Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 26

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 deleted per G3 as this is very evidently a blatant hoax. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Bin Ali Al-Hemyari

Ahmed Bin Ali Al-Hemyari (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. Same reason: Possible hoax. Article makes no sense. The dates do not correspond to those of the actual Himyarite Kingdom. The creator's explanation on the talk page makes no sense either. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Yemen. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and History. Curbon7 (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any reliable sources about this person at all. The one used in the article doesn't even mention the subject. The Himyarite Kingdom was disestablished in 570 yet this person was born in 1940, so their claim to being a king of this kingdom is clearly false. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only source cited here [1], The History of the Arabs before Islam by Jawad Ali, is a legitimate work talking (in vol. 4, p. 173 as cited) about epigraphic evidence for some kings of the Himyarite Kingdom (110 BCE – 570 CE). However, it contains nothing about this 20th-century Ahmad ibn Ali al-Himyari. It's also impossible that the editor who wrote this article only got the dates wrong, since Ahmad ibn Ali is a quintessentially Islamic name that could never have been in use before the 7th century. The article clearly is either a hoax or (perhaps just as likely) describing some modern Yemeni's lively imagination of being an ancient Himyarite king redivivus. In the latter case, there is a very slight chance that the subject actually is notable (claiming to be a Himyarite king is not wholly improbable to be a successful political strategy for a Yemeni tribal leader), but given the in-universe and unsourced nature of what we have now WP:TNT would surely apply. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and fast. I don't see any reason to wait the full week. In addition to what Apaugasma says about the nonsensicality of the article itself, the editor who created the article also created other suspected hoaxes, has been blocked for disruptive editing, and went by the username "Mohammed Ali Joke". This is almost certainly a vandal wasting our time. And even if the article does somehow refer to a real personage, it's so incoherent that we can't tell who he was or in which century, or even which millennium, he lived. A. Parrot (talk) 14:50, 29 December 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 find Rupples's contribution the most persuasive per our poilicies & guidelines, and was not challenged or disproven in any way. Daniel (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Oprah

Kim Oprah (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 a non-notable subject who fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Only known for being a housemate in the Big Brother Season 4. They also appeared in a variety of non-notable beauty shows. —Nnadigoodluck███ 23:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Keep: Because a topic is not of interest to you doesn't make it non-notable or irrelevant.
And also, Wikipedia is built on citations from reliable and independent third party references. This page has no shortage of citations.
Also the subject is notable for more than one thing.
* A TV host at
* A reality TV star
* A beauty queen


1. Calling paegents non-notable pageants, when the so called pageants are blue linked on Wikipedia is an insult ti the entirety of Wikipedia and what we stand for. Miss Tourism International and Miss University Africa aren't irrelevant, if not they won't have Wikipedia articles. Except the accuser is implying that Wikipedia is getting sloppy and letting mediocre pages fly in their numbers
2. The subject is also a TV host who anchored two shows on Spice TV. If Spice TV was not notable, it won't be blue linked. Except the accuser is implying that Wikipedia articles aren't doing their jobs well
All these were achieved before Big brother.
3. Then there is Big Brother Naija
4. After that, the subject has gone on to become one of the faces of international brands Remy Martin, Smirnoff and Lipton in Nigeria.
5. What else do you want from a Nigerian? Are you looking for BBC, CNN, Fox News and Oscar winning laurels for a Nigerian model? This is as good as a Nigerian page can be, if tgis is deleted, then 90% of all pages from Africa should go. Then after that, let's talk about Wikipedia and its inclusivity policy. Amaekuma (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


By little to no coverage, you mean she isnt covered by Aljazeera, BBC and CNN right? Because I dont understand how you could see glaring citations from credible Nigerian media houses. Media houses that have been used through out all other Nigerian pages and say there aren't enough.
These are citations from when she represented Nigeria as a beauty queen, even before big brother.
She was also a TV host on Spice TV. Is being a TV house not notable enough?.
Wikipedia articles are deleted as a result of poor citation and sourcing. This article has adequate citations from reliable sources. An opinion formed on whether an article is notable based on itnit being your kind of article or you not having an interest in the subject isn't the Wikipedia way.


