesn't have notability outside the company. Joyous! | Talk 17:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree, this isn't a suitable topic for a standalone article. Fails GNG.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 18:52, 23 February 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 Bulletin board system#The first BBSes. And thanks to the editors who take the time to peruse discussions that have been relisted 3 times! It's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GBBS

GBBS (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)

Unsourced article about an BBS software which does not seem to meet the requirements of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Plenty of material exists and an article could very likely be written about this. However, it has been unsourced for a decade, and we can't have something sit unsourced forever just because "sources exist" - that's not how our approach to accountability works. I'm not the one who's going to reference this. Move the article to draft until such a time as someone is willing to put in the work. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Does anything from this source help. http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/ 24.22.39.28 (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  or https://www.wired.com/2005/06/how-humble-bbs-begat-wired-world/ 24.22.39.28 (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it - that documentary is about BBSes in general, which we have well covered. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there has been low participation. And while I will carry out consenus, I'm reluctant to draftify a 14 year old article when there is no one stepping forward stating they want to work on it. That's just a slow road to Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - I think this is quite hard because of the age of the article and lack of volunteers to improve it. On the other hand, it appears that published books and other sources exist. So in terms of policy it feels like it ought to be a !vote for keep no matter the current state of the page. But I can't say I like it. JMWt (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for some more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bulletin board system#The first BBSes where the Apple II and its BBS are discussed; quite enough is written there already. It would be even better if a usable source could be found to support that uncited redirect target section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also sensible, as long as the unsourced article does not remain in mainspace. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Chiswick Chap's redirect target is sensible, especially if the alternative is to move it to draft where nobody is going to do anything with it. If and when it's improved it can be reverted into a standalone article, and with a redirect the history is still there for someone who wants to work on it. - Aoidh (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested. This page is fourteen years old, has zero citation, and possesses zero reliable sourcing. It's entirely OR. Merely hoping this page will get sourced one day hasn't been a workable strategy yet. Nothing whatsoever has been presented during this three week AfD! I'm leaning towards delete, but I'll settle for a redirect. BusterD (talk) 04:45, 20 February 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.

I was just struck by Buster's comment and went to see that there have been 7,593 edits to this page over its lifetime. I'm not sure if it was deleted and there was a Deletion review, whether or not a regular admin could even restore this page so editors could review it. This wasn't the primary factor in my close but I'd like there to be a stronger consensus to Delete this article before removing such a long-standing article from the project despite its shortcomings. It would be nice if some of our editors who focus on contemporary music and guitarists could spend some time improving this 17 year old list article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gibson players

List of Gibson players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is just a list of commercial endorsements, therefore violates

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Justiyaya 04:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's not really any policies about this (other than this particular instance much failing
  WP:NLIST), but I would agree with removing all "Players" sections or mentions from musical instrument companies unless that person's endorsement has been incredibly important to the company (e.g., they have a major model with the company like Les Paul with Gibson or they're Ringo Starr who catapulted Ludwig to world fame). Why? I Ask (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The NLIST requirement is met by publications such as The Gibson Electric Guitar Book: Seventy Years of Classic Guitars (2007,
  ISBN 9780879308957) which documents the guitar players along with various Gibson guitar models, and by Billboard magazine's online list of "11 Guitarists Who Rock Gibson Guitars, From Chuck Berry to Dave Grohl". There's also the GuitarGuitar list of "Top Ten Les Paul Players of All Time" (a Gibson model) and NDTV's list of "5 Guitarists Who Helped Make Gibson An Iconic Guitar Brand". Whatever problems may be seen at the article right now are not because the list is not supported by sources. Binksternet (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I disagree. While it's certainly fine to add a brief mention on the

