Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 9

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. Borderline on the numbers but the provided sources are ostensibly SIGCOV and no rebuttal has been provided. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music on Film-Film on Music

Music on Film-Film on Music (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)

Poorly sourced time capsule from 2008, cannot find enough sources to establish notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There does not seem to be enough sources provided in the article to establish notability, and the article is outdated. FlutterDash344 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep. Very notable. Plenty of sources including [11],[12] [13] [14][15],[16]. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of coverage online, subject is notable. FlutterDash344 (talk) 00:55, 11 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjwal Chaurasia

Ujjwal Chaurasia (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 Wikipedias

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Delhi. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only gossip nd PR stuff Worldiswide (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Review of the sources shows that they all read as if they have a common ancestor, which is probably a handout from the company to the media telling e story about its founder. The question that we have is not whether the story is true, which it probably is (although probably exaggerated). It is whether the postings of the story are
  independent sources
  They are not.

There is also a draft, by a different editor. I have not reviewed the draft, and do not know whether it establishes notability. But draftification is not an alternative to deletion. This article should be deleted, and the draft left alone by this MFD, but I will probably review it separately. One interesting comment is that he has made himself a playable character in a video game. That has no effect of his

This article contains

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See
  gaming of titles. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unreliable and sponsored sources. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 17:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment reliable source

Sheikh, Ramij Raja (2023). Life of Popular Indian YouTubers. Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp.

ISBN 979-8-851-45989-4

.

Pandey, Manish; Pamnani, Harsh (2021). Booming Digital Stars. Pencil Select.

ISBN 978-9-354-58955-3. Arumobileworld (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: He fails to step over the notability hurdle.
  WP:BIO fail. Also per reference analysis. None good 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment After a request to re-examine left on my talk page, I have. I see nothing that alters my opinion in any of the new referencing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A request has also been left on my talk page to re-review the article because
  speak for itself. I may or may not examine the three additional sources. Is the proponent a paid editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  No sir. I'm not paid editor. I just creating articles about notable peoples. I created this article because of he is Top Indian Gamer. After the nomination of AfD I searched for good reference such as The CEO Magazine published Indian top YouTube creators of 2020 and I found some reliable sources so I added to article. Arumobileworld (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please see the prior AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techno Gamerz 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Authors like "News9 Technology Desk" and "FE Lifestyle" speak Churnalism to me, but I don't have the time to sift through the debris to make a proper !vote. casualdejekyll 18:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All references appear to be either trivial mentions or affiliated with the subject. As an aside, this article also has egregious
  WP:NPOV issues. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 11:46, 13 September 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.

Virendra Kumar Baranwal (disambiguation)

Virendra Kumar Baranwal (disambiguation) (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)

Are disambiguation pages necessary if there's only two articles? Both articles already have a 'for' template linking to each other. मल्ल (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. मल्ल (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A hatnote is indeed sufficient here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Kishkurno

Denis Kishkurno (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)

Despite playing 18 mins as a professional, I was not able to locate any significant coverage. Tribuna Blog is a squad list mention. Tribuna is a passing mention. Football is a passing mention, explaining that he wasn't taken on after a trial. No evidence of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of
  WP:GNG found online, per nom. Kline | yes? 23:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:00, 13 September 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. and discussions about a possible Merge can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go woke, go broke

Go woke, go broke (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 article fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, and Sexuality and gender. Raladic (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Entertainment. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  WP:NOPAGE why have a separate article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks, I hadn't seen the Corporate sociopolitical activism as an uber article and agree that a merge of both to there would probably be the right move per your proposal. Raladic (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. I'm not against a merger of some sort but there definitely is a genuine topic here and it is being covered reasonably well. Sure, there is room for improvement but I don't see the claims of an intrinsic POV that the nomination advances at all. Deletion would be utterly perverse. No opinion on whether
  Woke capitalism article?) is the primary topic. (I thought that Stakeholder Capitalism was a specific corporate ownership structure where a company was owned by other organisations which have a stake in its operations, not this vague stuff about "wokeness".) On a quick glance, the Woke capitalism article seems to be in a worse state for POV than this article is. I see that Rhododendrites just nominated it for merger into Corporate sociopolitical activism, which seems like a good idea. If both articles get carefully merged there, preserving the majority of the valid content except for any genuine duplications, then that sounds like a good outcome. It might be tricky to do though. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I don't disagree that the phrase is a topic, but the endless listing of claimed examples is advancing a

  WP:BALANCE

  .

