Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 7

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.

EBikeGo

EBikeGo (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: Companies, Transportation, and India. Maduant (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: My search only showed passing mentions and a partnership announcement, fails
  GNG. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 23:49, 12 May 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.

Saymon Musie

Saymon Musie (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, Cycling, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Continental champion, therefore meets NCYCLING. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seacactus 13, that is an invalid rationale. NSPORT requires subjects meet GNG and have at least one GNG source cited in the article. Have you found such a source? JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I found several which I have expanded the article with and will continue to look for more. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject meets an SNG and therefore the fact that they meet GNG is presumed Jack4576 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  From WP:ATHLETE: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline"

  As an SNG is met, meeting WP:GNG is not required Jack4576 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You do not understand the notability guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Continental champion, therefore meets criterion #4 of NCYCLING "also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship"

arguably also meets criterion #5 on a purposive interpretation of that rule

As they meet an SNG, a presumption arises that they meet GNG Jack4576 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As part of
  WP:NSPORTS, notability is not presumed under NCYCLING; it only tells us that significant coverage is likely to exist, multiple sources must actually be found in order to establish notability. Right now we only have one SIGCOV source, Sprint Especial, which is not sufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 02:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment: because NCYCLING has been met, the correct approach is to keep on the presumption that significant coverage likely exists, even if those sources haven't yet actually been located. Jack4576 (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails
  WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  it passes NCYCLING though, giving rise to a presumption that SIGCOV exists. Jack4576 (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it doesn't presume that SIGCOV exists, it says it is likely that SIGCOV exists. The inability to find sufficient sources in this debate has disproven that assumption. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am still entitled to presume that sources likely exist, and maintain my keep vote, on the basis that NCYCLING has been met. Jack4576 (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The first sentence of the NSPORT SNG says the sport-specific criteria are used to estimate whether an athlete is likely to meet the GNG. The second sentence of the SNG says athlete articles should cite the evidence that the subject meets the GNG. The first section repeats that athletes need to meet GNG. SPORTSBASIC repeats that athletes need to meet GNG. No one has demonstrated the subject here meets even SPORTSBASIC let alone GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article in Spanish that's been added just now amounts to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This one:[1][2]?

  WP:BLOG. Just because something is online doesn't mean it's useful on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The blog that consists almost entirely of quotes is neither RS nor SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 14 May 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elyas Afewerki

Elyas Afewerki (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, Cycling, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Continental champion, therefore meets NCYCLING. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject is required to meet GNG and the article must cite at least one GNG source. It is also not clear that he is a UCI category continental champion. JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  GNG is not required as the subject means an SNG. Reading 'UCI category' strictly is inappropriate here, as the subject is African and the African Continental Championships is equivalently as prominent as UCI events Jack4576 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Plus it meets criterion #4 Jack4576 (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails to meet
  WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  From WP:ATHLETE: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline"

  As an SNG is met, meeting WP:GNG is not required Jack4576 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSee below: meets criterion #5 of WP:NCYCLING Jack4576 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also meets criterion #4: "also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship" Jack4576 (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As part of
  WP:SPORTBASIC. –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment: because NCYCLING has been met, the correct approach is to keep on the presumption that significant coverage likely exists, even if those sources haven't yet actually been located. Jack4576 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails
  WP:GNG. If sources are found, ping me. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  and NCYCLING? Jack4576 (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is irrelevant if it fails SPORTCRIT. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am still entitled to presume that sources likely exist, and maintain my keep vote, on the basis that SPORTSCRIT has been met Jack4576 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What source are you referring to when you say that SPORTSCRIT has been met? BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This one. Jack4576 (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you provide the correct link? That one only includes passing coverage of Afewerki, in a list of players (The defending champions led by Team Dimension Data new signing Mekseb Debesay inspired the trio of Tesfom Okubamariam, Amanuel Ghebreigzabhier and Elyas Afewerki as they covered the 59km distance in Benslimane in 1:15:07.53, 58.18 seconds ahead of second-placed Algeria.) BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a reliable source to demonstrate that SPORTSCRIT has been met. Per the link:

  • "Eritrea won the men’s elite team time trial gold" , and in context Elyas was a part of that team.

  Because I can reliably establish that it is the case that SPORTSCRIT has been met, I am entitled to presume that sources are likely to exist that would satisfy GNG, even if I haven't actually seen those sources Jack4576 (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To demonstrate that

  WP:SPORTCRIT #5 has been met you need at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. If you don't have that one source then we cannot keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Good point changing vote. Jack4576 (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although (1) its plausible this entry is of value to Eritrean, African, or Cyclist Wikipedians, (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources, and (3) retaining this entry would assist in addressing WP's systematic deficiencies in coverage...

... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG. I have made WP:BEFORE searches yet none were found

Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If SIGCOV cannot be found on the subject, an article should not exist. No one has demonstrated GNG here. JoelleJay (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It should, but it can't under the guidelines Jack4576 (talk) 16:13, 14 May 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!} 23:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lush (Mitski album)

Lush (Mitski album) (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)

BLARed this a while back but I can see that ruffled some feathers. Finally had another look now and can see that things look just the same as I remember them. Most of the coverage here is career retrospective stuff which touches briefly on this album but doesn't have a huge amount to say, and what is useful could be merged into

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Japan, and New York. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think there's just enough in the Nylon magazine & Atwood Magazine sources to justify the existence of this article. Hatman31 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is padded with references to some unreliable blogs and streaming sites, but that stuff can be removed via the editing process. While this album was initially an unknown early release by someone who became notable later, it is still discussed significantly in the reliable sources mentioned by the last voter, and retrospective coverage is still coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even though the album doesn't have much coverage due to it not being very impactful upon release, it is still an important part of Mitski, a now very culturally significant artist's, discography as her debut album. Retrospective sources are still reliable sources and this article just needs to be edited to remove unreliable sources and add more information. ilyukika (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This page meets notability guidelines, as it has received significant coverage from Rolling Stone, Atwood Magazine, and Nylon. Memories of (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There may be a possible canvassing from here: [3]
  talk) 11:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don’t think this is canvassing. Their twitter page is dedicated to updating information relating to Mitski, and the previous deletion of the article garnered quite a lot of attention on their page. They are only continuing to update users on a relevant topic. Everyone who has voted so far has established editing histories so I doubt this is much of an issue. ilyukika (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is now necessary to declare that I voted to "Keep" based on policy. I'm not a Mitski fan (though I am familiar with her) and I don't even use Twitter. The allegation above requires some evidence that the voters here are also active at that Twitter page, and that they voted while disregarding WP policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:34, 10 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Petrov

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

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

Non-notable photographer, I'm not showing coverage in detail in any RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Journalism, News media, and Ukraine. Skynxnex (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: I think it would be important for a user who can do research in Ukranian sources to weigh in here before making a decision. Moreover, the article indicates that his photographs have been featured in a few exhibitions, which might meet
  WP:SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Petrov is not the main subject of the listed sources, so the article does not meet
  WP:GNG. 128.6.36.94 (talk
  ) 22:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC

• Draftify. I've reviewed every source listed in the Ukrainian wiki page for the subject, as well as tried searching for news articles and books in Ukrainian for his name. It seems that the only significant coverage of the subject is the Time article mentioned by @Voorts. With just one qualified source, honestly not much can be written about him. I recommend having the other sources and claims not supported by the Time article deleted, draftify the article, and only publish it into the main space when there are more coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you @Tutwakhamoe! Given your review of the sources, and the potential for the subject to become notable at some point in his career, I agree with your proposal to draftify. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per Tutwakhamoe and my reply to his comment. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pavlo Petrov's photographs have been published in The Times, Der Spiegel, and UNDP. Максим Огородник (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per
  WP:TOOSOON. Mooonswimmer 15:58, 10 May 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.

2018 Women's Bandy World Championship squads

2018 Women's Bandy World Championship squads (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)

Essentially a list of full names and, in some cases, DOB of non-notable people. Does not seem to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every single entry is non notable. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 9 May 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 00:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Al-Dhefiri

Abdulrahman Al-Dhefiri (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 Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Other than those two sources listed by the nominator, nothing shows up out of a
  BEFORE search. Translating Arabic sources of this player doesn't show anything worthy of passing GNG, either. Delete per nom. Tails Wx 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:07, 10 May 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.

Kallol Mukherjee

Kallol Mukherjee (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 awards do not seem sufficient for biographic notability, and the claim to having discovered an endangered species is weak, at best. He has been published, but it's not enough Star Mississippi 18:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and India. Star Mississippi 18:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd really like to !v keep, but I can't see any sources that show N. If anyone adds multiple sources to the article from independent reliable sources with SIGCOV (
  WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth, ping me. You'd be pushing at an open door, but the sources do have to credibly be IS RS SIGCOV. If the closer sees no one has replied with new sources, my !v should be considered Delete.  // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:15, 7 May 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 Crown Estate. Because material was moved, I think we need the redirect for attribution. Otherwise this would have been clear consensus to delete. If we don't since it's the same editor, happy to re-close. Star Mississippi 13:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Estate in Wales

Crown Estate in Wales (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep (2nd choice: Merge) - This is clearly a topic of significant debate and

  AfD. [reply

  ]