Notability is all about googling a person's name and drawing conclusions from the first two links you see. Amaekuma (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Delete. Basically the subject is a beauty pageant and Big Brother contestant, a presenter for a specialist TV channel, a product promoter and an entrepreneur putting her name on a brand of beauty products. Out of these, the one that most likely helps with establishing notability is her role as a TV presenter. My searches showed a video snippet of her "interviewing" or rather seeking comments to quick fire questions at a fashion show. The exact nature of her TV role or how long she was engaged in the role is not specified. The relevant source is a mere mention, see [2].
WP:NBIO states that "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. The use of Google is an invalid criterion in establishing notability as per WP:INVALIDBIO. Kim's work comes under Entertainers; her promotional work being a facet of modelling. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability and Kim may come to deserve a standalone article, but on what she's reported to have done so far she fails both criteria set out under WP:NMODEL. The article's sources do not establish notability. There is detail in the interview with Kim in source [3] but this is a Primary source, i.e. Kim speaking about/promoting herself, as is [4], see Wikipedia:Interviews and WP:NBASIC. Many of the other sources mention Kim as a former Big Brother contestant and in essence are either promotional or impart trivia/gossip.
A valid merge or redirect target doesn't spring to mind.
(As an aside, the article's infobox and external website links should be pointed to Kim's Instagram page, not the website promoting her branded beauty products as this violates WP:NOTADVERT). Rupples (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 26 December 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. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Scalon

Lucas Scalon (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)

Amateur footballer with no professional football experience, whose only apparent point of notability is having been contracted with Chapecoense at the time of the LaMia Flight 2933 accident (he was not part of the first team squad however), last information about him is being contracted with some Italian Serie D (amateur league) team. I could not find enough proof of WP:GNG via reliable secondary sources, all I could find was passing mentions, transfer reports and similar stuff from minor local media. Angelo (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • We are discussing about the notability of the subject, not about the notability of the Chapecoense plane crash. He was not part of it, his name being nothing more than a passing mention about the squad players that were not onboard that flight, his non-Chapecoense significant coverage is very minimal, and there is no trace of him having ever played professionally at any level. --Angelo (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First one is an interview, and the second one is just garbage (a list of players loaned out by Chapecoense). Not WP:SIGCOV. Angelo (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First one is fine, second not. Not enough. GiantSnowman 11:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is any coverage since November 2017, I am open to changing my !vote. But here is my concern (in addition to the fact that aside from the article from The Times of India the coverage is thin). We have a bunch of coverage telling his story as the player who didn't board the plane that crashed, and his signing for Chennai City FC, but it appears it didn't turn out so well for him at CCFC. In November 2017, he pulled out of a match at the last minute citing "adaptability concerns" – it was at the start of an away tour so he likely missed the whole tour – and I'm not seeing anything that confirms he played after that. (Here's the 29 November 2017 Times of India article via ProQuest, you need to be logged in to Wikipedia Library to see it, headline is "Slovenian 'keeper for CCFC ahead of Arrows opener" and name appears as "Lucas Scalon".) So far we are still looking at an article for a football player who has 0 confirmed appearances for any club in any league in any country. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage except The Times of India. BruceThomson (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cielquiparle has this one correct, no meaningful coverage outside of the one good source. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polonnaruwa (meteorite)

Polonnaruwa (meteorite) (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)

Too much of a fringe topic with (mostly) unreliable sources (Journal of Cosmology) DarklitShadow (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although a lot of the claims around it may be dismissed as nonsense, there does appear to be a fair amount of coverage of it generated across different media. As such although the article needs a really good clean, the topic is in and of itself worth an article I would argue. EvilxFish (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the article merits keeping (I haven't really looked into sourcing) it needs renaming. If WP:RS consensus is that it isn't a meteorite, we shouldn't be suggesting it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true, not sure what we should call it though, "Polonnaruwa controversy"? Sorry not good at coming up with names! EvilxFish (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, I suggest that the article's name be changed to Polonnaruwa stone(s). Paul H. (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing does not reach a sufficient threshold of reliability. We have two okay sources - posts on Phil Plait's blog, which is not exactly a peer-reviewed publication but is generally held in high regard by actual scientists, thus OK. Two indifferent - the Hiru News articles are press releases. All the rest is the original research team around Wickramasinghe churning like mad in a disreputable source, the Journal of Cosmology. And boy did they ever milk that - here's another five publications in that "journal" (same authors, same topic) that never even made it into the article [5][6][7][8][9]. What there isn't is substantial discussion by others in authoritative, reliable fora, or even widespread (at a GNG level) non-technical coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 26 December 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 Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company#Products. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So Good (soy beverage)

So Good (soy beverage) (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 brand, little substantial coverage. What little information exists on this page can be added to Sanitarium_Health_and_Wellbeing_Company#Products. Mooonswimmer 22:17, 26 December 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hodge (guitarist)

Charlie Hodge (guitarist) (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)