  I support Rhododendrites's suggestion to merge both into

  Woke capitalism which I did mention already in the Afd proposal and think covers the topic sufficiently. Raladic (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Any merge would make this moot but, just because I love arguing, I will point out that the far-right put an enormous amount of effort into making "Go woke, go broke" into the universally recognised

WP:COMMONNAME of this alleged phenomena. They fully succeeded in that part but the wider endeavour has gone sour for them because the "Go broke" part of the alleged phenomenon just hasn't lived up to their hype. Particularly with the success of the Barbie movie, the slogan that they worked so hard to popularise is now mockingly thrown back in their faces. Meanwhile, every time a right wing "anti-woke" enterprise goes bust they are greeted with jeers of "Go fash, lose cash" from the peanut gallery. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The fact you are arguing that people are intentionally excluding companies that have refuted the phrase would suggest that you are not going for a neutral article. In fact I only see only the mention of Elon Musk's Twitter being deleted, and that is something else, not the counterexamples you wanted. In fact, you can say that some of what's given in claimed examples may be also counterexamples (for example, is problem for Target caused by boycott from the other side?) and refutations are given in the claimed examples section. So you trying to do a simple count of words by section is a rather wrong-headed approach. What is actually wrong is that way the whole article is framed, using claimed examples and counterexamples, when what is needed is an examination on a case-by-case basis. Hzh (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raladic, arguing about POV in a deletion discussion isn't usually helpful except insofar as it applies to the entire subject. Here's we're talking about subjects rather than the way those topics are currently written about. If it can be fixed by editing, it's probably not something that needs to come up here. Relevant to deletion/merge discussions are

WP:DEL-REASON. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Noted and yes you are right that

WP:POVFORK are probably the better policies to cite of why it can be deleted/wrapped into the other article. Raladic (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Close nomination for an extremely speculative, bad-faith invalid rationale. Like it or not, the phrase is a huge meme with a lot of conservators and mainstream reliable sources cover and reference the phrase. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep, open to merger. (Disclaimer: Creator of article) I think that Daniel and HumanxAnthro sum up my opinions perfectly. I'm open to a merger as suggested by Rhododendrites. If a merge is needed,