  It can't be a spinoff when you only added the devolution information to that article for the first time today.[4] The

  WP:SIZERULE, does not justify division. Also to note that while the first edit says this is a translation of a page on Welsh Wikipedia, you made that article on Welsh Wikipedia just before creating this article here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per nomination. There has been a recent history of the creation of these POV forks to separate Wales and welsh topics from the rest of the UK with no rational basis. Unhelpful.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's already covered sufficiently in the Crown Estate and Proposed further Welsh devolution articles. This is basically a COATRACK for a "Calls to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales" article. Sionk (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not an encyclopedic topic in its own right; as it stands it's mostly about about calls for devolution, better, if not already, covered elsewhere. Llwyld (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned this is clearly a topic of significant debate and

  WP:SPINOFF

  applies but respect majority opinion. (The Crown Estate does publish annual "Highlight of Wales" report as previously mentioned.)

  I've moved info over to Crown Estate in anticipation of a delete. Titus Gold (talk) 03:00, 8 May 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.

Manoj Thonipurakkal Manoharan

Manoj Thonipurakkal Manoharan (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 was recently hijacked and I reverted this vandalism. I also reverted an old edit where false stats were added to the infobox. When doing this, however, I noticed that none of the sources comply with

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 7 May 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. Sandstein 09:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830)

Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830) (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)

Clear duplicate of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Algeria. R Prazeres (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As one example of a recent POV fork issue: the flag used in the infobox of this article ([5]) was previously added by an editor to

WP:OR, with some subsequent edit-warring ensuing there (see that article's history in early April 2023). R Prazeres (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete IIRC an article with a similar title was deleted last year. Useless fork of
  Ottoman Algeria at best. The fact that a few European sources used the term “kingdom” among others to describe the regency doesn’t provide a basis for a stand-alone article. Mccapra (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Hi ,

  the article has nothing to do with ottoman algeria, on the contrary the article concerns the kingdom of algiers created by Baba ali chaouch in 1710-1830 this article contains reliable sources and absolutely does not concern the ottoman empire since after you the regency of algiers = 1500-1830 while the regency of algiers is 1516-1710 and kingdom of algiers completely independent of the ottoman = 1710-1830 it is a bit like elayet of egypt and independent kingdom from Egypt so this article must remain and not be deleted 105.235.135.214 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  almost all the sources of this period mention kingdom of algiers, regnum algerium, and royaume d’alger , this kingdom totally independent of the ottomans to itself was cited by the kingdom of france and the ottoman empire and other country in this time , the name is not a reason, out of history confirmed by all historians confirms that the kingdom of Algiers, an independent kingdom was founded under the reign of Baba Ali Hamza3110022 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi 105.235.135.214, are you one of the main contributors to the article (Alg1567, Hamza3110022, Tayeb188, or Seddik909)? If so, please log into your Wikipedia account. R Prazeres (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, dunno if I’m allowed to reply as i was the one who made the kingdom of Algiers flag and tried to put in the Ottoman Algeria page, this was refused.

  so i would like to put some rectifications here, the kingdom of Algiers actually started not in 1710 but in 1659, or the so called the agha period, the pasha appointed by the Ottoman empire was fired and the janissaires took control of Algeria, this was viewed as rebellion by the grand vizier mehmed kuprulu pasha and denied Algerian corsairs any acess to ottoman ports, the Algerian officials regained the favours of the ottomans only after his death and replacement by grand vizier Ahmed fazil kuprulu pasha who sent another official in Algiers, yet they were deprived of any significant political powers, this agha period saw also the first ever peace and trade treaty written in arabic between charles the 2nd and chaban Agha of Algiers in 23 april 1662, also Hussein mezomorto dey prohibited the pasha again from entering Algiers and was the first dey to have helt the titles Dey-pasha

  according to turkish historian aziz sameh ilter’s book, Ottoman turks in north africa (arabic version).

  So the agha period was the period of real political independence from the Ottoman empire, and it was preceded by a period of anarchy in which the ottomans failed to effectively manage matters in the regency

  i hope i can contribute more to this page. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  the Agha period was a turning point pretty much, both in foreign and domestic policy, the european powers started to deal with Algeria directly without adressing the ottoman porte, the agha and early dey period saw a lot of military and diplomatic activity in the mideterranean, real buisness started with france in this agha and early deys period with the war in jijel and Algiers ending up with the conclusion of the 100s years peace treaty between King louis 14th and dey chaban (not to be confused with chaban agha mentionned earlier), also major political changes happened inside as the military was now in charge represented by the divan which is an assembly that elected the ruler whith the benediction of the porte, the aghas and deys only payed homage to the sultan since he was considered the caliph of the islamic world.