Totally unsourced article. I already deleted a completely unsourced large potion of "Last year and death" which was mostly about his funeral. Charlie Hodge played no significant role in the music of Elvis Presley. He was a left-over hanger-on from the Army days who lived in the basement at Graceland. He was not a body guard, and had no significant role in the music, except to stand on stage with his own guitar and hand Elvis his water and scarf. The fans loved him, because he was always accessible to them. After the death of Elvis, Charlie took credit for everything and even claimed to have done Elvis' hair and makeup in the coffin (it was actually Larry Geller). — Maile (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Elvis Presley's best friend Charlie Hodge" is a POV (Charlie's), considering Marty Lacker and Joe Esposito served as co-best men at Elvis and Priscilla's wedding. 1 And then there was George Klein (DJ).2 — Maile (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it is to be kept, the article itself needs far better sourcing. Criticalus (talk) 22:07, 26 December 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Earl

AfDs for this article:
Edward Earl (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 (obviously) do not have access to archives in Jamaica, but this doesn't sound like a very notable person. I can't find any more sources than those on the page, and it seems to me that we would need more of a biography than apparently exists for this person to meet the GNG. I don't think that being wealthy is enough, but I'm interested to hear why I am wrong if others have a strong !keep argument. JMWt (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 26 December 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 Solid Gold (TV series). If anyone wants to merge one or two sentences, they are welcome to do so from behind the redirects. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Solid Gold Christmas

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

Holiday episodes of the Solid Gold (TV series) without any significant coverage in reliable sources. No mention in main article to warrant redirect. Fails WP:NEPISODE. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Could probably cobble enough together to make an article; this quote was interesting, from 1984-ish: "And then Tuesday, it's a "Solid Gold Christmas," safely scheduled for midnight on Channel 44 when the kids are tucked in bed. Break out the No Doze for two feverish hours of the Solid Gold dancers. Imagine the costumes: Santa's workshop meets fredericks of Hollywood". [10]. Most are in newspapers, this is before the internet, kids. I don't see much for sourcing at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A Solid Gold Christmas II was PROD'd before so is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Since this is a bundled nomination, I'm relisting the pair of articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 26 December 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 TRT EBA TV. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRT Okul

TRT Okul (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 an article for TRT EBA TV which seems to be the new name Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Then a proposal to merge is the way to go. Not a proposal for deletion. Defunct =/= non notable.
Gazozlu (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 26 December 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! 20:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, My Name Is Dick Licker

Hello, My Name Is Dick Licker (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 fail WP:NFILM, zero reviews found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed by creator, with the justification of adding user reviews from IMdB. I removed those reviews as they are not reliable and do not count toward notability DonaldD23 talk to me 20:37, 26 December 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! 20:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information processor

Information processor (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)

ill defined fgnievinski (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
related: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Order_(information_processing). fgnievinski (talk) 04:41, 27 December 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 Electrical grid security in the United States. The arguments to keep have not demonstrated that a standalone article is needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce County substation attack

Pierce County substation attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pierce County substation attacks (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 originally intended on creating this page, but decided against it given that power was restored quickly to the area. If this attack had a prolonged effect on Pierce County, that would be a different story (see Moore County substation attack). elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article could easily be in Electrical grid security in the United States. This isn't a significant event and it was resolved before any serious impacts could occur. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Per the article, these attacks started at 2am, and went on until the evening. And power was out in excess of 12 hours for most of the victims. This was not a small series of events.Juneau Mike (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in a few power outages during my life. Going at most 12 hours without power is not an emergency, and there were no deaths reported from this event. If this had occurred for several days, I wouldn't be nominating this. The number of attacks, nor the number of victims, is not what is being discussed here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article already has a dedicated subsection in Electrical grid security in the United States that references the article as a distinct incident. Although merging there should be considered as an alternative to deletion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It seems like a minor attack with little impact. At the height of the attack, 14,000 people lost power, and most got their power back within a few hours. Losing power is a common occurrence, and although this was done maliciously, I don't think it deserves its own article based on that alone. Four attacks on electrical grids have been carried out in the U.S. since November of this year, so I don't think it's particularly rare or unique either. Of those four attacks, I feel that only the one in Moore County has gotten enough attention to warrant its own article. Silent-Rains (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend closing as sno:keep. 6 !votes for keep, 2 including the nominator for delete making less than compelling arguments, ie., “this was really no big deal.” I’m not !voting again, just recommending closure after a thus far 3-1 !vote against deletion.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to advocate for a decision, nor to downplay valid reasons (this is truly not a major issue and could easily be written into several sentences). The question is not if significant coverage was not met, but rather if this is an independently notable event with lasting impacts. That has not been established by the votes made here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the place to advocate for closure. Every AfD I've ever been involved in comes to a point where a call for a decision is made. Besides that, the arguments for delete are weak and are little more than pov. Four substations are brought down in a day long series of attacks - in the middle of a nationwide series of increasing attacks. A minority of editors feel like its no big deal. The keep !votes may not be as long winded, but they are better explained. At this point we should close/keep and if in a year lasting notability isn't there we can revisit it then.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:18, 29 December 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.
  • Recent events, (arrests, motive established, etc., etc) make further discussion necessary. Perhaps in the end, the AfD result will be the same. But let’s give it a day or two for recent events, and how they impact the article, to play out.Juneau Mike (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Cruz Azul season