Woke capitalism is probably the best candidate. After more opinions have come in, I do not believe that a merger would comply with Due Weight policies, and if anything, could result in an increased perception of Wikipedia having a liberal bias. Ideally we should be neutral, neither liberal nor conservative, explaining each opinion with attributed debaters as listed in reliable sources, and likewise explaining the most significant rebuttals to it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, and not merge. The topic is notable enough in itself as it satisfies
  WP:GNG, it would be wrong to merge it to a smaller article like "woke capitalism" and distort it (it would have WP:UNDUE prominence in that article). Merging would also carry over the problem in this article to the article it gets merged to. The AfD was started because the nominator got upset over attempts to make the article neutral and accurate including effort to remove unsourced false statement (discussion that led to the AfD here - [17]). The article needs a complete rewrite, not merging. Hzh (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: This nomination appears to be a long-winded
  WP:GNG with the current sourcing, and as such needs cleanup, not deletion User:Let'srun 13:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - NPOV issues are not for AfD as AfD is not cleanup. The term is covered in many reliable sources and there are also counterarguments to the term such as this from Rolling Stone. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [reply to previous three keep !votes] Yes, the nomination was kind of a mess, but other issues have been raised since then. Perhaps the nom is doomed because of the way it started, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For sure there are NPOV issues. I don't disagree it needs a lot of work. I just don't see deleting it because of that. We will ALWAYS have a war over politics/politicians/political catchphrases on Wikipedia unfortunately.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly there are problems with sourcing and the article itself needs expansion and rewording. But there is, in my opinion, no basis to delete it entirely as it does not violate the pertinent policies. If the article promotes opinions as fact, as was initially alleged, then let’s make it more balanced not bury the well-documented and distinct subject matter in another article through a merger. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge With all the concerns about content raised, it would be better to cover these issues in
  Woke capitalism rather than one about a slogan that results in NPOV and synthesis problems. This is more recentism about a few incidents in the last couple years than a coherent standalone topic. Reywas92^Talk 13:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep — This topic is certainly notable enough. I see no reason to delete something has seen coverage and analysis from various reliable sources. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the expression is notable as demonstrated by multiple sources that reference it. Though the article might use some recycling, notoriety is established and I think any merge would result in
  undue weight. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep it's arguably an expression of a group of people like "Make America Great Again" or "54°40' or fight!"; you don't have to agree with the sentiment (after all, agreeing with the latter means wanting the USA to annex British Columbia), but you can't deny that they are phrases that have wide-enough use by people who believe its value. — Fleacollarindustry (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Fleacollarindustry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I think it fits its role well and is fitting and follows Wikipedia's rules. Babysharkboss2 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks perhaps to the flawed nomination, none of the keeps seem to be addressing any of the actual issues and we have arrived at the "keep because bias" stage of the nomination. No objection to a a snow close at this point. Perhaps a merge proposal sometime in the future. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is that Woke Capitalism supposedly covers the material better. It does not cover the origin or phrase's use nearly as well. It also does not consider what others have said regarding the phrase's use, success, or whether or not it is accurate. It doesn't even cover the Bud Light part very well and almost seems to hold the phrase as true. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 11:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not that it covers it better. AfD is typically about the subject, not the present text. The issue is the subjects overlap substantially such that it would be better to cover them together rather than try to maintain separate, significantly overlapping articles. Merge implies improving the target article using material from the merged article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how the subject in question bleeds into the other subjects as much as you are are saying. The phrase is related to CSA, but the phrase's article covers the history, use, and explanations regarding its applicability or truth. Significant coverage has rested on the use of the phrase unlike that which is seen in the CSA article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think an important factor that Rhododendrites (and I, but less eloquently as I fumbled the nomination a bit) is trying to make, which they also brought up further up in the discussion is the policy of

  WP:FRINGE policy as it is giving the phrase more credit, which could be sufficiently covered in the larger concept article instead if merged. Raladic (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The argument is frankly getting more and more bizarre.

WP:FRINGE? Yet arguing to merge such article into another that would dominate that article? The BBC source given in the article in fact says "67% of Americans say their purchases are affected by a brand's stance, while 42% say they have stopped shopping with a particular brand because of its position on an issue." The underlying premise of the phrase (that a brand's stance affects the consumers' choice) is clearly the majority opinion. Even if you cut that number in half, that's still too significant a number to be FRINGE. Don't cite random policies or guidelines without them being clearly applicable. Hzh (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

They are affected, but not necessarily in the way that the phrase is arguing, which was my point, it is not a majority view that thinks that companies supporting minorities will go broke - that is the dogwhistle that conservative politicians are trying to use. Many people will not support companies that oppress minorities, such as the case of Chick-fil-A and LGBT people, they are captured in your 67% quote, but are very much in opposition to the phrase. Raladic (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. You have nothing to support your assertion. In fact in your Chick-fil-A article it says sales increased. The boycott of Chick-fil-A led to increased sales, while boycott of Bud Light reduced sales, that would in fact suggest that more of 67% are conservatives. Everything you have written here suggests that you are not interested in a neutrally-written article. You want an article that attacks the idea of "go woke, go broke", but you got upset and nominated it for deletion because other people tried to make it neutral. We are not here to attack one side or the other, we are here to write the article in as neutral and as accurate a possible. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Applying fringe to this sounds like applying it to something like "no justice no peace" (fringe because people say this phrase during times of peaceful protest, without significant conflicts, etc.). That said, the Chick Fil-A example illustrates the extent to which the subject is actually corporations taking political stands (and the effects). There are lots of ways to express that subject. One expression is "go woke, go broke". If "go bigot, turn off the money spigot" or something went viral for Chick Fil-A, that would also be talking about the same subject. That it went viral and people say it add so little to the overall subject. That's why the question should hinge on