  So baba ali chaouch was only a man who ended a short period of anarchy after the maghrebi war with tunis and morocco-fez, and the first recapture of the city of Oran from the spanish, he reorganised matters in the state and deprieved the janissaries of political power with the help of the pasha sent from istanbul, since the pasha despite being deprieved of power was behind many assasinations of prominent officials and even deys, yet chaouch was not the one who made the big change in the Algerian political status. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevermind, I see you logged in to make your second comment. R Prazeres (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argument does not stand, it is literally mentioned everywhere during that period. Tayeb188 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hello there,

I understand that you are proposing the deletion of the article in question, citing it as a "clear duplication of

Ottoman Algeria

's article" and suggesting that there is no consensus in favor of a split. However, I must disagree with your reasoning.

Firstly, the article in question is not a "clear duplication of Ottoman Algeria's article" because it discusses the Kingdom of Algiers, which cannot be defined as "Ottoman Algeria." In fact, the main article itself should be split because the Kingdom of Algiers has nothing to do with the early Ottoman presence in Algiers. From 1671, Algiers began its independence process from the Ottoman Caliphate, to the point where it was independent in every aspect, only recognizing the spiritual leadership of the Ottoman Sultan as he was considered the Caliph of Islam. The Kingdom only printed the Sultan's name on the Algerian coins (a practice used in the Muslim world since the Abbasid Caliphate) and helped the Ottomans in their wars, considering it a jihad by Algerians (similar to the Pope's call for war against the Muslim world during the Crusades).

Furthermore, the Kingdom was entirely independent in its diplomatic, administrative, and political affairs. This justifies why European diplomats referred to it as the Kingdom of Algiers. More than that, the main "Ottoman Algeria" article needs to be split because, by not doing so, you are ignoring a complete century of the history of Algeria. This period has nothing to do with the majority of information cited in the

Ottoman Algeria

article as you are generalizing that period and completely ignoring the fact that there were two periods with the Kingdom of Algiers being an independent state.

In conclusion, I strongly suggest that the article in question should not be deleted, and instead, the main article needs to be split to give proper attention to the Kingdom of Algiers. Thank you. Tayeb188 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it is important to note that discussing the Kingdom of Algiers in an article titled "Ottoman Algeria" is misleading as it does not apply to the Kingdom and can be confusing for those who are seeking information about the history of Algeria in the 18th and 19th centuries. Therefore, a separate and proper article is necessary to cover this period, as there is a lot to talk about.

The current Ottoman Algeria article is mixing the two distinct periods in one article, which can lead to a misunderstanding of the history of Algiers for those who do not have a deep knowledge of the subject. It is similar to combining the Ottoman Egypt and Khedivate of Egypt in a single article. Thus, I believe that deleting this article because we don't want to screw up the "long established

Ottoman Algeria

article" would not contribute to the development of the history of Algeria and would mislead people.

If there are any concerns regarding the citations or information used in this article, I invite you to conduct proper research and make the necessary edits to further develop this new article. Tayeb188 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside all the

WP:OR. Every issue you just argued, whether it's about scope, article title, or topic splitting, belongs first in a discussion at Talk:Ottoman Algeria, which did not happen. R Prazeres (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This article currently lacks coverage on

Ottoman Algeria and it is suggested that a separate article be created for it. This is similar to the situation with the Beylik of Tunis or the Eyalet of Egypt, where each period has its own distinct article. Separating the periods into individual articles can benefit those with basic knowledge of the subject by providing a clearer view of each period, instead of blending them into one period. Additionally, editors can focus more on each period and provide more appropriate information. It is important to note that these periods are completely distinct from each other, and therefore require separate articles. Tayeb188 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It does not benefit readers, precisely because it would force them to look in multiple places for information they could find in one place, and divides the efforts of editors unnecessarily. That's why we don't split topics all the time.

Ottoman Algeria

, which covers this entire period, is neither long enough nor developed enough to warrant a split; and again, the place to argue otherwise would have been at the talk page. So now we have two lower-quality articles instead of one.

