Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 11 October 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. This AFD will close as the previous 3 AFDs on this article closed, with a consensus to Keep it. There were some editors advocating Deletion but arguments--that this claim actually exists and has existed for awhile (not transient)--and the numbers were on the side of those advocating Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is well known that the PRC claims Taiwan as a Province of China, as described in Taiwan, China and Political status of Taiwan and One-China policy. This article title violates WP:POVFORK as no independent reliable sources cited describe Taiwan as a province of China. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China cited is obviously a WP:Primary source and cannot be used in the context of establishing Wikipedia:Notability of the subject for a standalone page, and it certainly can't be used for writing an article with a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The recent deletions of Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Donetsk People's Republic (Russia) set the standard for how claimed administrative entities should be covered on Wikipedia. If this page is kept, editors should provide secondary sources showing the claim is a significant viewpoint, warranting its own article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 12. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't dug into the sourcing yet, but leaning keep on the basis that I don't think it makes sense to cite the Kherson and Donetsk articles as an airtight precedent. The big issue with those articles was WP:CRYSTALBALL; in this case, despite the fact that the PRC has no control or authority over Taiwan, it has for decades appointed or elected government ministers to represent it. The validity or lack thereof of the PRC's claims aside, this administrative entity has existed for a long time. I would be amazed if academic sources on this topic were unavailable, as it concerns the maintenance of PRC claims on Taiwan, a dispute that has shaped East Asian politics since its inception and continues to do so today (unfortunately, a simple google scholar search is overwhelmed by results comprising papers published in China about unrelated topics that happen to mention something recent happening in Taiwan). By contrast, the Kherson and Donetsk administrations were announced mere weeks ago, and even setting aside the question of actual control of the land, much remains unclear as to how Russia plans on "administering" these regions internally. If claims on Kherson and Donetsk remain sticking points of Russian politics in 10 years, they probably will merit articles. It's also worth noting that every prior time this page has been nominated, the result has been landslide keep. signed, Rosguill talk 23:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially favoured keeping the Kherson article and renaming it to Kherson military–civilian administration, though I changed it to delete as Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast covered it adequately. I would be open to changing the title of this article to something like Taiwan as a Province of China, but the current title appears to support a PRC claim and is not supported by independent reliable sources. I don't doubt academic sources also cover the subject, but the big question is how they do so, and if China appointing officials makes Taiwan a province of China. I don't think sources support that claim. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the current title appears to support a PRC claim and is not supported by independent reliable sources This is a claimed part of the PRC. That's what the article is about. Titling it similar to other claimed PRC territories simply makes sense; the article can and does clearly explain the level of international recognition and actual control they have of the territory. There's nothing wrong with this title from a POV perspective. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The POV perspective that Taiwan is a province of China is a PRC claim disputed by the ROC, and unsupported by independent reliable sources. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Taiwan Province is a province of the PRC. That's not a "disputed claim", any more than it is a disputed claim that the ROC claims all of mainland China. Both of these are simply facts. What's disputed is whether the PRC's Taiwan Province is the legitimate government of the island of Taiwan. There is no doubt that this province exists as a PRC governmental entity, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That the PRC claims Taiwan as a province of the PRC is not disputed, but it is not otherwise supported by independent reliable sources, which makes it a POV perspective. There is also a WP:OR concern as while the ROC and PRC still officially claim eachother's territories as their own, it is subject to (our) interpretation of their constitutions, and the current position of the Government of the Republic of China is not the same as the historical position of the Republic of China (1912–1949), and that's why there isn't a standalone article on the ROC's supposed claim over mainland china. Like I said in my nomination, a keep close should be able to show secondary sources representing the PRC's claim as a significant viewpoint, warranting its own article. Having just read WP:NDESC, I would also add that secondary sources should show "Taiwan Province" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject, otherwise it should be renamed to something more neutral. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    that's why there isn't a standalone article on the ROC's supposed claim over mainland china We actually do have some of these, for example Chekiang Province, Republic of China, though they're written in a historical sense (even though they are current claims of the ROC, the ROC doesn't really do anything regarding those claims, unlike the PRC claiming Taiwan Province). Administrative divisions of Taiwan also explains this, though that article isn't written in the clearest way.
    There is absolutely nothing non-neutral about the name "Taiwan Province" for an entity that's called "Taiwan Province". This article does not need a descriptive title. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nothing has changed from the previous AfDs. This is about the claimed Chinese governmental entity; it's not a POVFORK of anything. The recent deletions did not set any standard; a major reason for their deletion was the relatively murky situation surrounding whether they actually exist as entities, or will for a long period of time. Neither of those issues is present here. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply put, this province does not exist, and there should not be a Wikipedia article treating it as if it did. Surely we have articles that cover China's claims over Taiwan, so whatever name they have concocted for this can be covered adeqately in a sentence or two there. I would draw attention to the recent Russian propaganda regarding the Ukrainian territories that they "annexed", despite having no operational control over said territories. These propaganda articles, such as the Russian Kherson Oblast were deleted. Zaathras (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing in this article that shouldn't already be a part of Political status of Taiwan, which much more properly discusses the specific topic herein. As it stands, the article above looks like a WP:POVFORK made specifically to try and legitimize the claims of the Chinese government. No such administrative region exists as defined by China, so there's no need for this article and any content in it is better covered in the political status article, which is on an actual topic with proper sourcing. SilverserenC 01:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this nomination rationale is flawed. An article title cannot violate POVFORK; POVFORK has nothing to do with titles. To the contrary, names that imply a particular POV are fine per WP:POVNAME. What matters is article content, and not much about that has been raised here. Sources are not needed to cover the idea that "the claim is a significant viewpoint", because this article is not about a viewpoint, but about a particular legal construct. The statement above that "this province does not exist, and there should not be a Wikipedia article treating it as if it did" is met, as the article seems pretty clear about what does and doesn't exist. Rosguill covers well the differences with other recent AfDs.
    The idea this article should be merged into Political status of Taiwan is a more interesting discussion about how to structure information, but the particular suggestion of a merge to Political status of Taiwan seems suboptimal, as the interesting relevant content about this entity, such as the delegation in the NPC, would be highly undue there. Perhaps there is a better way to structure the information, the current page is a bit muddled, but that isn't something AfD will help with much. CMD (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a child article of Political status of Taiwan, and that article sits at 72 kB of readable prose. This article could potentially be merged in to it, but I think that would, with all the content and accompanying maps, take up an undue amount of space there. As a topic, the PRC's in name only province is notable in its own right, even if it didnt merit being split off just due to size considerations. Im not sure how people are saying this article legitimizes anything, it goes at great pains to say this is what China claims, but it does not actually possess the ability to enforce. nableezy - 02:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the province exists de jure according to the nation’s own constitution, it has political delegations bodies etc designated for the province to political bodies. The thing is that administration is not actually executed on the actual province itself i.e. PRC does not actually administrate on ground on Taiwan. If you were to complete official legal documentations etc in China you would have see indications and references to Taiwan Province, People’s Republic of China rather than the Taiwan Province, Republic of China. Just pointing out that the province does exist in legal terms in the country. This comment is not championing the reasons for the PRC’s claims, but rather acknowledging an existence of the political framework system that sustain that claim. It would be different if the claim was not sustained or pursued. For example legally Mongolia is part of the Republic of China but the Republic of China has not opened that can of worms since the democratization of the Republic of China. Up to the 1980s democratization period, the Republic of China was still pursuant in regaining the original Republic of China lands in its constitution ( these lands include the mainland and Mongolia). And this is not just one sided on the PRC. For any country to have diplomatic relations with the PRC they must acknowledge (not necessary endorse) the existence of the PRC’s position on its territorial definitions. Any country that has diplomatic relations with the PRC acknowledges the existence of the PRC’s territorial definitions and One China principle in the world. It’s impossible for any country to have full fledged diplomatic relations with both PRC and ROC - it’s only one or only the other.
Likewise on the other hand the Republic of China will not give an endorsement on any country’s position that acknowledges the PRC position as that in turn defies the ROC’s territorial integrity. Yeungkahchun (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This province does not exist, it's basically a government's claim on another country. There is no logic for an article that seemingly substantiates a territorial claim in this manner by appearing to be an article on an existing state, that does not exist (and never has). Looking at the various articles on the area, as has been mentioned above, it should be merged with Political_status_of_Taiwan. As it is, IMHO it is a POV fork. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re referring to the fact that the province has no administrative control but not the fact that the province itself actually exists. The province constitutionally exists: the institutions and the legal structures for the province exist. This is not a “it’s my claim from PRC because I just said it”. Bodies and instruments of state exist. There’s delegations, political bodies, and documentative apparatus for this entity. The only thing is that there is no active occupation on the island itself. The Republic of China (Taiwan) itself is aware of the existence of this institution and totally disproves the escalatory actions the PRC takes in order to execute propagandize campaigns against and intimidate the people of Taiwan or cut off Taiwan from the rest of the world through propaganda with respect to this entity and its institutions. The roc constantly seeks the PRC’s de-escalation in regards to this entity: this entity disrespects the territorial integrity of the ROC, and the ROC is urgent for the PRC to de-escalate and respect the ROC’s territorial integrity. The position of the ROC is that the ROC wants peace and the status quo. The ROC does not want escalation or provocations with the PRC and constantly seeks deescalation. Furthermore the ROC strongly refutes any country’s position that takes actions toward achieving military actions that would allow this political entity to usurp the ROC as this in turn defies the ROC’s territorial integrity. Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the PRC can claim a country that isn't there's and have no control over...and then produce a whole bunch of legislation about it, doesn't make the reason for the article any more valid. Any country can produce invalid legislation with no basis, Putin has just done it for Ukraine. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not about describing Taiwan as part of China, which would be a WP:POVFORK. The text of the article makes it crystal clear that this is not the case. This is about an administrative subdivision of China that exists according to Chinese law and even elects delegates to the national legislature, even if obviously de facto control of the claimed areas is administered by Taiwan. This is also a valid child article of the main Political status of Taiwan article, which deals with the dispute at a very high level, is already quite long, and does not need to be filled with technical descriptions and minutiae of how China actually administers a province it has zero de facto control over. The deletion of the recent Russian articles seems primarily based on the lack of reliable sources that would justify a split from the occupation articles, which already cover the Russian administration. There were also concerns raised about the poorly defined and swiftly changing territorial boundaries of both claimed and controlled territory as the war goes on, and just general uncertainty since the articles were created before the requisite changes to Russian law and constitutional documents were fully implemented. None of those concerns exist here, though admittedly the sourcing in the article could be better. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the article is extensive and has sourced information, obviously not about a de facto province, but rather about a clearly notable aspect of Chinese political administration. Merging to Political status of Taiwan is probably not a good idea – that article is already pretty long, and I agree with User:Chipmunkdavis that much of the information here would be undue there. This article does not read like a POV fork; if anything, it may be slightly biased against a pro-unification point of view, with its emphasis on statements that are often cited in support of Taiwanese independence (e.g. "the PRC has never controlled any part of Taiwan"), not balanced by statements that are often cited in support of unification (e.g. previous Chinese governments' control of Taiwan). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, China, and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The OP's rationale is severely flawed. "The recent deletions of Kherson Oblast (Russia) and Donetsk People's Republic (Russia) set the standard for how claimed administrative entities should be covered on Wikipedia." is NOT how things work. Every discussion on every topic is only about that topic. Deletion of one article has no bearing on the deletion of another article that was not discussed in that discussion. If the primary rationale to delete this article is "we deleted other articles earlier", then no, that is not a valid rationale. Each article is to be considered on its own, compared to its own text and to Wikipedia's PAGs, and not to any other article which may or may not have any relevant connection to this one. --Jayron32 15:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unlike the recently deleted Russian articles, this does in fact verifiably exist as an administrative unit (the fact that it doesn't control the territory is moot - in fact it's the exact opposite scenario of the Russian articles). Claiming that those deletions set some kind of precedent is irrelevant per WP:OSE anyways, just as the fact this article has been kept at AfD multiple times did not magically save those from deletion. ansh.666 16:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the nominator has valid points, there's WP:COATRACK issues and the article should be renamed. However, these are content issues and there is enough material to justify a separate article. I do agree with comments above that the Russia/Ukraine examples are not relevant here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is not a WP:POVFORK because it is simply stating the PRC's position on Taiwan, not claiming that it is objectively true in any way. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as it reads now literally declares Taiwan as a province of the People's Republic of China (in WP:WIKIVOICE) based on a WP:PRIMARY source (the constitution of the People's Republic of China). How is that not a claim of objective truth? IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Taiwan is a province per the constitution of the People's Republic of China. That's a pretty objective truth? Not sure what you are going for here. CMD (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How does one country's constitution claiming a territory as its own "province" (or administrative region, or any other similar descriptor) make it an "objective" truth? It at least needs to be attributed as a claim. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you disputing there is a claim? It is pretty universal among all sources that China claims Taiwan ("renegade province" is a term often used). The text as written expands upon the applicability of the claim, but even if it didn't that wouldn't affect the truthiness of the claim existing. CMD (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disputing that there is such a claim. I'm disputing the way the claim is being presented as an objective truth, and I have suggested alternative wording for the page [1] and lead sentence [2]. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your proposed wording has exactly the same meaning as the current sentence, so I am really confused as to what truth you're reading into this article. CMD (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly the same. I proposed addition of "defined by the PRC constitution". See: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is already there. CMD (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As of right now, the lead sentence remains unattributed. IntrepidContributor (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence stating China considers Taiwan one of its provinces? There's very simple WP:BEFORE that should have been done if that is why this is at AfD. CMD (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this isn't a POV fork, and it's not clear what it's supposed to be a POV fork of. This article is entirely about an administrative entity created by the PRC, it doesn't pretend to be an article about Taiwan in the sense that Taiwan does. If that was the case then it would have sections about history, geography, culture etc. Given how important the Taiwan dispute is there are almost certainly plenty of sources about this, and merging it into Political status of Taiwan wouldn't make sense given the length of that article and the fact this isn't one of the most important aspects of the dispute. The deletion of the Kherson and Donetsk articles does not set any kind of precedent (there's no such thing at AfD) and those deletions were motivated in large part by WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns which don't apply here, and the POV fork arguments were rather more solidly made. Hut 8.5 11:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to ? There are too many articles on Taiwan, and they are bafflingly organized. Personally, I think splitting ROC and Taiwan into separate articles makes the most sense, and merging this—reduced, as there is no reason to go into detail about the fictions of political organization—into the latter is the best approach. If this article has to stay, it needs to be up front about the reality that this is all pretend. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All governmental entities are "made up". It's made clear that this entity currently does not have control of the island of Taiwan, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose the idea that we should split the article "Taiwan" into two separate articles. The common understanding of Taiwan is that it is a de facto sovereign state, even though its political status is very strange, such as its official name being "Republic of China". Splitting the ROC out of the Taiwan article (and splitting the Taiwan article out of the ROC article) would be an egregious POV-fork. These two topics are inextricably linked. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We already do have that; it's Taiwan Province. It's just that the common name for the Republic of China is "Taiwan". Elli (talk | contribs) 16:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand what the article "Taiwan Province" is actually about. Taiwan Province is effectively an administrative subdivision of Taiwan itself. Yes, it's very confusing, but that's indeed a fact. Obviously, "Taiwan" refers to the country that is officially known as the "Republic of China". The entity that is known as "Taiwan Province" (on Wikipedia) refers to one of the top-tier subdivisions of the country, alongside Taipei, Tainan, Kaohsiung, Taichung, New Taipei, Taoyuan, and "Fuchien Province" (Kinmen + Matsu). Taiwan Province previously contained the six aforementioned cities, but those six cities were administratively split out of the province to effectively form their own provinces. Effectively, the Republic of China on Taiwan is comprised of eight provinces with de facto control (albeit only a tiny percentage in the case of Fuchien Province), and maybe 30 provinces that have not been controlled by the ROC since 1949. The political statuses of the six aforementioned cities is very similar to the political statuses of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing, Hong Kong, and Macau in the PRC. These cities are effectively "independent cities" that qualify as top-level subdivisions, alongisde the now truncated (i.e. pieces cut off) Taiwan Province and tiny bit of Fuchien Province. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was kinda my point... I agree that we shouldn't split up the Taiwan article into one describing the ROC and one describing Taiwan because they are at this point two names for the same entity; our article on Taiwan Province explains the administrative structure of that province within the ROC (though it's no longer used for much). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Taiwan Province" article is not a POV-fork, because even if it describes a mostly-defunct administrative subdivision of Taiwan/ROC in the present day, the entity "Taiwan Province" existed in the past, before Taiwan became de facto independent. Taiwan Province existed as a distinctive entity towards the end of the Qing dynasty's reign, in 1887 to 1895. Hence, Taiwan Province is undeniably a "historical entity", even if the PRC's interpretation of "Taiwan Province" doesn't exist in the present day. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject of this article is a fiction in that it claims to administer an area which it does not in fact administer. We can mention somewhere that the PRC has this fake bureaucracy. but the details of it are seriously WP:UNDUE. 19:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Even though I am opposed to the PRC's claim to Taiwan, it does indeed represent a major viewpoint albeit one that is almost solely held by the PRC. The PRC is a large country; 1.4 billion inhabitants. The PRC is also an economic superpower, with other factors (e.g. military and political influence) that render it one of the great powers of the world (some would argue a superpower). China also has a large geographic area. Whichever way you spin it, China is a big deal, even if it stands alone in its expansionist intentions towards Taiwan. With that being said, the article probably does require closer scrutiny to make sure that it is adhering to the principles of WP:NPOV. I can envision how this article could easily become derailed by pro-PRC activists. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With a few exceptions, Taiwan is recognized as part of the People's Republic of China. But recognition is not required in order to have an article just sufficient coverage in reliable sources. It's not actually a POV fork because the article explains the government structures China has set up for the province, such as federal legislators. Neutrality does not mean that articles should come down on the side of either of the two Chinas, but merely that we should outline any disputes. TFD (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's accurate that countries recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC. Recognising the PRC as the "One China" does not necessarily entail recognising Taiwan as a part of that "One China". These are two separate issues and they should not be conflated. Various countries seem to hold ambiguous stances on the status of Taiwan, even though many of these same countries have relations with the PRC and do not maintain official relations with the ROC on Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a discussion of the legal structure that the PRC has built up as a province of Taiwan. It is a complex sub-topic of the political status of Taiwan, not a POV fork. The topic is supported by a wide range of reliable sources and is the topic of substantial discussion in secondary sources. It ought to have a wikipedia article, just like all sorts of other fictional places (Mordor, Neverland, etc). Furius (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nothing has changed with regards to Taiwan's status since the last discussion, so a 4th nomination is WP:DEADHORSE at this point. Others has already explained why the Kherson situation is completely different, not that it matters. The nominator's rationale is quite bizarre. "This article title violates WP:POVFORK as no independent reliable sources cited describe Taiwan as a province of China." This doesn't make sense as the article does not claim Taiwan to actually be a part of China, it's about the de jure Chinese claim; the country and the claimed Chinese province are different administrative entities so it categorically cannot be WP:POVFORK which is when there's a fork about the same subject. "If this page is kept, editors should provide secondary sources showing the claim is a significant viewpoint" What does this mean, in any territorial dispute between sovereign states the viewpoint of each state is in and of itself a 'significant viewpoint', especially when one of the states is a nuclear power. And plenty of RS have obviously talked about the dispute and that China claims Taiwan. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 06:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I've never deleted an article with over 900 citations. Can this be expected with other COVID-19 Timeline articles we might see pass through AFD? Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And it had 1537 back links due to its appearance on a COVID-19 template. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ivory Coast