WP:NOPAGE -- because we have two other pages covering this subject right now (one about corporate activism and one about "woke" corporate activism in particular) and not WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, etc., which are all irrelevant (and, Raladic, they provide those who want to keep with an easy way to argue against you without actually addressing the real issue ... YMMV). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The other article is about corporate activism, this article is about popular reactions to corporate activism, they are related but different subjects. There is only one that is a duplicate, and that's woke capitalism, which you have already proposed merging into Corporate sociopolitical activism. While "Go woke, go broke" can legitimately go into one of the other, this article is big enough to stand on its own, and merging it would distort the other one. Note that the Chick-fil-A boycott failed to reduce sales, and whatever expression that might apply has no notability. With the problems that Bud Light and other companies are having, "go woke, go broke" appears to be a notable phenomenon. How real this phenomenon is, and the various reactions to it, can be explore in this article in greater details, but would be excessive in the other article. That merging would result in UNDUE has been mentioned by a few people, so I don't know why you think that people are not addressing this. Hzh (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above to
  HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The fact that there are variations of the phrase does not invalidate it (another version was given in an earlier edit - [18]), nor does it make it SYN (there are SYN element in the article but not this). It just happens that "go woke go broke" is the one more commonly used - [19], therefore

WP:COMMONNAME. Hzh (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Using Google Trends to justify the title is the very definition of SYN. Can your opinion be sourced?

HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is hardly SYN when some of the sources (like CIM) use both expressions in the same articles. They consider the variations to be the same thing. Hzh (talk) 16:41, 15 September 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 16:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Afful

Samuel Afful (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: Football and Ghana. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @
  WP:SNG. Regards. Govvy (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, sources on page already look significant.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I reviewed the current sourcing in the article and thought otherwise. Can you elaborate a little more? Thanks, Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 1. goal.com: pure stats N. 2. ghanaweb.com: routine transactional announcement + quotes, N. 3. kickgh.com: 404. 4. kyfilla.com: 2-sentence transactional announcement, N. 5. modernghana.com: does not mention Afful, N. 6 & 7. goal.com: 404.

Nowhere close to meeting GNG, good grief. JoelleJay (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the 404 links: [20] [21] - Does not even mention Afful. Ca ^{talk to me!} 03:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:00, 13 September 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.

Josh Felber

Josh Felber (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 of notability under GNG or SNG. The closet thing to a GNG reference is a video of an interview of him. Second is a you tube video posted by him of him getting an Expy award. No other coverage of him found in the other references. Most of the other references are things written by him. Reviewed during NPP. North8000 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Quite promotional. No RS covering this author except as an author. Even so, doesn't satisfy
  WP:AUTHOR. I wouldn't count youtube videos or a first-hand interview video as good sources either. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment#Comedy/Sitcom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.H.E (TV series)

S.H.E (TV series) (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 of wp:notability under either GNG or SNG. The only references are database type entries. Previously deleted. Reviewed during NPP. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails
  WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment#Comedy/Sitcom.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:36, 15 September 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 04:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ACF Investment Bank

ACF Investment Bank (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)

Nom per request of IP: My rationale is article fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly fails
  WP:NCORP at the moment and I could not independently find sources denoting notability. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Variety items from 2020 and 2022 summarise the company's recent deals: [22], [23]. AllyD (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll see, the original article is now flagged as "This article relies largely or entirely on a single source". However, if you go back to the first iteration of the article, it contained 55 secondary sources which were subsequently removed - and it was this act that rendered the article to be in contravention of the notability guidelines. It's fair to say (and see) that the original article - despite the section formatting issues, demonstrated the company concerned plays a specific (and well sourced) role in financing within the global media and entertainment industry. That makes it notable. Easypeasydl (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

significant coverage. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NCORP. Those reference were junk. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 04:22, 14 September 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 23:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reality shifting