Beylik of Tunis is precisely the example not to follow, because as already discussed here, it overlaps tremendously and unclearly with Ottoman Tunisia and has led to an unclear, semi-arbitrary scope, creating a mess that will now take a lot of work to fix. If you want to improve coverage of Algerian history, avoid this. R Prazeres (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's your point of you and don't try to impose it on others you are trying to fit two separated periods into a one messy article witch is illogical it's like putting almoravid and almohad kingdom's into a one article mixing everything around,also article's must treat on something specific otherwise it would be complicated to further develop it because it would be very dense and THAT would certainly not benefit the readers.and when you said poorly developed, obviously what did you expect from a brand new article that will certainly be developed in the near future but again your solution is illogical you can't put this period of the kingdom with the other one and please think of it from a logical aspect other than a personal one because, i'dont know why but you are taking it very personal 37.169.165.210 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said above, please log in to your account when commenting and editing. You are obviously not a random IP user and commenting here while logged out could appear like sockpuppetry, which I'm sure is not your intention... R Prazeres (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just noting that there is a possibility of this discussion being influenced by off-wiki canvassing ([7]). Historically, new editor accounts semi-regularly pop up to promote this kind of POV either on this topic or related topics, with varying degrees of disruption, and off-Wiki discussion is possibly involved in those as well (e.g. see end of this discussion). Hopefully that won't be the case here. R Prazeres (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I genuinely don't understand why you brought this up but to clarify, I simply invited him to discuss further development of the article because it is new and requires more research and citations. Tayeb188 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're not planning to use it to influence consensus, then it won't be an issue. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POV fork. Srnec (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  instead of saying two words please give valid reasons why this article should be deleted Tayeb188 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article
  Ottoman Algeria should really be expanded with this info properly sourced. Equine-man (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep but tag for improvement -- but this may need tagging for improvement. The potential merge target
  Ottoman Algeria is currently a bad article as it says nothing on this period. It is possible that this is the result of material being removed from that target (a matter that I have not investigated). That article ends its coverage to 1713 with a short conclusion "Coup of Baba Ali Chaouche, and independence", which is then followed by accounts of attacks by European powers, mostly in the period after 1710. Note that 1713 seems to be a random date in relation to Algeria. It then ends with a section on the French conquest in 1830. There is apparently no account in that article on the internal affairs of Algeria in the period in the period 1710-1830, only of foreign wars. One of the "wars" is largely about much earlier conflicts and is out of order. The rest would make together a section on foreign wars of Algeria, if the Ottoman article should end at 1710. I am not qualified to know whether the content of the article is right or contains errors, but in either case the appropriate course is to Keep, correct, and link as a main article to Ottoman Algeria, a "main" article dealing with the period 1710-1830. Conversely, the account on the pre-1710 period in the article under discussion may need to be pruned. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm not sure what you mean by

  here, and many of the subtopic sections like "Education", "Healthcare", "Architecture" etc have been composed to cover the whole period from 1516 to 1830, not artificially before or after 1710. So the issue remains why would one create a largely unsourced content fork, when you could simply improve the main article. R Prazeres (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. POV fork Whatever748 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear to me that this is a POV fork. I cannot decide. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  there is no POV fork over here,we are just doing our best to cover the history of Algeria without miss-leading people as its not a one period so it cannot be covered in a single article otherwise it would be very difficult to develop the article as it would be very dense and messy because the period is extremely rich in history and there is a lot to talk about,just as same as Khédivat d'Égypte and many other examples. Tayeb188 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's useful at this point, let's address some of these issues more directly:

  The POV of the article is not the main problem but may be an underlying factor. The IP's earlier comment above ([8], I assume Tayeb188), stating the new article "has nothing to do with ottoman algeria" contradicts any review of reliable sources on the matter. That kind of comment suggests the article's recent creation is motivated by an objection to the scope and current title of

  Ottoman Algeria, rather any actual need for a new article. If the word "Ottoman" is actually a concern, this can be brought up at Talk:Ottoman Algeria

  instead, but it doesn't justify a content fork. Among other references to consult:

  • Philip Naylor's Historical Dictionary of Algeria (p. xxxviii) explicitly identifies this period as "Ottoman Algeria", "1516-1830" (p. xxxviii), and his A History of Algeria covers the period in the same way (see Chapter 1, p. 9 to 58). See also his History of North Africa, Chapter 5 (p.109 and after), and his comment on p.153 about the onset of the French conquest: "Indeed, France seized Algiers, ending the Ottoman regency in 1830."
  • Likewise, Abun-Nasr's, A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period (p.151-68) treats this as one, evolving period, the Regency of Algiers (the common name in many references, indicated in
    Ottoman Algeria's lead), from 1516 to 1830. You can read Abun-Nasr's summary of the most important political changes over this period prior to 1830 on p. 160 ([9]
    ).
  • Encyclopedia of Islam Three's article on Algiers treats the period from the 16th century to the 19th-century French conquest as "Ottoman rule".
  • You can find a similar identification mentioned in various references: p.119 here, p,19 here, p. 111, Ottoman section here, and so on, limited only by what's accessible online.

  The later de facto independence of the state, while still under nominal Ottoman suzerainty, is explained in many of these references. Cutting off one part of its history after 1710 and labelling it a separate, unrelated state, has no basis in the sources. That the new article cites nearly no sources throughout should make that clearer.