[edit]
Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ivory Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there might be a salvageable article on this topic, the entire thing here is one of the longest articles currently in Wikipedia mainspace, but the content seems entirely WP:NOTSTATS to me. I don't want to WP:BATHWATER, but I feel there's no way to save this article. BrigadierG (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away from COVID-19 Wikipedia for quite a while now, but I saw this issue coming when the project was still in its infancy, i.e, massive swathes of statistical data being added to Timeline articles of most if not all countries/territories or for ones where such articles were created. Majority of these articles only state the number of cases, recoveries, deaths and vaccinations of each day either from the start or after a certain point in time - the information which is already available in a much more concise and accessible manner in the Timeline charts. As is visible in this article, there is only sporadic information apart from stats until July 2020 - rest is all written up stats.
Not sure if this has been brought up in COVID-19 Project, but I believe it is now time for a massive cleanup of the project, starting with articles like these. There is only one solution here - deletion unless a Timeline article states more information of other kind than written up stats.
Pinging, @Onetwothreeip:, who tried to propose splitting of this article some months ago, also @Zsteve21: and @Blubabluba9990:. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 16:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranju Gopal Barman

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

Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV as discovered in a WP:BEFORE search. The four sources currently in the article are:

1. A newspaper clipping in another language, assumedly Bengali, that I cannot easily translate without downloading it because it is an image

2. An interview

3. An interview

4. An error page (at least for me)

The article itself also gives off some WP:COI vibes, and is probably an WP:A7. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: I was going to go with A7 but I went with AFD just in case anyone found any sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉
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 Tor (network). Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TorSearch

[edit]
TorSearch (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)

Procedural nomination per consensus at RfD. CycloneYoris talk! 22:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zahidul Islam

[edit]
Zahidul Islam (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)

Quite not notable. Borderline Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G12 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jataka Bharanam

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in general media. This is a book on fringe theory (pseudoscience) that failed to merit a mention in Hindu_astrology#Texts. Article also violates WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. The creator is blocked after multiple copyright violations. See [3] Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20211117. Venkat TL (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is about Hindu astrology Contributor008 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Contributor008 not Hinduism. Respond with evidence How is it Notable? Venkat TL (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user says "keep" and when asked for the basis of the source, it does not have any kind of source/evidence. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smita Saravade PravinGanechari (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Would a move to Draft space resolve these conflicting opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 C.D. Veracruz season

[edit]
1994–95 C.D. Veracruz season (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)

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 19:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister user:Bruxton Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 C.D. Veracruz season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed out that the section about the actual season (the matches etcetera) is unsourced, not the whole article. The Banner talk 21:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Mister The Banner, regards the matches section the source came from RSSSF https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html it is the same used by 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and it is detailed by the Spanish version of that article, then I structured the matches section based on that info. The source it is included now. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That page is copyright protected, you know that? The Banner talk 22:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was reviewed by user:Bruxton and includes 7 references/sources/links:[4]Clarín article, [5], [6], [7], [8] The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False. RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW; true nominator is AWOL and as proxy nominator I am withdrawing given the below. (non-admin closure) Duonaut (talk | contribs) 03:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R.A.E.C. Mons (2015)

[edit]
R.A.E.C. Mons (2015) (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)

Started on behalf of User:Sofiane44 (a French speaker), who has said that it's a duplication. I'll let them do the argument for deletion as I wouldn't know. Duonaut (talk | contribs) 21:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this does not seem to be a duplication, as there are apparently two separate club histories involved. R.A.E.C. Mons (1910) was established in 1910, going bankrupt in 2015. R.A.E.C. Mons (2015) seems to have started in 1945 as AS Quévy-le-Grand et Extensions, but assumed the RAEC Mons name in 2020. The Dutch Wikipedia seems to distinguish these teams with two separate team numbers: nl:RAEC Mons (44) and nl:RAEC Mons (4194). Also note the apparent WP:COI motivation with recent edits [9]. Dl2000 (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeva

[edit]
Sheeva (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)

Like her archrival Motaro, she no longer meets WP:GNG as she has had no impact on the series (only four playable appearances) after the shock value of her debut wore off, and her inclusion as DLC in Aftermath does not change this. Article content is all trivial with the de rigueur collection of reception listicles. Merge/redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 21:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehog Launch