  WP:NLIST, in my opinion; often clickbait slideshows with very little encyclopedic value). We could have a list of drivers that use Ford [12] or people that enjoy Supreme merch [13] if that was our criteria for such lists. And yeah, a book dedicated to Gibson is going to list players and their axe of choice. Modern Drummer always has spreads of what famous drummers are playing what. Hell, there are even books of it [14]. But it would be a dark day on Wikipedia if List of Mapex players was created. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Perhaps your concern should be aimed at the NLIST criteria. I don't see why evidence that the list is found in multiple forms in the media is somehow not sufficient for this list article to meet NLIST. I found another archived list by Mixdown magazine: "The 13 most iconic Gibson Les Paul players of all time". The fact that the media is interested in making lists of this sort is enough evidence for me. Binksternet (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists get views and media knows this. It's why WatchMojo was so popular. Nice digestible information to waste your time on, but not encyclopedic. Wikipedia's list guidelines overlook a lot of context; it's our job to use common sense. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As mentioned before, this list violates
  WP:NOT. The existence of Gibson players may be mentioned in the Gibson article. The list is for the company to carry. gidonb (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Reliable independent sources exist, enough to justify an article. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per StarryNightSky11; there are enough independent sources for the article to be justified. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as some of the opinions expressed here are not put forth very strongly. Of course, a closer can close this discussion at any time they see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've got a few concerns here, none of them minor, but none disqualifying. 1) There's a vast number of unsourced assertions applied to the page, scores of CN tags, including those about living people. 2) Of the three criteria used to determine qualification for the list, all three of them seems to have a subjective component (long and faithful, historical importance, contributed significantly). 3) While the three stated criteria seem to narrow this field a bit, this list doesn't seem to be truly defining. Gibson started making guitars in 1902; perhaps hundreds of thousands of humans can claim honestly to be "Gibson players." With over 7,500 revisions I can see a long history of insertion and reversion of players of various and debatable qualification. I should admit this is not my field of study. BusterD (talk) 04:23, 20 February 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboys–Vikings rivalry

Cowboys–Vikings rivalry (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)

There's essentially one reliable source that states this is an outright "rivalry" and that one only says it was a rivalry 50 years ago - in the 1970s. There are no sources that call it a rivalry from the period spanning the 1980s to the present. They play games against each other from time to time - just like any other 2 random NFL teams that are in the same conference. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Minnesota, and Texas. Skynxnex (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Haven't done the research, but I would note that there are many "former" rivalries (e.g.,
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment this page was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowboys-Vikings Rivalry. The article title was later changed to match formatting of other rivalry pages. Frank Anchor 04:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rationale given in the previous AFD, where it was demonstrated with several sources that this was once a significant rivalry. While not much of one anymore,
  WP:NTEMP applies. Highway 89 (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I agree that several sources establish that this was a notable rivalry.[15][16][17][18][19][20] Despite the nominators claim of otherwise, there are in fact sources that speak of it as a rivalry from the 1980s and onward.[21][22][23](part 1[24], part 2[25]) The fact that its height was in the 1970s does not make it any less significant as
  notability is not temporary. Alvaldi (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Per above. We already did this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are plenty of sources that this was a rivalry in the 1970s. So it was a notable rivalry in the 1970s. Notability is not temporary. Rlendog (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes
  WP:GNG and previous AFD considered the sources reliable and enough to pass. No reason has been given to overturn the previous AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I originally voted “delete” in the first AFD but struck that vote after sources were added establishing a rivalry. The sources are still present and notability is not temporary so there is no reason to change a keep close (though I believe the nominator started this AFD without knowing the first one happened due to a different article title). Frank Anchor 23:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I believe it's been established that this was a generally notable rivalry and that notability is
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:NTEMP, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 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.

1974 Xenia tornado

1974 Xenia tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a

• Keep — This is not a complete content fork. Some information was removed, which isn’t necessarily about the tornado’s summary. Having a stand-alone article allows for the the tornado summary to be separated from the aftermath (which included a President’s visit). Extremely notable tornado, very famous and well-known one, and the article is in good enough shape to be a stand-alone article. Noting, I am the article’s creator.
  talk) 02:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Extra comment: Nominator was told by an admin in

talk) 03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I copied the content from the main article and pasted it into the text window, and nothing changed. That is, by definition, a content-fork. United States Man (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USM, I don't pretend to understand what is going on here, but you need to remove the commentary about the author's motivations from your deletion rationale. Keep this focused on content, do not comment on the contributor. Please amend your nomination in your next edit. Girth Summit _(blether) 03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Concern has been addressed. Girth Summit _(blether) 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

• Neutral - I support the idea of this article being deleted in its current state on the merits of being a content fork. Simply copy and pasting its section from the main tornado outbreak article into a standalone page without any additional information clearly meets the definition of a content fork and satisfies the criteria for article deletion. However, if Elijahandskip plans to expand this article imminently, then I very strongly oppose deleting the article. Of the tens of thousands of tornadoes that have ever occurred in the United States, Xenia is probably the second or third most well known tornado to most people. There are scores of articles that move beyond the environment or beyond the damage it caused in the moment. There is plenty of information about its aftermath/legacy. Work just needs to be put in to expand the article. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 03:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's also fine with me, but copy/pasting article material is generally not acceptable. Just not sure how much more information there is to expand on, unless deep digging is done. United States Man (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/pasting is generally fine when creating new articles, and common practice in many situations, but it needs to be done with attribution to meet the terms of our copyright licence. Guidance is at