  Nor are there any sources claiming that from 1710 onward the same state became known as "Kingdom of Algiers", this is pure

  WP:OR: the entire "Name" section

  in the new article is predicated on some old French maps showing the words "Royaume d'Algiers", and that's all. No historians make any such claim.

  Additionally, the Economy and Architecture sections of this article (and perphaps others) copied parts of the same sections in the

  Ottoman Algeria in order to try to give it the appearance of a full topic of its own, which it isn't. R Prazeres (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete: There is simply not enough material here to support a stand alone article. Once you remove the duplicate info, unsourced content, and POV, at best you have an unnecessary StubFORK.  // Timothy :: talk  19:19, 17 May 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.

South Hopkinton, Rhode Island

South Hopkinton, Rhode Island (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, could not find anything to establish this as a real or notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find any evidence this existed - no hits on Newspapers.com. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 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.

Haygarden, Rhode Island

Haygarden, Rhode Island (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, could not find anything to establish this as a real or notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find any evidence this existed - no hits on Newspapers.com or GNIS. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 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 23:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neufa, Connecticut

Neufa, Connecticut (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, could not find anything to establish this as a real or notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Connecticut. –dlthewave ☎ 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was almost prepared to call this a hoax until I saw this listing on Google maps. I didn't find anything when I search for Neufa on the Town of Woodbury site https://woodburyct.org/ or on the state website at https://portal.ct.gov/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which doesn't mean that Google didn't get their information from Wikipedia. This hoax has been sitting around unnoticed for a decade. --Jayron32 11:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find any evidence this existed - no hits on Newspapers.com or GNIS. That Google Maps listing seems to be
  taken from Wikipedia. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as spurious
  GEOLAND. (Chiming in as a former adoptive resident of the Brass City; this otherwise unencountered toponym may find its way into my geofiction someday.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

https://woodburyct.org/vertical/Sites/%7B59751637-3DF2-41D3-B20A-866E470B1D1D%7D/uploads/3-10-22_BOS_Minutes.pdf PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 20:49, 11 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth grade

Ninth grade (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)

Proposing deletion as none of the tags have been fixed in 2/5/8 years; not just that,

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much of it is unsourced, I don't see how this isn't already covered in the equivalent high school education articles for each country. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't know much about the education systems of these countries but I imagine that some sort of sourcing must exist in their native languages. I'll tag the relevant nations to see if editors that patrol those countries' AfDs can add relevant sourcing to hopefully rescue this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Australia, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Kuwait, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• New Zealand links and a reference added - NealeWellington (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Personally I'm not sure I understand the
  deletion is typically not a step towards cleanup. And, if TNT is to be applied, why limit to to the this article in the (apparent) series? Guliolopez (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: why just ninth grade in particular, and not each of the other articles we have on first through twelfth grade? I feel like content issues applying to one grade would likely apply to the others as their scopes are very similar, and any improvements, rewrites, restructuring, or any major changes made to this article should also affect the rest of the series. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources can just be imported from articles about the education systems of each respective country, and the article can be restructure without deleting the whole article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with caveats. There do seem to be reliable sources discussing ninth grade (I have added some into the article) and I think it's worthwhile to have a standalone article, albeit that it needs a lot of tidy-up to address the current tags. I also think the article shouldn't include countries like New Zealand or the UK where the expression 'ninth grade' isn't used; it seems very US-centric to assume that 'ninth grade' is the default, and Year 10 already exists and could be added as a 'see also'. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:33, 15 May 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tesei

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

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

Non-notable local politician and businessman. Greenwich isn't a very large town and he was a member of the town's board (basically a town council), non-remarkable business career. I don't find sourcing about him, other than hyper-local descriptions of typical government things. Oaktree b (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection. He was the First Selectman (Mayor) of Greenwich. The RTM is the town council (and one of the oldest legislative bodies on a municipal level in the US). This should justify a Wiki entry. Theanonymoustypist (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

additionally there has been wide media coverage (incl. state wide media such as Hartford Courant). He was a political candidate and is generally known beyond the Greenwich borders Theanonymoustypist (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Regardless of whether their job title was "councillor", "mayor" or "selectman", people at the local city/town/municipal level of political office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to verify that they exist, and rather the notability test for local politicians hinges on actually writing and sourcing substantive content about his political impact — specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his time in office had on the development of the city or town, and on and so forth — but there's absolutely no content of that ilk shown here at all. And unsuccessful candidates for statewide office also don't get articles on that basis either — even at the state level, the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and this article doesn't show any credible reason why his candidacy should be viewed as a special case of significantly greater notability than other people's candidacies either. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Being a Mayor alone may not make him qualify per guidelines, but there is plenty of coverage on him, so he meets WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. At least 3 citations are behind paywall, which I cannot access, but the titles imply coverage about him. Coutant mentions him 14 times. Hkkingg (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have implied coverage, but no indication of depth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. "First selectman" is equivalent to mayor, supervisor, or chairperson in a local government. For towns of the size of Greenwich, they are not automatically notable. Willing to look for other sources. The current article needs a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources and references provided the article appear to meet
  WP:GNG requirements. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 17 May 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 change scope and move‎ to Migrant nail salon workers in the United States. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korean nail salon workers