Reality shifting (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)

Renominating. My reasons for nominations are that the article isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. My arguments are essentially the same as in the previous nomination, but my concern is not notability. Another reason for deletion is that to make the article fit for Wikipedia, it would need to be rewritten from scratch, so keeping this version would not be helpful for future writers, and it will only confuse and disinform future readers. Janhrach (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Spirituality, and Psychology. Janhrach (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a good start and cross-referenced from other non-disputed articles. Information must be shared transparently, and I feel this is an honest attempt to share that information, even if only loosely conveyed. I fear by deleting it entirely (without replacement or just editing) we lose at least some valuable information on subjective experience of this phenomenon, which has been recognized by a large group of people. We need to learn more, then share more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B295:B200:DB2:6043:DC3C:D0E5 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All Wikipedia articles should be sourced. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, summarizes knowledge – it doesn't serve as a place for publication of original claims/theories/research. Retention of unsourced claims is not a purpose of Wikipedia, even if they may be lost. If the claims are significant, they should be published outside of Wikipedia first. Janhrach (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• TNT - Even as a very new term (for a fairly old concept), there are legitimate RSs out there including a very on-point one from Somer, et al [24]. The article as written, however, is simply bad. If nothing else set off alarums, most of the cites are from or about TikTok. I am rarely a fan of
  WP:TNT, as I feel it's the right answer only when an article is likely to significant mislead or misinform readers. That, however, is exactly what I see in this case. If TNT is not deemed appropriate, please consider me in favour of deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  clearly state that it's silliness. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:46, 10 September 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.

Omid Shams

Omid Shams (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)

Largely sourced to

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iran. Reading Beans (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Director of a notable film; awards.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC) ([25] [26] [27] [28], among other sources in English, if someone doubts the verifiability and truth of this).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 9 September 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 14:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sangram Singh Patan

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

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

Seems to be a non-notable politician. Once I removed all the puffery and everything that had no source, turns out literally nothing was sourced, including the fact he actually holds this office (which looks to be local?). Both references simply mentioned him as an upcoming candidate for the position, and a google search turned up nothing other than directories and crowdsourced, though of course I couldn't search in Hindi. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,
  WP:NPOL-Admantine123 (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Local officeholders do not pass

  WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

We have articles on other local government officeholders as well, as for example Ritu Jaiswal.-Admantine123 (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because that article has sources to show the subject meets our notability requirements. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's almost empty and unreferenced. Does it even classify as "stub"? If deletion really is too strong, then at least draftify. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails in WP:NPOL Worldiswide (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Article is a stub. Cwater1 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails
  talk] 15:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Draftify Even if membership of Zila Parishad makes this person meet
  WP:BLP. I note that the editor User:Patan Yuva who initially created it declared a COI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As the article stands now, it qualifies for speedy delete under
  WP:A7. Looking at the history of the article, it strikes me as a vanity piece, and has never once been in a state where it would be acceptable for article space in spite of its age. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Subject fails
  WP:BLP— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Zilla Parishad representation alone is not sufficient as notability criteria. --Soman (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:25, 16 September 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.

Jahangiri Swati

Jahangiri Swati (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 of wp:notability. Article was previously deleted and creator is blocked and indicated they are Swati and wanted to get the word out. The nature of the material appears editor generated with references cited only for factoids in that creation. One reference is just for land ownership, one is a blog talking about info derived from DNA. I was not able to check out the (off line) third reference North8000 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Well, there's some mention of DNA [29], not sure how reliable it is. First few hits are tiktok and facebook... Overall I don't think this passes GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 September 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 14:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Danailov

Mario Danailov (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)

Stats stub with no evidence of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Drat8sub (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per proposal. Most likely the same person as the referee (home town of the referee same as the home town of the player's club + name is not so common) but even that doesn't provide much notability. --Nk (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:00, 13 September 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 The Prisoner. ✗plicit 14:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number Two (The Prisoner)