[edit]
Hedgehog Launch (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)

References do not indicate the game passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Born This Way (album). (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen (Lady Gaga song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. No notability on its own, outside of album reviews. + Uses untrustworthy sources. (e.g. PopCrush, PopDust, Ibtimes.com) Sricsi (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a well-written article, but unfortunate that you're right about the lack of notability. One of the few cited sources that talk about the song by its own merits is dead, even. I count one left (the PopCrush source) that talks about the song in its own right, everything else is an album review, chart position (and it didn't chart that well), or unreliable. WPscatter t/c 19:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Born This Way (album) per WP:NSONG. QuietHere (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Born This Way (album) per WP:NSONG. There is not enough coverage, but a redirect would benefit readers more than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Leach

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

Fails WP:GNG. According to the AAGPBL website, Leach was with the Grand Rapids Chicks for a time in 1947. However, she is not mentioned in The Women of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League: A Biographical Dictionary and my searches on Newspapers.com and Google did not bring up any coverage of a baseball player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Hayslip

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

Fails WP:GNG. According to the AAGPBL website, Hayslip was on the Kenosha Comets for a time in 1948, although it doesn't appear as if she played (StatsCrew.com: "Martha Hayslip compiled a career batting average of with 0 home runs and 0 RBI in her 0-game career..."). I've looked several places, including Newspapers.com, Google, and The Women of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League: A Biographical Dictionary but was not able to find any significant coverage (I'll note that she is in the biographical dictionary book, but all it says is "Hayslip, Martha ... Statesboro, Georgia. Infielder. Kenosha Comets. 1948."). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Hopefully, the sources mentioned in this discussion will find their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Indy V8 engine

[edit]
Honda Indy V8 engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to have sufficient independent coverage to be a standalone article, sources are either broken or from Indy. And there is a lot of WP:OR. The creator of the article has done a lot of work with technical specs on motorsport articles, a lot of it with similar problems which led to them being blocked. TylerBurden (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b The detailed info will have come from a company source. Even if it gets echoed in the car magazine reviews, no one determines that independently. So I wonder if it would be ok to use a first party source for that, maybe a link to the tech specs on the company web site, or if someone has the car manual and the specs here could be made sure to come from that. Anyway, that's either a question or the opening of a discussion. Lamona (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I found several sources covering the topic, such as the following: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. It should also be noted that the engines were used during a time when print media was more prominent, and therefore it is likely that there are offline sources covering the topic; for example, Race Engine Technology magazine appears to have given it significant coverage. The article could also be significantly expanded with more coverage of the engines' competition history. Furthermore, the engines were used successfully for several years in one of the biggest racing series in North America and arguably the biggest race in the world, which further seems to indicate that the topic is notable. Carfan568 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur with Carfan568. Even a cursory search shows that there are scores of available reliable, independent, in-depth sources both in print and online. The article needs to be improved to reflect these sources, but it clearly passes WP:GNG. Banks Irk (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG Lightburst (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Barras Band

[edit]
Kris Barras Band (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)

Doesn't appear to pass notability per what's on the page and the only additional coverage I found that I'm at least somewhat confident in is this interview with Louder Sound (or Classic Rock or whatever it's called). Might be worth a redirect to either Mascot Label Group or Provogue Records but I wouldn't complain about a straight delete. QuietHere (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe QuietHere you should read what the relevant notability guidelines actually say before nominating something for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NBAND, or WP:NALBUM? The ones I was citing in my previous response to you? Because I've read them both before and I'm reading them again and they still say the same thing they did when I posted that the other day. QuietHere (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAND #2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." duffbeerforme (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But let us not forget the part above that which says a band "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Just having a couple albums charting does not guarantee notability for a band, and they don't meet any of the other points so far as I can tell, especially not on coverage. QuietHere (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[23] [24] [25] duffbeerforme (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is coverage for the album and would be useful for making an article about the band, but that still doesn't make the band notable. Again, WP:NOTINHERITED. QuietHere (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable. Two top 50 Albums. Clicking the WP Library link at the top of this page I find a number of articles in Record Collector, Classic Rock and Guitarist magazines and a number of newspaper articles Piecesofuk (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and criteria 2 of WP:NBAND per the evidence supplied by Duffbeerforme. Reviews of recordings made by the band in independent RS does constitute as significant coverage of the band itself. Attempting to separate critical reviews of the band's recordings from RS of the band seems overly pedantic. The band did write, play, and record the music on the album. It's splitting hairs to make that argument and is essentially WP:wikilawyering.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic in Canada

[edit]
Chiropractic in Canada (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 enough in-depth coverage of the countrywide industry in reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate that this passes WP:GNG. Article history is poor enough and the history rife enough with copyvio, that WP:TNT would apply even if this scraped by on notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg Open (badminton)

[edit]
Luxembourg Open (badminton) (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)

Draftified and then twice declined at AfC. Creator does not seem to be familiar with sourcing requirements, and a BEFORE identifies no sourcing to establish notability for this inaugural event. Star Mississippi 13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, part of BWF International Series and BWF World Ranking system. Similar like in tennis the parts of the ATP Challenger Tour. Regarding the sources - I have seen already much worse pages, the sources here are not too bad. --Florentyna (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is not sourced like Apple however the general notability is met in general--Bigneeerman (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC) sock strike. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existing sources look better than the previous ones where the creator only included primary sources to the article. Stvbastian (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Florentyna (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted. Please strike one of them as double voting is not allowed. Star Mississippi 17:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" opinions appear questionable... More input by experienced editors needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Gernert

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

Fails WP:GNG. According to the AAGPBL website, she was on the Fort Wayne Daisies for a time in 1951, although it doesn't appear like she actually played (StatsCrew says "Betty Gernert compiled a career batting average of with 0 home runs and 0 RBI in her 0-game career with the Fort Wayne Daisies..."). I've looked in several places, including The Women of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League: A Biographical Dictionary, Newspapers.com, and Google, and was not able to find any coverage (the AAGPBL doesn't seem to have found anything, either, as they say "This player has not been located. We have no additional information" if you go to her profile). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ayyavazhi

[edit]
History of Ayyavazhi (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)

Mostly unsourced article citing those sources which are close to subject and fails WP:RS.

The subject is already covered on Ayyavazhi#Etymology and history, Editorkamran (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Ayyavazhi

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

The page is WP:OR and it is also unnecessary. There is no Etymology of Christianity or Etymology of Hinduism.

Sources, mostly primary sources very close to the subject have been provided but they are there only for lip-service while most of the article remains unsourced since 2012. Editorkamran (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Ayyavazhi

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

The page is WP:OR.

Sources, mostly primary sources very close to the subject have been provided but they are there only for lip-service while most of the article remains unsourced since 2012. Editorkamran (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Hopefully, some of the sources mentioned in this discussion can find their way into this article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aizō Tōge

[edit]
Aizō Tōge (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)

Lost film, stub article contains no more than Film infobox and one source. Robert Kerber (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No source on when it was released. Sarrail (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's important, these two sources give the release date [26] [27]. The first is from the distributor, Nikkatsu, and the second is from a film database run by the government's Agency for Cultural Affairs. Dekimasuよ! 01:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the major sources (Kinenote, production company website, Japan Cinema Database, film literature) is able to give a synopsis or reviews of Aizō Tōge. All they state is that the film once existed, and when it was intially released. The Nikkatsu page even states: "Due to the lack of materials for pre-war works (before 1942), the content of the data on this website is not necessarily accurate." At present Aizō Tōge does not meet WP:NFILM.--Robert Kerber (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be about 100 pages of coverage on this film in the last source. Dekimasuよ! 03:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dekimasu The topic here is Aizō Tōge, not Orizuru Osen, of which, contrary to the former, a print and re-release reviews exist. None of the sources you cite seems to be able to give a synopsis or reviews of Aizō Tōge from the time of its initial run. The Nikkatsu page even states: "Due to the lack of materials for pre-war works (before 1942), the content of the data on this website is not necessarily accurate." No-one questions Mizoguchi's importance, I in the least who has worked on various WP entries on his films, but at present Aizō Tōge does not meet WP:NFILM, and your presumption that it is a "guiding line" is WP:OR as long as you can't cite a source for this. See a similar case here with a lost film by Naruse. Best, Robert Kerber (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was unclear, the book is called "Aizō Tōge and Orizuru Osen" and there are 100 pages specifically on Aizō Tōge along with 300 pages on Orizuru Osen. The 100 pages on Aizō Tōge include information on its plot and reviews from its initial run. On the dividing line, note that we have cited a quote in our Osaka Elegy article stating that "Mizoguchi himself named Osaka Elegy and Sisters of the Gion as the works with which he achieved artistic maturity." Osaka Elegy came out after Orizuru Osen, and Aizō Tōge was the only film he produced for Nikkatsu after returning from being attacked. This may not be sufficient for adding to the article now, so I haven't done so, but it is relevant information for the AfD. As I said above, I am not sure I can do what's sufficient during the AfD, but it's unfortunate because sources certainly do exist, and the Tsutomu Sasō book is likely the best option in order to find a comprehensive selection of them. I probably can't get my hands on it within the week. (The Nikkatsu site is not really necessary; there is ample documentary evidence of when the film was released.) Dekimasuよ! 23:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Bechtel

[edit]
Brendan Bechtel (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. Being a CEO is not enough for WP:anybio Driodr (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)UPE spammer strike. MER-C 19:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep [30] Forbes has an article about him, but most of what I find are press releases or just his name in relation to another construction story. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't someone who is the CEO of a startup firm with a dozen employees, Bechtel is the largest construction firm in the United States and operates worldwide on major construction projects. I'm sure we have articles on CEOs of companies that are at the top of their industry. I realize that this isn't a strong reason to keep but I read over the article and I would argue that the subject is notable as a businessman and for his position in his industry. The article could use more independent reliable sources (as would most articles) but I think the Fortune references are strong. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep I understand the arguments that he's head of a major company etc., but I can't find any sources - he's the invisible man. The only source that seems substantial (not by this company or a mere mention) might be the one Fortune magazine article actually about him. I can only see the first paragraph before the paywall but let's assume it's good. Still, that's only one significant source. In all of the other third-party sources he is just name-checked. With the Washington Biz Journal article there are now two significant sources, which puts him into GNG territory, and the other less significant sources fill in some of the article's data. Lamona (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Brendan Bechtel said in the Fortune magazine "40 Under 40" 2016 feature that he would tell his 20-year-old self "to be very suspicious when someone tells you a problem is impossible to solve, or that a current situation can't be changed." I thought this was an apt way to describe this particular AfD discussion overall. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Brendan Bechtel easily passes WP:GNG, with significant coverage in Fortune magazine (multiple articles, including the June 2016 "Master of Megaprojects" feature and a paragraph in the October 2016 "40 Under 40"); the in-depth 2018 feature in Washington Business Journal (although it includes many quotes from Brendan himself, it is a very lengthy article that also includes a lot of factual information compiled and checked by data editor Carolyn M. Proctor); and last but not least, some investigative reporting by ProPublica (which is a reliable source according to WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). When this article was nominated for deletion, it was indeed rather short and dull, so I've tried to expand it with more content to differentiate it from his boilerplate executive bio, including information about his involvement as chair of the infrastructure committee of the Business Roundtable, a powerful lobbying group, and more detail about his career inside of Bechtel, starting with his summer internship in corporate IT when he was 14 years old, and his development path through field construction, project management, and executive leadership, drawing on additional sources such as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Engineering News-Record (ENR). Cielquiparle (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Call

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

Article reads as promotional, which isn't surprising as it's sourced mostly from the subject's agent's website. No SIGCOV and insufficient RS. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Adams

[edit]
Rex Adams (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 available sources say not so much about person's notability Driodr (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hill (American football quarterback)

[edit]
Sean Hill (American football quarterback) (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)