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 do believe that this article is far too specific and falls under "What Wikipedia is not." I believe that merging the article is a good choice of action, but I am unsure what exact article it can be put into. Reading the article itself, it seems more of a comment on general discrimination that Korean nail salon workers have committed rather than an article on Korean nail salon workers, neither of which I believe deserves an article (can be divided into Racism in Korea, Asian Americans/Korean Americans respectively). However, seeing that the article is unable to fit into any of the articles mentioned due to it's highly specific and niche "newspaper"-like topics, deletion is not an unreasonable course of action.

comment added by Edward hahm (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 02:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Delete Strange combination of OR and combining several articles to suit a story idea. Nail salons are a thing, not sure why Korean workers there are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is primarily what I wished to discuss. I could see sections of the article being moved to Korean immigrants, nail salons, and Asian Americans, but at the end of the day, I fully agree with this. That's what I mostly mean to say. Edward hahm (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So you think the choice topic is a result of synthesis? Please look at the number of sources at the bottom of the article that have the exact same focus. small jars tc 16:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Korea, South Korea, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suppose the NOTNEWS criticism rests on the question of the endurance of the situation described. Apart from that, the title is missing an "in the US" qualifier. It feels a bit
  WP:UNDUE as it's only part of the situation of Immigrant workers in the United States, but since we don't have an article on that topic, I can't propose a merge; maybe it could be draftified and parts of it used as a basis for one? small jars tc 09:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:UNDUE. CastJared (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The NOTNP/NOTNEWS argument needs to be defended here: do you just think that the style is too newspaperish or are you saying that the topic itself is unencyclopedic? Note that the earliest source referenced in the article that directly adresses the topic is from 2007, and the latest is from 2019, meaning the coverage spans more than a decade. small jars tc 11:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, this article, like Balesh Dhankhar, is not a newspaper. CastJared (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't answer any of my questions? small jars tc 11:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right that this article is not a newspaper, because there doesn't seem to be anything that is news-like in the first place. However, this article has other problems, such as

  WP:SCOPE issues (e.g. There are ingredients in nail products that are known to cause cancer and have been linked to reproductive issues. Dibutyl phthalate, toluene, and formaldehyde, alternately known as the "toxic trio," are three of the most common chemicals used in nail products is hardly exclusive to Korean nail salon workers). We also have unsourced, essay-like expositions like Customers can feel that they are being slighted and excluded by workers when they do not speak English, or that it is improper to speak Korean when they are around Americans. Clients also tend to feel suspicious that they are being talked about or made fun of by workers. Customers often think of workers speaking Korean over English as a choice and a show of obstinance instead of something necessary for them to easily communicate. I mean, there might be an encyclopedic topic here, but one would have to sift through the chaff in order to determine what is and isn't encyclopedic. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The decider between (a) expanding the stated scope of the article (imo to just "migrants") and (b) shrinking the scope of the content to just Koreans should be the relative weight placed on Koreans by RSes on US nail salon workers, which will take further Googling to determine. small jars tc 23:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Finding further sources providing
  WP:NOTDONE encyclopedia is by writing up the missing pieces, not deleting the little coverage we have on a notable topic. small jars tc 10:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  A specific course of action I recommend is to move the article to "Migrant nail salon workers in the United States," rework the lede around this title, and leave a {{globalize}} template (not exactly what it's meant for but close enough) so that someone who has the energy can eventually improve the scope the article, and readers can understand it's limitations in the meantime. small jars tc 11:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Facepalm And now I realise the 2003 was on the page all along and I just missed it. small jars tc 12:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but trim the size of the article significantly. The fact that an article is very specific is not a valid criterion for deletion, as many of our
  original research and really need to be removed as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to "Migrant nail salon workers in the United States" per
  WP:GNG since the references cite multiple studies about that issue going back to 1997. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That's a good point. Expanding the article to include migrant nail salon workers could work pretty well. To that extent though, couldn't we expand this to Migrant Workers in the United States in general? I feel that would be more appropriate than specifying nail salon workers. The article currently does not exist, but I believe that it's a topic worthy of an article, especially given how much migrant workers in the United States general are such a major topic. Edward hahm (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the larger topic probably warrants an article, but I think small jars' proposal is a good interim solution since this article has already been written. Then, if the "Migrant workers in the United States" article is ever written, they could be merged. I would recommend starting a discussion on the WikiProject United States talk page to see if there's any interest. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I think that works! Edward hahm (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I do want to add one more comment however. Wouldn't this fall under WP:UNDUE as per someone else has previously mentioned? Edward hahm (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Part of the reason I made the proposal to expand the scope was that the alternative seemed to give undue weight to Korean workers. small jars tc 20:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point Edward hahm (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:35, 7 May 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 23:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric William Barnum