Number Two (The Prisoner) (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 article currently does not have enough sources to meet GNG, and a BEFORE check mostly turned up unreliable sources and trivial mentions. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and United Kingdom. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:BEFORE. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect for now, as the article fails GNG and has OR issues ('Function' section is unreferenced). Ping me if sources are found and I'll reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 16 September 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 Champany, Falkirk. Star Mississippi 16:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Champany Inn

Champany Inn (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 believe this business fails to meet the standards set in WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is better now that I added some references. Usually you can find additional references for any restaurant with a Michelin star. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments about Michelin stars and notability:
  • There was a long, rambling discussion of Michelin stars and notability at
    • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#RFC on Michelin stars as a reliable source for notability of restaurants
    • The discussion was never closed with a positive or negative conclusion
  • I did a search for Michelin+star+notability in Wikipedia space and looked at a sample of about a dozen AfDs for restaurants with Michelin stars. Only one restaurant with a star was deleted; other AfDs closed as either “keep” or “no consensus”.
    • If you run this search yourself, be aware you’ll turn up additional AfDs for restaurants that didn’t have stars. Michelin stars were brought up for some reason such as, “but if it did have a Michelin star…”

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a few sources already given that discuss the establishment, and some in Gsearch as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks as if it no longer has a Michelin star,[30] gone in 2011.[31] in my view this shouldn't directly affect notability. Thincat (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as creator). In addition to the sources contributed by others, I've added some more and added some additional facts to give a better sense of the place. Best, - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 17:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Champany, Falkirk. While the subject is notable, the article is a premature spinout from the hamlet, where the hotel and restaurant are the only establishments. Champany Inn is not even mentioned in the body of that stub! gidonb (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can everyone else live with merging as a compromise? It would preserve the content, while strengthening the microstub on the hamlet. Please react below! Pinging 1keyhole, Лисан аль-Гаиб, A. B., Oaktree b, Thincat, and Jarry1250. gidonb (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be a good thing to do (but I have no problem with keep). Thincat (talk) 20:24, 12 September 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 10:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitar Dimitrov (footballer, born 1989)

Dimitar Dimitrov (footballer, born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm struggling to get this over the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per proposal. (Note that the content of the Bulgarian article had been overwritten back in 2016 with information about completely different football player [32], both under notability limit IMHO.) --Nk (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:00, 13 September 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 2000 Rugby League World Cup qualifying. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Rugby League World Cup qualification – Pool A

2000 Rugby League World Cup qualification – Pool A (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)

Unnecessary article split which just duplicates information already on the main 2000 Rugby League World Cup qualifying page. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Morocco, Lebanon, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No unique information here. Mn1548 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Rugby League World Cup qualification – Pool B (closed as redirect) so a consistent result would be nice. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:17, 15 September 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. ✗plicit 10:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Education Association

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

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

an artifact from 2008. considering the original article, it was likely written just to promote the entity. ltbdl (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Turkey. ltbdl (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — The article having promotional text way back in 2008 is pretty irrelevant since it's now entirely stripped down of any content, barring a few sentences that just describe the association. Obviously not the best of articles, but I think the topic is notable. Firstly, this is a non-profit, so
  Styyx (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  styyx: hey, could i have a look at your sources? ltbdl (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  If you can show me you did a WP:BEFORE, then yes.

  Styyx (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  seriously? ltbdl (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, seriously. I do realize I'm being a dick here, but a Google search is the bare minimum expected before sending something to AfD. If you say you couldn't find any sources while searching, that's also enough; I'm not going to shame you for not finding anything in a different language, but I do still want to see the effort.

  Styyx (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  oh, very well then. all the sources i dredged up were trivial mentions (eg. [33] [34]). ltbdl (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine, and I'd agree with your assessment on the 2 particular sources you mentioned. I added some better ones to the talk page. Also they have 10055 hits on

  Styyx (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep — I have added another cite. If anyone likes to merge in the "see also" articles that would be good I think as I doubt they deserve their own articles.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. TED is fairly well-known. I tried to do a quick search to find better references, but surprisingly, I couldn't find any good ones. So, I would respect any reasonable votes to delete, but TED is a known, old organization. Aintabli (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]