High school football player with zero reliable sources. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:YOUNGATH. Even the local pieces in the article don't mention this individual, they mention the school and the Friedlander article mentions some other players in passing, but not this one. Just a heads up when searching for sources for this individual, there is a Brookwood High School football player with the same name but is a different individual in the same county. According to this edit the individual is a freshman at a brand new school that's only been open since August. I very much doubt that anyone is going to find significant coverage of a high school football player 3 months into their freshman year. Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged this under A7. The only claim to notability possible is that the subject plays high school football, which is definitely not actually a valid claim. GPL93 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor: What coverage? He's a high school backup and I cannot find anything outside of database sites (some of which you can add yourself to) and Youtube/social media. The current 4 references are 2 Youtube videos from his high school football team's account, one of which is simply a replay of a Junior Varsity game, and the subject's 2 different personal Instagram accounts. GPL93 (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t care to elaborate on the sources for an article which I voted “delete” but routine game report/ school profile listed in the article are enough to warrant an AFD (i.e. this discussion) rather than an open-and-shut A7 close. Frank Anchor 12:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Tozzi

[edit]
Cheyenne Tozzi (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)

Doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. I find the consensus is to Keep this article after recent improvements to it. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pandox

[edit]
Pandox (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 the impressive refbombing, the sources don't actually provide the RS sigcov required for notability. They are all routine business reporting, capsule profiles and close primary sources, with the one exception being the Affärsvärlden analyst piece, but that alone is nowhere near enough; a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have now added a few editorial sources from Swedish and international newspapers such as Dagens Industri, The New York Times, The Financial Times, and The Irish Times, to better establish the notability of Pandox. I am happy to continue searching for relevant sources if anyone still feels that the notability of the topic is uncertain.Carl Gronwall 5 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Karnapoğlu

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Karnapoğlu has had a very short-lived professional career (only appearing in 1 Turkish top division match). The only online English and Turkish-language coverage is trivial, including transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, those articles are not in-depth coverage. Jogurney (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Scoring goals is routine, winning matches is routine, winning tournaments is routine, transferring is routine, retiring is routine, getting a red card is routine, getting a yellow card is routine, at this rate most football biographies are gonna be deleted and the only ones that are gonna be kept are going to be footballers who did something noteworthy outside of football. I feel like there needs to be some football. I see that there are specific guidelines for American football that says players are presumed notable if they have played in matches in the top level league in their country, why aren't there guidelines like that for soccer/football? Gazozlu (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you see that gridiron presumes notability? It is not even covered on NSPORT. And to your main point: yes, we should be deleting the vast majority of footballers if the totality of their coverage is refactored transactional announcements and recaps of their gameplay that don't go into any breadth and depth as to why they are important. JoelleJay (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry It was rugby not american football that states that notability is presumed for having appeared in a top tier match. American Football might have been deleted entirely from the guideline. As was Football (soccer).
    Essentially what the notability guidenlines stated is:
    Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:
    1. Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match as defined by FIFA, or in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA.
    1. Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.
    Note: For the purposes of this guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or coming on as a substitute. Youth players, or players at the Olympics, are not presumed notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:NBASIC.
    And WP:NFOOTY was a redirect to that. However someone deleted that paragraph in the current version. Gazozlu (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you aren't aware of the massive RfC that deprecated participation-based criteria for sportspeople. We're still working out the other sports on NSPORT, but the entirety of NFOOTY was removed because consensus was that it did not predict GNG reliably at all. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw some talk about it here and there. But I really don't understand the point in all this discussion about specific notability sections for specific things if every single one of those sections still comes down to needing to establish significant coverage anyway. Gazozlu (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage is terrible. 1: name in a list Red XN; 2: utterly routine transfer announcement Red XN; 3: stats database Red XN; 4: another routine transfer announcement Red XN; 5: single-sentence transfer announcement Red XN; 6: literally just quotes him Red XN; 7: routine transfer coverage Red XN. Nothing remotely approaching GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything in the scope of football coverage is always utterly routine. At that rate there would only be articles on players like Christian Eriksen who experienced a cardiac arrest during a match. Gazozlu (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Using this logic, everything on Wikipedia is routine. The sun's routine, the sky's routine, what isn't routine?--Ortizesp (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think there really should be a Football specific notability guide, as I see there are for other sports. I am seeing many sources being perhaps too liberally being considered as routine. Gazozlu (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be serious please. It's incredibly simple to find in-depth coverage of footballers who have significant achievements or attract a lot of attention. Just scrolling through the first page of the BBC's Women's football website section provides this in-depth piece on Ellen White. Unlike Karnapoğlu, she is the subject of more than just routine coverage. Jogurney (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was also a lot of significant coverage of Christian Eriksen before the heart issue. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well ofcourse, he's been on the main national team since 2010, and also played for AFC Ajax then. Gazozlu (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously a record scorer of a national team at the end of their career will plenty of articles like that written about them. That's not a good example. Gazozlu (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it not a good example? My point is that actually notable (those with important achievements) footballers will easily pass the GNG. Non-notable ones like Karnapoğlu will not. Jogurney (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a bad example because she's not the average notable footballer. A good example is an average example. Einstein is not a useful example for notability of a scientist for example, for obvious reasons. Gazozlu (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "average footballers" are simply not notable? Carlos Fenoy is an article I started last month on a former footballer who was relatively famous in Spain, but he never played at international level. Still, it was quite easy to find SIGCOV. Footballers who only make a single appearance in a top league (like Karnapoğlu) just don't get that kind of coverage, and don't merit an article under Wikipedia policy. Jogurney (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also a bad example. Fenoy is relatively famous in Spain and has had a long career in the Spanish top level league. A good example would be a non-famous player with little coverage that is notable. Gazozlu (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a "non-famous player with little coverage" ever notable? We don't want articles on those players! JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fame =/= notability. That is the challenge of finding a good example, players that are notable but not in any overwhelmingly obvious ways. Gazozlu (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I don't think a third relisting will elicit more participation in this discussion so I'm closing it as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Yawe

[edit]
Eddy Yawe (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 presumptively notable under WP:NPOL, so notability would have to derive from coverage of him as a musician. Of all the cited sources, only [36] is good in terms of reliability, and it is not independent, extensively quoting from the subject. [37] is a short interview. Indeed, this Mbu website has miscellaneous articles on Yawe, but I don't think it's particularly reliable overall; feels like a Ugandan BuzzFeed. Ovinus (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has reliable some reliable sources which include New Vision and The observer which are national newspapers BalukuBrian (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to access [38] for some reason.... Ovinus (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CtrlShift

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Generic. References are PR. Brochure advertisement. scope_creepTalk 12:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious fluff is obvious BrigadierG (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. To be honest, I dislike deleting articles like this about incidents that are significant in a particular country or location. But I find the consensus in this discussion is that WP:NOTNEWS applies and, consequently, that this results in a decision to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Bratislava car crash

[edit]
2022 Bratislava car crash (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 incident, while tragic, fails WP:NOTNEWS. Fatalities as a result of drunk driving are a routine and common occurence, and there's no indication this particular event will receive any lasting coverage beyond a single news cycle Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Zochova. The information about the car crash belongs on Wikipedia, because the event and following policy debates has resulted in a lot more coverage in the reliable media sources compared to most traffic accidents. At the same time, a separate page is not warranted as per policy guidelines cited by the previous posters in this discussion. Newklear007 (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Man (cricket ground)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
The Green Man (cricket ground) (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)

As far i can see this is a page for the location of a single cricket match, that they don't actually know where it happened, only near the ground of a cricket club without an article, but I'd be very happily proven wrong. For that matter, I think I've done the nomination wrong. Erik Sergeant (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks as if the ground still exists and is in use - with a pub sign on the outfield, which obviously pleases me greatly. I'll add a short section to the locality article, but given the naming issues I'm not sure that a redirect there really works. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Waltrip

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

There are three huge problems with this article: 1) The person doing most of the editing is doing so with the username of the article's subject. That's been handled, the account has been soft blocked, however that still leaves COI and Paid Editing related issues here unresolved; 2) if you look through the article's history you can see multiple allegations of copyright infringement going as far back as last year which were reverted but are still present in the article's history, and given the amount of times its worked its way back into the article I'd be of the mind to permanently remove it so it can not be reused as it were; 3) in its current form the article does not appear to satisfy requirements for WP:N or WP:GNG. Collectively, then, I feel it best to list the article here to allow the community to weigh in on these issues and decide whether we want to keep the article, scrap it, or execute a community sanctioned TNT maneuver. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. I know there is disagreement about the quality of the new sources added to the article but I find the consensus in this discussion is to Keep it in the project. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie D. Parkin

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. References are generally primary and/or passing mentions which doesn't establish notability. scope_creepTalk 10:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thmazing: It only deserves an articles if there is sufficient independent secondary sources that are reliable and indepth, i.e. significant. They are not for this. All the new references that have gone in are all passing mentions and WP:PRIMARY. We will go through the references and explain why they are junk. scope_creepTalk 08:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This extensive profile was originally published in the Salt Lake Tribune, which is independent. It's not enough to go only by the sources currently in the article. Jahaza (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The references are still terrible and constitute a whole list of passing mentions, profiles, PR, interviews and press-releases. They are the usual mix of transient mentions that don't constitute secondary coverage that signifcant and in-depth. We will do through the references today. scope_creepTalk 09:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles like we have here shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Boyer

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

Appears to be notable but this is a BLP without any actual references. Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Nome King. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nome Kingdom

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

There isn't meaningful coverage in reliable third-party sources to build an encyclopedic article, as per WP:GNG. A review of the sources finds either trivial mentions or material that can only support a plot summary, which are WP:NOT sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Jontesta (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jontesta, Keep, Redirect and Merge might seem similar to an editor who is arguing for Deletion but they are three different outcomes to a closer and different editors argued for each of these options. I just happened to be looking at this page soon after you've made a remark as the AFD nominator. I expect the discussion will be closed fairly soon now that you have changed your opinion. But many closers just look over the daily AFD log once a day and there is only about half oa dozen of us who close deletion discussions while there are hundreds of AFDs so it might take a while before a closer looks over this who sees a consensus emerging. It's not like this is our day job! Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't meant to discredit anyone's hard work. Just noting that every commenter has mentioned merge/redirect as an acceptable WP:ATD, with the only possible exception of my nomination. So I hope my most recent comment can make it clear that I can accept a compromise. Jontesta (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Raducanu career statistics

[edit]
Emma Raducanu career statistics (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)

Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines, it is apparent that "career statistics" articles are for situations where the amount of notable statistics grows too great for the player's own page ("Created when a player's main article gets too large, per wikipedia standards."; "If the scoreboard is more than {twenty?}; consider splitting out into a separate article named "{personName} career statistics". Such as Novak Djokovic career statistics."). Raducanu is not in such a position (a very short career to date and only one final - all relevant information could easily be incorporated at Emma Raducanu. It is clear that these types of pages are not intended to be created just for any player that wins a Grand Slam. Macosal (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you aren't suggesting other players with similar career lengths have theirs deleted such as Sinner and Alcaraz? This is a pretty common statistics page for players that also haven't won a slam such as Sinner and Yastremska. 350z33 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But at least in those cases they have played a handful of finals (not that I don’t think they should be deleted too). But this is just the most extreme example of a player with very limited career statistics having a whole article dedicated to them. The WP:TENNIS policy I cited above suggests number of finals may be an appropriate criteria. What does this article achieve? It could easily be incorporated at Emma Raducanu. Macosal (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should nominate them all for deletion based on the criteria set out with #20 or whatever else someone said on that rather than now suggest finals appearances to avoid those and isolate this one. What is the purpose of this article that is expanding wikipedia? To provide more information on a subject particularly one that has more views and coverage than others. I rather expand articles than contract them. I think most of tennis wiki is lacking so deleting a page we know will continue to grow while also having more views than other similar statistic pages makes no sense. 350z33 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might do (or equally, you can). As I said, this is just the most flagrant example I’ve come across of a player with a very limited career having a standalone stats article. As I said, all this information could easily be added to Emma Raducanu, we shouldn’t merely expand Wikipedia for the sake of it (see WP:NOTSTATS. It could be worth discussing exactly when these articles should be created at WT:TENNIS, but this one can’t be on the right side of the line whatever way you look at it, in my view. Macosal (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't flag those as I'm okay with them (and this page) staying as I know they will continue to expand as well as have a high number of page views compared to other players that have a standalone (i.e. Yastremska who hasn't achieved as much and has a standalone stats page with far less views at 3k YTD vs 18k for this one made only a few months ago). The only thing I ask is that if you end up having your request for deletion go through, will you kindly migrate the material over to the mainpage rather than delete and then not do what you say it could be? Thanks. 350z33 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that not textbook WP:CRYSTAL? We can always recreate this article if and when there is a greater amount of stats to display. Further, as outlined above, I'm not saying these stats shouldn't appear on Wikipedia, just that they dont (based on WP:TENNIS guidance) merit an article of their own right now. I don't think winning one Grand Slam makes a player's entire career statistics noteworthy automatically, and that doesn't appear to have been the WP:TENNIS consensus. Macosal (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This player won a major (the highest level title in professional tennis) and those type of players have separate pages for their career statistics and there is enough info in the article to be a standalone and it continues to expand by the week.
350z33 (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Raducanu's page has generated as much views in a year as the next 3 most viewed female playersas the most popular woman tennis stars have had combined in 7 years. Way after the protraction effect from the event, its baseline is stable and meets that of the men Top 3. This is a clear indicator of a significant news coverage that will require the article of an primary career active BLP being split out for navigability, and as such merging it back to the main article is a waste of time.
Respublik (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the fact that the above stat is wrong, page views are absolutely not an indicator of significant coverage, let alone a predictor that an article will need to be split out for navigability in future (obviously). Macosal (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction, I had this number generated from massviewing a page of European players and forgot about that part before reviewing it upon your challenge. That's only true between European players. So I retract the original statement. I'm not changing my stance, as the other statement about it not being an outcome and an index of a significant media coverage and a symptom of that becoming a need to split per WP:AS lacks argumentation, is ignorant and wrong. Respublik (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PVS: “Page stats can help determine how popular a page is, but are not an indication of a topic's notability. Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines are based on coverage found in reliable sources. If a page's stats are low, it is not a reason to consider it for deletion, and if high it is not a reason to save it from deletion.“ Macosal (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see you flag any other player page, which you claim also do not meet criteria but have yet to go out of your way to try and delete them. Raducanu's mainpage has the 2nd most views of all active WTA players year to date at over 2m with Iga barely above that. Next highs are Ons and Coco at nearly 1 million less views. Again, players that win major titles like Raducanu have their own statistics page which has enough information here in addition to the mainpage as standalones. Please flag the other statistics pages to be consistent in what you think should not exist. You're the only person opposed to this page. 350z33 (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and re-read the quote from WP:PVS in my previous comment. It doesn’t matter how many people have viewed this page, and I’m not obliged to do anything to any other pages. I’m absolutely happy to engage in a reasoned discussion about this AFD but most keep arguments are literally contrary to policies and guidelines… Macosal (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Guidelines" are to guide...not hard and fast rules. It's already been discussed repeatedly. Players that win a major title have a separate statistics page. They all do. And even those that don't with under 20 major appearances (and less than 10) do as given in prior examples because they are guidelines. Best of luck with your endeavors. 350z33 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And also the initial request for deletion is not what you are conveying in the proposal. "all relevant information could easily be incorporated at Emma Raducanu" is what you originally stated and later restated as "As I said, all this information could easily be added to Emma Raducanu." This should be a proposal for Wikipedia:Merging so an admin doesn't delete this all without migrating it. 350z33 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. There is no prose contextualization of the stats tables as required by our policy at WP:NOT. It states , "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context."4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this proposal is actually to merge the page into the main page (please see my last comment). Not delete. Therefore this incorrectly listed deletion proposal should be changed to the merge proposal on the talk page. Also, this standalone statistics page is inline with the rest of the tennis wikipages. That's not the issue here. Please look at the other player statistics pages for comparison. Admins should not accidentally delete this statistics info. Thanks. 350z33 (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um... 350z33 you are trying to steer the conversation in a way that is procedurally not accurate. This is not WP:MERGEPROP, it’s WP:AFD, and you didn’t nominate the article; Macosal did. The proposal we are considering here is the one made by the nominator which is Macosal. You are of course free to make a merge argument per WP:ATD (which has not been done as you never struck your keep vote), but the nomination and its language is the central proposal of this thread. I personally oppose a merge as the statistics lack context and I don’t think they add much value to our coverage of Raducanu no matter where they are located as they are currently presented. Further, if other tennis articles use similar statistics tables without context, they also should be removed per WP:NOSTATS which is a core policy that applies encyclopedia wide. 4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Macosal specifically said, and later repeated, they wanted to incorporate the page content it into the main article. This is not steering. This is pointing out they used the incorrect proposal by using deletion rather than merge. You're now suggesting deleting every tennis player statistics whether in their mainpage or separate statistics page? The tennis wiki project has had it created for years and goes completely against what you suggest. I'm not quite sure you have contributed to the tennis wiki if you think it's not relevant or hard to understand as if it needs more explanation than it already has. Every player page has it, whether in the mainpage (example Félix Auger-Aliassime) or separate (example Carlos Alcaraz career statistics). 350z33 (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are overstating what I said, which is that statistics tables without prose should be removed per our policies. It’s perfectly fine to have statistics tables in tennis articles, as long as they are embedded in prose sections which contextualize those tables. That is exactly what our written policy on statistics says we must do (as in its not an optional requirement but a mandatory one per WP:NOT). If tennis articles are currently not following the written policy, that is an issue the tennis WikiProject should work towards fixing. Systemic ignorance of policy in one area of the project should be confronted and changed rather than ignored and enabled. 4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion, but the original vote you cast was an outright deletion of the information which is not what Macosal was proposing in their statement. When the proposal subtype and following reasoning for the proposal are discordant, as in this case where they state they want a merge and even attempted it on the main article, I ask it be made concordant. After asking Macosal to clarify, they confirmed a merge and as I said even attempted it in the mainpage after they created this deletion proposal. Now that it has been clarified, I don't understand why this is still open for vote/debate. A merge proposal or what you propose are fine, but that would have to be done elsewhere as you state. My concern is this page now getting deleted when we are not even on the same understanding of what the actual desired end result is. Thanks. 350z33 (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-read the conversation and respectfully I do not think the nominator has made a merge proposal at any point in this thread, other than briefly stating that it would be possible to include content like this in the main article. However, they never actually expressed the desire to merge the articles, and nobody commenting here has actually made that argument. Stating a possibility and arguing for the implementation of that possibility are two very different things. Nobody, including the nominator, has actually voted to merge. And I note the nominator made arguments in favor of deletion further down in the thread, which would seem to indicate they still wish to delete the article. The only person who has brought up merging is you, but you have a keep vote on the record; so at the moment there is still zero support for merging. 4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. As I said, Macosal even went ahead and attempted a merge to the main article three days after proposing this article for deletion on September 30th. That merge was reverted a few minutes later. Here is their merge: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emma_Raducanu&oldid=1113322248
And the individual that reverted it also voted "keep" here on this page. He/she stated in the undo main article "Tht's kept on the career stats article, not the main page." Those that are voting "keep" here are part of wiki tennis project and know it's a debate of main article vs separate page. The only individuals voting no are those that are not on wiki tennis and aren't aware of where the statistics are placed (not whether they should exist or not). 350z33 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, no merge proposal has actually been made on this page in this discussion, and it is not clear that a merge is the intent of the nominator. The nominator needs to explicitly propose a merge in this thread to make their intent clear. When doing so, they should bold merge and name the target article being merged to and explain why they think a merge is appropriate. Talking around an idea but not coming right out and saying it isn't a productive way to have this conversation. Regardless, my delete vote is not changing unless there is an agreement to embed those tables inside a prose section which contextualizes the statistics in those tables. Whether that happens in the current article, or through a merge to Emma Raducanu is of minor importance; as long as it happens wherever we house these statistic tables.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just agree to disagree. I showed you the actual merge attempt by Macosal after the deletion proposal was created. That's clear enough to me not even going into their written discussion here that I don't feel like repeating. Take care. 350z33 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be clear to you, but it is not at all clear in this discussion and for those reading the dialogue on this page. The article was taken to WP:Articles for Deletion and wasn't taken to WP:MERGEPROP. If a merge had been the intent from the beginning, this was the WP:WRONGFORUM to come to. The only person who can clarify the intent of nominator, is Macosal, the nominator. You can not speak for them. 4meter4 (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm stating it was a procedural error by the OP based on the subsequent discussion here and merge attempt to the main article in the following days. It's fine if you disagree. Putting it here for those that can't see it as clearly such as you. Thanks again. 350z33 (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As 4meter4 says, I am in favour of deletion, not merging, as I have already expressed above. A lot of the content on the Career Statistics page is overly detailed and violates WP:NOTSTATS (e.g., a doubles performance timeline consisting of only one Tour match etc.) and so is not appropriate to merge - deletion more appropriate. The fact that some parts within the nominated article (e.g., singles career timeline)‘’could’’ be appropriate to include on Emma Raducanu does not change my overall nomination/position. Suspect the confusion has arisen because the WP:TENNIS guideline in relation to when a “career statistics” article should be created ‘’are’’ by reference to when the volume of notable stats is such that they should be split to a stand-alone article. Macosal (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already attempted a merge on September 30th into the main article as I showed above. That's not a deletion. You can keep calling it whatever you want, but at the end of the day you attempted the merge and have discussed here multiple times to keep content in this article on the main page rather than split out. And you even stated you're in favor of recreating this article at a later time when those statistics have more years "We can always recreate this article if and when there is a greater amount of stats to display." Thanks again. 350z33 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And as I linked earlier to Wikipedia:Merging, merging as stated is "copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page." That's exactly what you did by copying some of the content here into the main article (incorrectly at that by using the wrong header key). Just because you don't agree with the doubles table timeline, it doesn't mean it all gets deleted. Take care. 350z33 (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think deletion is the most appropriate action here, as I've consistently said. I think merging would absolutely be a justifiable alternative, and made that edit you keep referring to in order to respect your request to migrate material to the main page, above, in case the article was deleted. It doesn't seem like you'd support a WP:MERGE anyway, unless I'm misunderstanding you? And people can still advocate for a merge here/the outcome of this discussion could be a merge, if that is the consensus. And yes, I certainly did say the nominated article could be remade "if and when" (emphasis added) there are more stats to include. It is WP:TOOSOON to know if we will reach that point (see WP:CRYSTAL, as I have previously suggested). We should be assessing this article on based on the past/present only. While Raducanu may well go on to have more noteworthy achievements, she may retire tomorrow, for all we know, leaving this page in its current state forever. Macosal (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the more detailed reply here. I do appreciate it. To be clear, I'm in favor of keeping the article as-is being its layout and stats are similar to other young players such as Alcaraz who have played two seasons. I am also in favor of removing the WTA1000 doubles timeline being only one match ended up being played this year (some players do not play doubles like Alcaraz). However, I am against an outright deletion as that is not inline with the rest of the tennis wiki. If the option is merge to main article versus delete it entirely then I vote merge, but I prefer it be a standalone.
If none of the stats presented here, regardless if a standalone or in main article, are to be on wiki, I think that issue needs to be brought to the main tennis wiki for all to discuss to come to a consensus so all articles are consistent. I'm just asking for consistency on that end so we don't have some players with statistics (main article or separate) and others with essentially none (like this article in the event it's deleted and no parts merged into the main article). 350z33 (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@350z33 I think you are putting the cart before the horse. The desire to standardize formatting across tennis articles doesn't supercede policies on what content should and should not be included as indicated at WP:NOT. Standardized formatting is only helpful when it serves the article in relation to all of our policies and in light of the sourcing available on a particular subject. There's no need to arbitrarily impose a format onto every single article on a tennis player. One of the benefits of wikipedia is we can have article formats that meet the needs of the individual subject and the content found in sources. An article on Serena Williams with a lengthy tennis career that has been widely covered should look different than an article on a relatively new tennis player, Emma Raducanu. The content should drive article development; not a cookie cutter format. As the career of this individual develops, you can always return to putting stats into the article when the content drives the need to do so, but at the moment a stats table isn't beneficial.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is already standardizing among the tennis articles as the examples I gave earlier where it's in the main article or split into a separate. The statistics, both the tables and presentation, in this page are not unique to this page as they are all formatted the same regardless of length of career so your issue applies to all of those player pages. If you're proposing this statistics page be deleted and the main article be left alone without it, it would be the only page like that and also on a notable player that won a major (such as this one). It would then be lacking in relevant content that other less notable players have (i.e Yastremska as I mentioned who has a separate statistics page). Such a discussion would be better left on the wikitennis project forum rather than this single article as the issue you have is with almost every player since most do not have careers and results like Serena. 350z33 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. WP:WikiProject Tennis has no authority to make or change policy, and the decisions we make here at AFD must be grounded in our written policies. You still haven't demonstrated how this particular statistics table can comply with our policy at WP:NOTSTATS.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NOT link you posted specifically states statistics, and separate statistics pages, are allowable. It specifically states to use tables, which they are here, and with explanations, which they have. You also supported Serena's separate statistics page on your last reply, which is formatted identical to the statistics in this page. Both are explained in tables, which are clear and with explanations, and are relevant to the individual they are discussing and not out of context. If you can't agree with that, we will agree to disagree. Thanks. 350z33 (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @350z33:, in relation to your comment “such a discussion would be better left on the wikitennis project forum rather than this single article” - it already has been, and that is where the WP:TENNIS guidance cited in my initial rationale for deletion is based. WT:TENNIS has consistently agreed that creation of career statistics articles should be based on size considerations alone. See this discussion and this one. So by all means raise this there for a more general discussion if you’d like, but as it stands you’re the one arguing against WP:TENNIS guidelines and consensus. Macosal (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Helsinki Committee