Eric William Barnum (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)

Previous PROD was removed. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BASIC, ANYBIO, CREATIVE, and the
  WP:GNG. Most "sources" in the article are just different tabs of his Wordpress. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete only hits in Gnews are obituaries for unrelated people, Gbooks is a dead end. No sourcing of any kind, fails CREATIVE or MUSIC,no charted singles, no awards won that we recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG I believe. Article was created by a single purpose account. If notable you would have expected more coverage in the years between creation and now. Equine-man (talk) 07:52, 14 May 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.

DXMJ-TV

DXMJ-TV (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)

Television station lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps a redirect to

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These should be merged into 1 AfD, so people aren't spread thin trying to fix them. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello QuicoleJR. Either way, the most involved task is checking the references. So I don't think it matters whether the articles are nominated separately or together. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is one of the oldest TV stations in the Philippines outside Metro Manila, and it's one of the major originating TV stations of GMA Network, given that this TV station is located on a major City (Davao). -WayKurat (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG per WayKurat's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No sourcing has been presented to backup the assertions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NTV, GNG, and all above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WayKurat and deletion not actually being asked for at all. Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 7 May 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Krňávek

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

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

Non-notable Olympic athlete. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Czech Republic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm pretty sure this guy is notable. He seems to get a fair bit of press coverage in RS such as Rozhlas Česká televize and HN. Leaning towards keep. The ČT source mentions he won a world championship race, though he isn't listed on the World Triathlon Cup page, so I'm not sure how to interpret that. I am, admittedly, completely ignorant about the inner workings of triathlon – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He won an individual WC race, but not the World Cup series. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely notable, has coverage per above and won multiple World Cup titles as well as two national championships and a bronze medal at the European championsips. This passes the notaibility guideline. Article needs to be redone, but that is not a reason for deletion. Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Could you explain how being a bronze medalist at the European championships, as well as nultiple World Cup wins does not meet GNG or NSPORTS? Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read either of those guidelines? JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not as they quoted a criteria I didn't even mention. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with
  Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources linked by Filelakeshoe would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It fails
  WP:SIGCOV. Agreed with other editors. CastJared (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Looking at the sources presented in the first comment, CT about his retirement has about four paragraphs, including the statement Před dvanácti lety vyhrál Martin Krňávek jako první Čech v historii závod světového poháru v triatlonu. Jeden z našich nejúspěšnějších triatlonistů ukončil svou kariéru právě dnes na mistrovství republiky v Brně, translated as "Twelve years ago, Martin Krňávek became the first Czech in history to win a world cup race in triathlon. One of our most successful triathletes ended his career just today at the national championship in Brno." Rozhlas looks decent, with about eight paragraphs. Then the other piece is paywalled but the title makes it seem like potential SIGCOV: Nemůžu ani sedět, směje se Krňávek, který na MS v dlouhém triatlonu vybojoval 5. místo ("I can't even sit, laughs Krňávek, who won 5th place at the World Championships in the long triathlon"). Considering this plus the accomplishments for a foreign country about two decades ago (two Olympics, several national championships, medalist at the European championships), I think we have enough for a weak keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BeanieFan11. The reasons for keeping outweigh. FromCzech (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per filelakeshoe's sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 16 May 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 14:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Novichenko

Tamara Novichenko (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 person LusikSnusik (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The corresponding article in Russian ru:Новиченко, Тамара Дмитриевна has been deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - meets at lest one criterion of
  WP:ANYBIO as Novichenko received a state honorary title (Merited Artist of the Russian Federation). ThegaBolt (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:SOCKSTRIKE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Maybe it's in part because of the language barrier, but we have no reliable in-depth sourcing to give a pass of
  WP:ARTIST. Footnotes 3 and 4 of the nominated version do appear to be reliable and in-depth, but they're in-depth about other people and only mention Novichenko in passing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 10 May 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 03:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vika Falileeva

Vika Falileeva (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 model is not notable. she was photographed for many magazines, but that is not a notability is about LusikSnusik (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the author is blocked by the way (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishae/Archive) LusikSnusik (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]