WP:CWW, please all involved take note. (I haven't checked whether this has been done in this case - it can be done retrospectively, do so if necessary. I really need to go to sleep) Girth Summit _(blether) 03:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Keep Maybe with further reduction of the section at
  WP:TOOBIG. So the outbreak article could stand to be trimmed a bit by splitting off some topics. If it is not kept, then I would opt to merge rather than delete, since the redirect is a likely search term. Page protection might be needed in that case, if further edit warring is likely.I also second Wxtrackercody that expanding the page for the tornado would help it. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Work in progress. I've started adding new information into it. I discovered multiple sources indicating some new details in the timeline and such as well as slight time corrections from what was in the outbreak article's section. I'm not good at writing the typical meteorological synopsis sections, but the supercell produced other tornadoes, so having a section like that might be useful and would help expand the article with new & specific content. I attempted to remove some of the information in the outbreak section, but I think it needs to be re-written with less specific information and such since the entire tornado summary is in the article now.

talk) 04:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - this is one of the strongest tornadoes to ever occur and is a notable topic in itself. There is quite a bit more content here, and well-sourced content at that, than there is at 1974 Super Outbreak#Xenia, Ohio. If this were to be merged back into that article, the section would be twice to three times as long as the sections for the other major tornadoes of the outbreak. Perhaps the 1974 outbreak section could be pared down some and the remainder of that content merged with this article, instead of the other way around. Highway 89 (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Per above. The tornado is highly notable in and of its own, but for as long as information not already present in the section of the article is found and added, this tornado's article is on thin ice for me. Mjeims (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is one of the most notable tornadoes of all time, and the Super Outbreak article should be split per
  WP:DUE, unless this article is created. I will note we split off the 2011 St. Louis tornado which was a lot less notable then this one. 71.125.62.208 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Neutral ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - assuming content continues to be added to expand this article, as plenty of information seems to exist that was not incorporated into the outbreak article's Xenia section. Generally I think it would have been better to begin the article in draftspace or userspace first, so as to address
  WP:CONTENTFORK concerns before it ended up in mainspace, but here we are. I say go for it. Penitentes (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep – Per Penitentes.

Poodle23 (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The coverage of the Xenia tornado indicates significance on its own. Joyous! | Talk 17:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Tornado is significant and notable enough to warrant an article. Tails Wx 23:47, 23 February 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.

Suryaputra Mahavir Karna

Suryaputra Mahavir Karna (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 film has not commenced shoot because it has no actors (the lead actor left the film). The film has been shelved. This film was apparently the most expensive Malayalam film to be made but after it became a Tamil/Hindi film the budget is not significant. DareshMohan (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails
  WP:FUTFILM QueerEcofeminist🌈 17:59, 22 February 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 Draftify. It may become notable, but isn't yet, with many of the Keeps lacking policy. It can be improved until it meets N:FILM Star Mississippi 12:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Animal (2023 film)

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

)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and send the article to articles for creation when it will be release. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  WP:NFF criteria is that principal photography should have begun, which it has. No violation here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  NFF says "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."

  Just because PP has begun doesn't mean it was notable. Show some sources that ascertain that. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the production itself notable? When principal photography has been covered by multiple

WP:RS? It has. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: 11 out of 15 sources are press releases. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So 4 are not. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Well sourced, and can have more sources added. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify : All Reference film announcement, Shooting start and release date but the film's production is not completed.

‪AShiv1212‬ (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say shooting must be complete for a film to have its own article? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films : Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines AShiv1212 (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read "films produced in the past". This is not a film produced in the past. It is currently filming. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Krimuk. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per nomination, filming already started and going on, few leaks from set as well and most important not every Indian film is shot at Pataudi Palace. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 06:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and, as stated, just because a film has started shooting doesn't guarantee that the filming will be completed, the film will be released and be considered notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless

WP:NFF is explicitly changed to say that no film should have an article unless it is released, we shouldn't be deleting articles for films that are currently filming. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not at all what I was saying. I didn't say that "no film should have an article unless it is released", I meant that starting to film a movie doesn't guarantee that there should be an article on a movie. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but this one has adequate referencing at this point to warrant an article. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - upcoming film with tons of real references. Valiaveetil (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)The user has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasulu. VickKiang (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article meets the basic notability criteria. In addition, it is a production that has already started filming.
  WP:SOCKSTRIKE per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradford/Archive.VickKiang (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]