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

Fails WP:NORG, this heavily promotional article is sourced to a press release and its own website, and a search in both English and Albanian brought up nothing more than promotional blurbs and social media. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GOOGLEHITS, we need actual sources for an indication of notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The organization has been mention in the following reputable sources: Euronews, Albanian Telegraphic Agency, Voice of America, US Embassy in Albania, largest media network in Albania Top Channel, Ministry of Internal Affairs, largest news portal in Kosovo Telegrafi, etc. Kj1595 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A press release, a dead link, a press release, literally just a statement by the organisation reprinted in full, and an article consisting entirely of quotes from a press release. Still nothing that would contribute to a WP:GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did look in those places, and I am still not swayed. I would consider the HRW publication a primary source as it’s a self published document by HRW without independent editorial review. Activist organizations aren’t exactly known for maintaining a neutral distance from the topics they are advocating for, the way say a journalist reporting to en editorial board or researcher reporting to an IRB would. I would not count that as RS for GNG purposes. Further the HRW has been criticized for poor research methodologies, poor fact checking, and publishing unreliable information. See cited criticism in Human Rights Watch#criticism. 4meter4 (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote there is no evidence of independent significant coverage. What do you mean by that? Are you trying to say only independent organizations are allowed to have articles here? I provided highly reputable sources such as Euronews and the US Embassy in Albania publishing news articles about the committee. 80,000 search results are not significant enough to you? Kj1595 (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kj1595 please read our policies at WP:SIGCOV and WP:Verifiability where those terms are more clearly explained. It’s clear you do not understand the concept of an independent source and what that looks like, nor are you understanding our policy regarding proving notability. The sources you provided above all had issues that do not comply with SIGCOV for multiple reasons as explained to you already by Devonian Wombat (who was spot on in his analysis). Further hits in a search count is explicitly labeled as a bad AFD argument per WP:GOOGLEHITS. That kind of argument holds no weight at AFD. What we need are independent reliable secondary sources. This means sources with no connection whatsoever to Albanian Helsinki Committee, and sources which have editorial oversight and are not self published. Even then some sources still lack independence, such as press releases and interviews, which are still too closely connected to the subject to be considered independent. So no press releases, no interviews, and no self published sources. Sources also need to be secondary to be counted toward SIGCOV. Documents from the Us Embassy in Albania or an NGO like Human Rights Watch are WP:primary sources, so they also do not count towards notability.4meter4 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a rather strange and selective way of deciding what constitutes as an independent source by so casually dismissing a prestigious organization such as the Human Rights Watch.
The activities of the Albanian Helsinki Committee have been published by the National Library of Albania. The committee is mentioned in the Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2007, published by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The Encyclopedia on Human Rights by Edward H. Lawson published in 1996, describes the Albanian Helsinki Committee as an "undoubtedly notable achievement".
Scholar and founder of the Institute of Political Studies, Afrim Krasniqi, has written about the organization in his book Civil Society in Albania. Kj1595 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The policies are what they are. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments aren't helpful. And you still are putting forward materials that do not prove notability. The encyclopedia entry on Albania is a secondary source, but the AHC is only covered in one sentence of that lengthy article. This does not constitute "significant coverage" as required by WP:SIGCOV. The County Report is another WP:Primary Source. Again, primary sources can not be used to establish notability. The inclusion of the Albanian Helsinki Committee documents in the National Library of Albania is certainly an achievement, but it does not provide any evidence of independent coverage of the organization as required by our notability guideline.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You agree that the National Library of Albania is a reputable source but don't consider it independent enough? Based on what? Can you expound on that argument some more and not throw empty words like "required by our notability guidelines". Kj1595 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said no such thing. You linked to a catalogue of holdings in the Nationsl Library of Albania, which include listings of documents held in the collection of the library. These are not documents published by the library itself; but holdings in the library. The materials related to the Albanian Helsinki Committee in this list are self published primary sources. They are not secondary publications published by the the National Library itself. These are primary sources and not independent ones.4meter4 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, you cannot refute Human Rights Watch as a credible source. That in itself gives a standing leg to the argument that this article should be as is. In all fairness, how can you argue for this article to be deleted while similar articles of the Helsinki Committees of Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Norway, The Netherlands, etc.. be allowed? Kj1595 (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. The Human Rights Watch publication is another self published primary source; which has already been pointed out to you. It has no editorial oversight, and should be treated the same way we treat other primary sources. For notability purposes we require WP:Secondary sources; largely because of our core policy of WP:No original research. Wikipedia articles which rely primarily on primary sources are considered to be original research, and we routinely delete those as a matter of policy. What would be helpful would be an article written by an independent journalist from a publication with an editorial board, or a peer reviewed journal article, or a book published by a reliable academic publisher that provides expert editorial review prior to publication. Those are the kinds of secondary sources we need to prove notability; not primary sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer my question. Are you or Devonian Wombat going to nominate the other committee articles for deletion? As an example, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee article has literally one single reference from a random website. Kj1595 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That argument has no weight at AFD. Please read Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We evaluate each topic individually in relation to our notability policies. Those other committees may or may not meet our notability requirements. Whether they do or not has no relationship to this particular AFD.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are being selectively bias which automatically disqualifies your opinion in this discussion. The third and fifth examples in Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS literally validate my point. Kj1595 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CIVIL. Resorting to personal attacks doesn’t help your argument. I have no agenda here other then applying Wikipedia’s policies as written. As an AFD patroller I participate regularly in AFDs and I approach every article with the same process. What you are experiencing here is a normal review of sourcing as required by our policies. You obviously misunderstood the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS policy which gives examples of "arguments to avoid at AFD". The notability or lack of notability of other committees has no bearing on the notability of this committee. 4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment throwing around WP shortcuts is not actually discussion. The important point, as far as I can tell, is that there is an assertion that non-English sources exist which show the notability of the subject. Instead of getting fixated with the small number of English sources, how about showing us some of the non-English sources? I'm open to being persuaded, but simply making assertions and repeating the same points isn't helping. JMWt (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake some of the links above are non-English. Personally I don't think they're enough for reasons others have said - however it might be true that suitable sources do exist beyond the brief mentions already cited. I don't have the skills to find them in Albanian, but I'm relatively confident that someone else can. We just need some sources that satisfy the RS and the GNG. JMWt (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some more sources. The US State Department cites the Helsinki Committee in this report on Human Rights in Albania as does the UK government in this report. This book titled 'Modern Albania' says that they are the 'main human rights group' in Albania. This academic journal paper says that the group is a "national source of information for the treatment of migrants entering the country illegally" JMWt (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: it's an organisation which is well-known in Albania, described by book authors as the 'main human rights group' in the country, funded by the EU, cited by the US and UK governments as reliable sources of information. It regularly features in press reports and in NGO reports in the region.
It's clearly notable as shown by the numerous ways it has been noted. It is highly likely that much more extensive non-English sources exist.
A clear Keep JMWt (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Afrim Krasniqi (2004). Shoqëria civile në Shqipëri. Governor's Emergency Education Relief Fund. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN WP:PRIMARY source as a government publication. Only mentioned briefly in one sentence. Fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source.
Edward Lawson (ed.). "Albania". Encyclopedia of Human Rights. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Organization is only mentioned in one sentence; making it not "in-depth"; but that one sentence is a strong claim of importance. Overall fails WP:SIGCOV for not being indepeth.
"Migrants Who Enter/Stay Irregularly in Albania". Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. December 2016. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY This is a good secondary source, and while the AHC is not the main subject, there is some good commentary on the organization. Passes WP:SIGCOV.
Fred C. Abrahams (2016). Modern Albania: From Dictatorship to Democracy in Europe. Green tickY Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN The content related to the AHC is all written in the first person, with the author's own experiences with the AHC at the front. As such the work is too closely connected to the subject to be considered independent RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR. "2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Albania".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Government report; fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source
House, Committee on Foreign Affairs. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007, Report. Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN US Senate report with passing mention; fails Fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source
Human Rights Watch. ALBANIA Democracy Derailed Violations in the May 26, 1996 Albanian Elections. Green tickY Question? Question? Red XN Red XN HRW publications are considered primary sources by the Princeton University Library on Human Rights; not a secondary source; also criticisms abound over HRW research and publication practices. Fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source.
"Komiteti Shqiptar i Helsinkit: Vdekja e të riut në stacionin e policisë së Kavajës mund të parandalohej". Telegrafi. Green tickY Red XN Red XN Question? Red XN No by-lined author. An interview which lacks independence. Possibly some press release material as well. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ministria E Brendshme. Çuçi sqaron pse mungon anëtari i Komitetit Shqiptar të Helsinkit në Komisionin Kombëtar për Azilin: Për më shumë se 3 muaj nuk dhanë asnjë përgjigje, megjithatë mund të marrin pjesë në çdo mbledhje. Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Government report; fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source
Komiteti shqiptar i Helsinkit: Ngjarja tragjike në Komisariatin e Kavajës mund të parandalohej. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Green tickY Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Reprint of a press release written by the subject; lacks independence; fails WP:SIGCOV
"Komiteti Shqiptar i Helsinkit në mbrojtje të mjedisit: Të verifikohen ankesat e qytetarëve". Euro News. Green tickY Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Press release written by the subject; lacks independence; fails WP:SIGCOV
"Komiteti Shqiptar i Helsinkit, sugjerime për ndryshimet në ligjin për Mbrojtjen nga Diskriminimi". Albanian Telegraphic Agency. Green tickY Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Published by the government news agency, consists almost entirely of quoted text; as an interview lacks independence; fails WP:SIGCOV
"Komiteti shqiptar i Helsinkit kërkon fjalën e drejtësisë për çështjen e Himarës". Voice of America. Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Interview with AHC about an incidident; not really about the AHC but about an event; as an interview lacks independence; fails WP:SIGCOV
U.S. Embassy in Albania. "Fjalimi i Ambasadores Yuri Kim në Aktivitetin e Prezantimit të Raportit të Monitorimit të KLP dhe KLGJ nga Komiteti Shqiptar I Helsinkit". Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Government report; Fails WP:SIGCOV as a primary source
Total qualifying sources 1
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Nice table, however I don't agree that reports written by (for example) the US and/or UK governments are primary sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Indeed, the two reports I've offered above are reports published by the US and UK governments that discuss the human rights situation in Albania and directly cite the subject organisation as a source of reliable information about the topic. That's by definition a WP:SECONDARY source in my opinion. I accept it might not be completely independent, however the purpose of this exercise is to establish whether there is sufficient notability, and I have shown above that the subject organisation is noted by the UK and US governments to the extent that they are being cited as reliable sources of information.
I don't know what else to tell you. There are media, government, international governmental, academic and NGO reports that note this organisation, and that's just what I can see in English. It's clearly enough. JMWt (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt I disagree. The reason why we require multiple secondary sources of information is because of our policy of WP:No original research. Government and NGO documents are not always reliable as they sometimes include content that is not independently verified. For example, some of these reports/documents contain first hand testimony in government meetings that have not been independently fact checked for accuracy. The reason why we require secondary sources is because of fact checking and editorial review which establish WP:Verifiability. We honestly need some more secondary sources, or we are building an article that violates WP:OR.4meter4 (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are setting an impossible standard. We are simply looking for sources to show notability. We have them from multiple directions. It might not satisfy you, but it is enough for almost all wikipedia pages. JMWt (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is the standard per our written policies. One or two more journal articles, or an in-depth news story by an independent named journalist that isn't primarily an interview would push this over into the keep side. Honestly, it shouldn't be that difficult to find two independent secondary sources with significant coverage if a topic is truly notable.4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Any editor is free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nablus (1260)

[edit]
Battle of Nablus (1260) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was no battle of Nablus. We already have Battle of Nablus and Battle of Nablus (1918) articles about recognised battles but this particular article is pure OR and not backed by the cited sources or, indeed, other sources. There WAS a Battle of Ain Jalut on 3 September 1260, but history does not award any 1260 conflict with the name 'Battle of Nablus'. The title, with its date and transliteration mark, does not make sense for a redirect, hence deletion of this article (which itself contains no detail of any 'battle' that took place) is the answer. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It seems like a simple confusion with the Battle of Ain Jalut. In any case, any troop movements or skirmishes in 1260 in the environ of Nablus would be better covered in the background and aftermath sections of the page of that singularly significant battle in 1260. Britannica seems to be largely to blame for this mix-up, not mentioning the Battle of Ain Jalut by name and simply referencing a battle 'near Nablus' (it's not, but hey ho). The Humphreys citation critically lacks a page number. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a battle of Nablus in 1260, but the article is lying about it. Here is what Humphreys says at p. 352:

    In Nablus, the main town on the road between Damascus and Gaza, [Al-Nasir] established a rear guard to hinder the Mongol advance, putting it under the command of Mujir al-Din b. Abi Zakari and Nur al-Din 'Ali b. Shuja' al-Din al-Akta' [and] then proceeded on to Gaza . . . Shortly after al-Nasir's departure from Nablus, a Mongol advance party under Kushlu Khan surprised the Ayyubid garrison in the olive groves outside the town. The defenders were destroyed almost instantly and both commanders were killed. Only a few wounded soldiers managed to escape and inform al-Nasir what had happened. Alarmed by the sudden, ghostlike approach of the Mongols so near his own camp, the sultan took his forces on to al-'Arish, hoping that this would be a securer place to await the arrival of reinforcements from Egypt.

    This was in February 1260, not September. It wasn't the Mamluks, but the Ayyubids. It was a Mongol victory. The defeated commanders have names. The article is 100% bullshit, but the title is perfectly legit. The impact of the Mongols on Nablus is mentioned in our articles Tolidah and Mongol raids into Palestine. —Srnec (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps it should redirect to the relevant section in the latter pending someone taking an interest in doing it properly. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that idea. An {{R with possibilities}} that can be fixed when somebody (maybe me) gets around to it. Srnec (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Super, if we could please also in the process junk that damn transliteration mark over the 'a' of Nāblus... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved the page without leaving a redirect. Although the more I look at it the clearer it is that the user who created it did not make an honest mistake... Srnec (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on that - and there are a number of these creations under their moniker... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 09:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maqbool Hassan

[edit]
Maqbool Hassan (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)

Highly problematic article has persistently been deleted, draftified, recreated and moved back to mainspace. Subject remains non-notable, coverage sourced to his website, owned media, employer websites. WP:NOTCV and fails WP:GNG. I'm requesting delete and SALT this time around. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there isn't anything problematic there, and you said that the subject is non-notable, well this is wrong if you google the name "Dr Maqbool Hassan" and "Maqbool Hassan" then you'll find plenty of top search results referring back to the subject "Maqbool Hassan" with Google Knowledge panel with ID /g/11pvqmbmq9, and most of the search results refer to him as "Dr." with his name, because the subject holds a doctoral degree and known mostly by his name "Dr. Maqbool Hassan", for example when you search on Google Scholar with just "Maqbool Hassan" you may not find much about him, but when you search with "Dr. Maqbool Hassan" you'll find most of the articles referring back to him.
Secondly, you mentioned about media, so the display picture added to the article is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International) as mentioned on the sourced website's footer, and according to Creative Commons 4.0 we can "Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format" with appropriate credit, but yes I forgot to add the credit, and that has been fixed by some wiki contributor in Wikimedia image summery, and can be seen on image page's summery.
Thirdly, the tag added at the top of this page and on the main article, saying "Find sources: google (books - news.....)" only enter the query with "Maqbool Hassan" and, as a result not specific search results are coming back, if we entered the query with "Dr. Maqbool Hassan" then in return there will be plenty of specific search results relating to "Maqbool Hassan" aka "Dr. Maqbool Hassan" will return.
Here is some of Maqbool's original presence:
  1. Google Knowledge Graph ID
  2. Google Scholar author ID
  3. SSRN author ID
  4. ORCID iD
  5. ResearchGate profile ID
  6. Academia.edu
Maqbool's presence on academic journals' editorial team:
  1. IRJAIS
  2. ARJ
so, if you still want to make me discourage again, I guess 6th or 7th time simultaneously, It's your choice, as my another properly sourced article "Diogo Santos Coelho" is on deletion list, and many other were deleted. Anasalaskari (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is happening on Wikipedia to beginner editors and contributors is superlatively explained in this article, named "Edit wars in Wikipedia" by R Sumi · 2011 · Cited by 132. I recommend you to give it a read. Anasalaskari (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is to Keep now that new sources have been located. The question of whether this article should refocus off of the book and instead be an article about the author can be considered on the article talk page or simply through bold editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Waterman's Prophecy

[edit]
The Waterman's Prophecy (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)

Book fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage, reviews. Longlisted for the International Prize for Arabic Fiction. Arguably notability could be built for the author (with the bar in Arabic lower than in English) but the book simply isn't notable on its own merit. The first source is Asharq Al Awsat and sound enough, but that's all there is. Other coverage presented is marginal stuff, even in Arabic, and often (source 6 and 7) discusses the author, not the book. source 5 Khan Aljanub is a booksales site, source 2 is Worldcat... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Africa. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unfortunately in recent months we’ve seen a run of new articles about Arabic novels created by editors who don’t know how to source their contributions properly, and rely on Goodreads and other UGC sites. Also it’s hard for new page reviewers to look for sources in this area since there will be little that isn’t in Arabic. Anyhow I’ve quickly found critical reviews in three major news outlets demonstrating sustained coverage in RIS so I’m satisfied this topic is notable. There are other reviews I could plough through but haven’t, and I’ve just stuck to the first page of a Google search, so not dredging up anything obscure. Mccapra (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and turn into article about the author, whose notability I don't question for now based on awards/nominations. Individual book articles can be build from there where applicable.– sgeureka t•c 13:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Harar City F.C.. As ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aw Abadir Stadium

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

It's unclear whether construction of this planned stadium has actually started or this remains just a pipedream, but either way it's WP:TOOSOON as planned projects like this get cancelled frequently. In any case, the sources cited are not enough to establish notability, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media listings etc.; therefore fails WP:GNG / WP:NBUILD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen Cowboy

[edit]
Copenhagen Cowboy (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)

Copenhagen Cowboy

Planned television series which does not pass television notability because it is too soon. Nothing in the text of the article describes significant coverage by independent sources, and so the article does not speak for itself and does not establish general notability.

A detailed review of the references has not yet been done, but many of the references are not independent or reliable. They include 3 Netflix references, which is the producer and so not independent, 2 Twitter, and 2 Instagram.

There is already a draft, and draft space is the right place for a page on a future television series, so that this article (which is the same as or almost the same as the draft) should be deleted and the draft left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Thomas Winkler. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Angus McSix

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

Fails WP:NBAND, the first three refs are routine announcements and trivial press releases, whereas the final one is non-independent. Refs I can find are routine or unreliable, mainly discussing a minor contract signing; see 1, 2, 3, 4. VickKiang (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to West Springfield, Massachusetts#Public district schools. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Springfield Middle School

[edit]
West Springfield Middle School (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)

Absolutely zero sources at time of writing listed...normally we haven't covered middle schools on Wikipedia except for if they were the subject of a notable event like a shooting. Only coverage the school has received is in passing mention with the region. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 05:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KZKZ (Philippines)

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

Fails WP:BCAST. I cannot find any source that supports GNG for this. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural close. Changed to redirect by nom. (non-admin closure) MB 16:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HIIT

[edit]
HIIT (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)

Blank and redirect to High-intensity interval training: It's currently a DAB, and the only other article on the page is a presumably little-known Finnish school with a stub article, which can be linked in a hatnote on the aforementioned article. WPscatter t/c 05:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marquinhos (footballer, born September 1997)

[edit]
Marquinhos (footballer, born September 1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Marquinhos appears to have had a very short-lived professional career (only appearing in a handful of Paulista A1 matches). The only online English and Portuguese-language coverage is trivial, including passing mentions and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming with dolphins

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

While some sources, seems largely promotional and arbitrary (do we need an article on running with dogs? Various maintenance tags have been unaddressed for over a decade. If anything, this could just be merged into dolphinariums. ZimZalaBim talk 03:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article right now is pretty poor, I do believe the concept of swimming in particular with dolphins in particular is a highly referenced concept in literature generally, such that it justifies an article. BrigadierG (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll admit this is a tough call on some levels - wouldn't swimming with dolphins, one could argue, constitute a physical activity that is legitimately worth cataloguing in such an encyclopedia as this one? There are several arguments NOT in favor of the page, however. Several blaring problems that I, too, agree renders the page utterly irrelevant and, indeed, very arbitrary. For example, whereas certain obscure "activity-style events" may very legitimately deserve a page (ex. Extreme ironing) there are no sporting qualities to swimming with dolphins, not even really as anything other than a footnote on the stylistic variations of swimming itself. Indeed, the conditions of the page - as they currently stand, as well as with their potential - are questionable. ...As a frequented activity that is perceptible, I would argue that the concept of swimming with dolphins still isn't reminiscent of an educationally sound, intricately beneficial page in the bigger picture. Because the unique separation of the subject matter is rather minimal, at best I could justify synthesizing the page into a sociocultural-esque aspect on the main page (see Dolphin). Not only would this address the subject matter exclusively and expressly without requiring an in-depth piece elsewhere, the "how this fits in" question would naturally be automatically solved by the other sections on the page (see the components of the relationship between dolphins and humans). By the implication of this, yes, the dolphinarium page could exhibit an explanatory overview, if short, not unlike how the page itself is in terms of length. Ultimately I find it less worthwhile to justify a separate page than it would be to keep the bulk idea of the page in a better-maintained form on the actual dolphin page (and its relevant sub-linking pages) - with additional discussion where need be, of course. ^^ Thoughts? Feelings? ...Anyone else have a take on this? (P.S. I would also like to point out that the featured picture on the page does not actually display a dolphin, which is somewhat amusing in retrospect.) TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous AFD cites the prevalence of sources and potential for future expansion as a reason to keep for future improvement. However, no enterprising editor seems to have stepped up to the plate to actually make those improvements in over a decade, and I'm not convinced one ever will. Should some future person with deep interest in swimming with dolphins feel the need to write an article worthy of being featured on the main page, they're welcome to re-create this one. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This argument should be discarded by the closer, as it contradicts WP:NOEFFORT BrigadierG (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, not a policy; let the closer decide which arguments are valid. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - we are trying to assess the notability of the subject and not the content of the page as it is, nor whether it has been improved in the last decade. I think we have a human phenomena here that a) exists and b) is distinct than other pages or subsections such as the relationship between dolphins and humans. I say this largely because academic studies exist. For example 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. There's also this book that is sharply critical of the activity. So it's a thing. Second, I think there is precidence for this kind of page - in terms of therapeutic there's therapy dog in terms of general human interaction with the wilderness for wellbeing there's nature therapy so it is encyclopedic. I think there's a good argument for a page that describes the reported benefits, criticisms etc which goes beyond simply talking about how humans usually interact with them. I say weak keep because I wouldn't personally take the time to improve it. JMWt (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: per JMWt. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep despite the fact that the name of this article sounds like a certain Kevin Costner movie (Dances With Wolves, anyone?). JMWt has provided solid academic sources; it sounds like the main objections are that it's imbalanced, comes across in places like OR, and most importantly that no one has been willing to take the time to improve it. Well, I am volunteering to fix it. Why? Because I recently found myself researching this very topic in writing about captive dolphins at the Kahala Hotel & Resort. I've also reviewed several of the other pages where we could try to "merge" the content instead, but I think there is enough for a standalone article here; the important thing to keep it neutral and factual and stick to the sources. (I do wonder why I didn't come across this page sooner when I was looking for information on the topic...but in any case it's fixable.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep per clear existence of sources on the subject and Cielquiparle's commitment to improve the article. BD2412 T 05:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 2010 Bratislava shooting. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ľubomír Harman

[edit]
Ľubomír Harman (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 not really seeing anything that would stand out and warrant this guy having any article separate from the shooting he committed. If there is anything new in this article that is not mentioned in the 2010 Bratislava shooting article, it can be merged there. Love of Corey (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of ambassadors of India to France. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jawed Ashraf

[edit]
Jawed Ashraf (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)

Was previously tagged for deletion under WP:PROD, I want to redirect to List of ambassadors of India to France instead. RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn you nominated it for PROD, but I think redirecting to the list of ambassadors of India to France would be better. I decided to create this AfD as a way to decide if it should be redirected or deleted. RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem if it is redirected. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Doesn't seem unreasonable for someone to search for this individual given he's an incumbent. A redirect would do in the absence of a lengthy biography. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cross (2011 film)

[edit]
Cross (2011 film) (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 find indepth critical reviews for this film, as the only other piece of significant coverage I could find was this review, which I'm unsure would count as reliable CiphriusKane (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The merge proposal gained no traction, all other arguments were clearly for outright deletion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creative peacebuilding

[edit]
Creative peacebuilding (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 not a notable concept. It's someone's personal essay. The sourcing does not substantiate that it's notable. If there's any content of encyclopedic value, it can be merged with the Peacebuilding article. Thenightaway (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge into this specific section as I think it would be inappropriate, or at least undue, in context. The "Theories" section of Peace is mostly about definitions of peace amongst countries. Ovinus (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creative peacebuilding (visual arts)

[edit]
Creative peacebuilding (visual arts) (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 not a notable concept. It's someone's personal essay. Thenightaway (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Considering this particular article, as was said above and in a longstanding tag on the article itself, it reads like someone's personal essay, with sections of general description and references. I am not seeing evidence that this topic is specifically notable. (Regarding the suggestion of a partial merge to Peace#Theories, I don't see the substantial content here whch would be needed and feel any merge would produce an undue imbalance in the target article.) AllyD (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

María Reinat-Pumarejo

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

There is very little to indicate that the subject is notable. The sourcing in the article does not substantiate that the person is notable (nor does a non-wiki search). Thenightaway (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The English-language sources are not substantive. The Orlando Sentinel piece mentions her and includes one quote by her, and the chapter in the Routledge book appears to be about the group Musas, of which the subject has been involved. Thenightaway (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, I should have been more specific about each source. With regard to English-language sources:
    • The 2005 Congressional Record source are remarks by then-Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) titled "Two Puerto Rican Women Nominated For the Nobel Peace Prize" that notes Reinat-Pumarejo's work with the Woman's Alliance of Vieques, the Institute for Latino Empowerment, the People's Institute for Survival and Beyond, and the East Asia-U.S.-Puerto Rico Women's Network against Militarism and states she "played a large role in the closing of Vieques as a military base", and provides some context for the Nobel nomination.
    • The 2020 Miami Herald source added to the article, "In Puerto Rico, a mostly Black town sees its own past in the death of George Floyd", includes a quote from her and notes her role as a founder of the anti-racism group Colectivo Ilé as well as some context related to the ongoing work of the group.
    • The 2001 Times-Picayune reprint is directly focused on her advocacy related to the Vieques base, which included travel outside of Puerto Rico.
    • The 2001 Orlando Sentinel article describes her participation with others in a "tribute to their African ancestors on Columbus Day" (including one named Maria Mercedes Reinat) as part of the Journey Against Racism 2001 event by the Puerto Rican Alliance Against Racism. I think this source is more significant than a quote due to the context.
    • The 2020 Gender and Island Communities unfortunately does not have page numbers, but identifies her as a member of Musas and quotes her talking about their work, and begins on the previous page by discussing "The historical context of Musas" - from my view, this source offers a nontrivial way to mention her work with this group and provide some context about their work.
  • From my view, these sources, in addition to the in-depth profiles in Primera Hora and Todas noted above, appear to sufficiently support notability per GNG/BASIC and can allow the article to be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - additional sources (via ProQuest) include:
  • "Latino activists debate US race definitions", Schwab, Jeremy. Bay State Banner 01 May 2003, (an article that focuses on her work as an activist at an event and the reaction of the audience to her presenation)
  • "Campaña contra el racismo", Keila López Alicea. El Nuevo Día 13 Mar 2010 (a brief article about her work as co-director of Ilé, Inc./Organizers for Consciousness-in-Action, organizing a campaign related to the Census demographic questions)
  • "El Censo y la raza: ¿Cuál encasillado marco?", Marcial Ocasio, Jennifer A. El Sentinel 27 June 2020 (an article about the Census, the Ilé Collective campaign related to the demographic questions, quoting Reinat Pumarejo as "an anti-racist organizer and educator" and member of the Ilé Collective for her opinions)
Beccaynr (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Nobel Peace Prize#Nomination:

    In 2009, a record 205 nominations were received,[1] but the record was broken again in 2010 with 237 nominations; in 2011, the record was broken once again with 241 nominations.[2] The statutes of the Nobel Foundation do not allow information about nominations, considerations, or investigations relating to awarding the prize to be made public for at least 50 years after a prize has been awarded.[3] Over time, many individuals have become known as "Nobel Peace Prize Nominees", but this designation has no official standing, and means only that one of the thousands of eligible nominators suggested the person's name for consideration.[4] Indeed, in 1939, Adolf Hitler received a satirical nomination from a member of the Swedish parliament, mocking the (serious but unsuccessful) nomination of Neville Chamberlain.[5] Nominations from 1901 to 1967 have been released in a database.[6]

    There may be other reasons for notability, but "Nobel Peace Prize nominee" is not one. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize". Associated Press on yahoo.com. Retrieved 9 October 2009.
  2. ^ "Nominations for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize". Nobel Foundation. Archived from the original on 11 October 2011. Retrieved 7 October 2011.
  3. ^ "Confidentiality". Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 7 October 2020.
  4. ^ "Who may submit nominations – Nobels fredspris". Retrieved 10 October 2014.
  5. ^ Merelli, Annelise (7 October 2016). "The darkly ironic 1939 letter nominating Adolf Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize". Qz.com. Quartz Media. Retrieved 10 November 2017.
  6. ^ "Nomination Archive – NobelPrize.org". Nobelprize.org. April 2020. Retrieved 9 September 2020.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was 'Trainwreck' which turns into a no-consensus article retention. While some of the keep !votes are not policy based, a sock nomination should probably have been thrown out sooner. This can be revisited if an established editor finds merit, and I'd suggest seming an AfD from the very beginning. Star Mississippi 01:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Bisht

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lucky Bisht (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 film maker. Doesn't meet WP:NFILMMAKER ClickWiki (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC) sock nomination MER-C 18:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: Lucky Bisht is a notable Indian personality and a book is being written on his life story by renowned crime writer, Hussain Zaidi. Eventually, the book will be made into a Bollywood movie. All articles has enough references which are independent and reliableIt has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as:

[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]

Jogenderrautela (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC) sock vote Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I've opened one here [70] Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Lucky Bisht is not an actor; he was a former Indian spy and NSG commando. These unbiased, trustworthy sources are included below as proof that he has served his country very well.

Times Now [71]

Entrepreneur [72]

Free Press Journal [73]

Flipboard [74]

Indian Express [75]

~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santoshbeats (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that I also found [82] this piece of article that does mention him as a commando, Socks might be the reason if this page gets deleted but the fact about his notability for being NSG commando and being associated with Narendra Modi and later getting into entertainment Industry can't be denied so its a Soft Keep for me.
I cleaned up the article a bit and removed few unreliable sources. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 14:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being associated with someone famous doesn't make a person notable. Otherwise, we'd have an article on every celebrity's bodyguard, dogwalker and dry cleaner. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well That does makes sense, But I don't think all the bodyguards, dogwalkers and dry cleaners tend to get a Book Written on em alongside the Biopic being announced by a Notable Author like Hussain Zaidi, as these sources reflects. see [83] this & [84] this. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 09:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think some might criticize this relisting but right now, I'm seeing "No consensus" and I think an extra week might result in a more conclusive closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment- An article is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone. when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:SIGCOV. There are available existing sources that proves he qualifies. It a keep for me. I have done some copyediting on the article and removed PR or advertising contents and also removed some sources that are irrelevants aswell.Bernice2019 (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This is one of the controversial AFD discussions I’ve ever encountered, from my experience in AFD I think this article is worth encyclopedic not because of the present of the references provided, but seemingly it passes WP:NEXIST, I always use to support this kind of articles, I always suggest that this kind of article shouldn’t be left deleted because one way or the other it will be created in the near future, moreover, we have to consider the large number of references used in the article to support every single information provided, though someone said it is a pass mentioning, but as I see that the person is a public figure in India. An@ss_koko(speak up) 08:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bisht passes the WP:GNG as he received the award and he has significant coverage in media. Sources cited belong to NDTV India, Outlook, New Indian Express, Free Press Journal which are reliable, secondary and independent, fulfilling the WP:RS criteria.—Sankoswal (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Dastankhah

[edit]
Mohammad Dastankhah (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)

Deprodded. A case of WP:BIO1E, outside the tragedy, no notability. Are we going to have an article for every person who dies in every protest? Onel5969 TT me 01:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kato Mukasa

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

Fails WP:BIO. The Observer article cited is the only in depth source I could find. Also, hardly any articles link to this article. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele Palma

[edit]
Raffaele Palma (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 structured article, most external links are dead or YouTube videos, a current Google search does not show anything super notable. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caus – Centro arti umoristiche e satiriche

[edit]
Caus – Centro arti umoristiche e satiriche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like an advertisement of some sorts, and nothing has references. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_October_12&oldid=1117386656"