1994–95 Cruz Azul 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 09:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed by user:Bruxton and includes 7 references/sources/links:

[11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and [17]. 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 and 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) 16:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, it aggregates the reference from ESPN about Marcelo Delgado it clearly mentions he played for Cruz Azul during the 94/95 season. The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Cruz Azul, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, it aggregates the reference from ESPN about Marcelo Delgado it clearly mentions he played for Cruz Azul during the 94/95 season. The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Cruz Azul, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, it aggregates the reference from ESPN about Marcelo Delgado it clearly mentions he played for Cruz Azul during the 94/95 season. The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Cruz Azul, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds (x3) that you are breaching copyrights. I hope I am wrong. The Banner talk 14:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RSSSF Reference is useful to structure the article, including two tables linked to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and the Matches round by round subsection, also the link is useful to create the crutial "position by round" table and 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) 23:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again, sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this overly specified page. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just noticed this article re-added back. This was a notable season for the club, they were group two winners and in the play-off final for the Mexican Primera División. Sources for transfers should be collected and match reports. It really shouldn't be that hard. To delete and say it's not notable without doing the WP:BEFORE, or even trying to improve the article is a joke to the wikiproject. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 6. Note that the "per DRV" in the 28 November relist comment is a different DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 26 December 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! 20:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaartha

Vaartha (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In Jeffrey (2000) "In 1996 , a new Telugu daily , Vaartha , was started by a rival family of industrialists with an ex - Eenadu editor and bitter critic of Ramoji Rao as the editor . Vaartha used satellite links to publish from nine centres and boasted...", one of the ref to the article. Per Communication for Sustainable Development, B. Balaswamy, Vaartha was the second most read newspaper in a sample in AP. --Soman (talk) 21:07, 27 December 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! 20:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tripura Bani

Tripura Bani (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 26 December 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Maher

Zack Maher (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)

Potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC as I have been unable to locate significant coverage in searches. WP:FPL no longer relevant as WP:NFOOTBALL no longer exists.

Merthyr Town fails to establish notability as SPORTBASIC states team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. The only slightly decent source that I could find was The 72 but this merely confirms his age and that he played two games for Newport - Soccerway could tell you that. Everything else that came up was just a mention in a squad list in local papers. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:12, 26 December 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! 04:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ganadabi

Ganadabi (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)

Can't find any independent and significant coverage about the newspaper in internet. Fails WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:09, 26 December 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. Lots of contributions in here which hold little weight due to either a) incorrect or disproven interpretation of policies or guidelines, or b) simple reference to policy or guidelines with no further elucidation, or c) no reference to policies or guidelines whatsoever. I largely discarded these.

I'm put in a position here where I need to evaluate the interaction between Sportsfan 1234 (SF1234) and Seacactus 13 (SC13) regarding who is correct per policy or guidelines. I'm further hampered by my inability to speak the language of the sources. Prima facie I am inclined to agree with SC13 in their comment at 18:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC), as it does not appear to be an unreasonable position to hold but, more importantly, was not responded to or disproven.

Oaktree b's comment is cause for pause, as is the fact — pointed out by Doczilla — that it was deleted back in 2020 and recreated with minimal changes, but ultimately I can't find a consensus in this discussion to delete. I would encourage this article to be renominated at AfD (at any time) by an interested editor, and a full source review analysis conducted to reach consensus on whether the sources discussed between SF1234 and SC13 constitute significant coverage or not. (There is an excellent table which allows the discussion of sources in AfD discussions, but alas, I cannot find it right now.)

Daniel (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny van der Tuuk

AfDs for this article:
Danny van der Tuuk (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 cyclist and has no results that warrant an article. The article was already deleted onceand since it was recreated the only result change is a 9th in a national championship. KeepItGoingForward (talk)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG, as has competed professionally and at the WorldTour level, and has plenty of significant coverage. Results alone are not a valid rationale for deletion, as coverage also is important. Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I vote for deletion as if he meets GNG so then how come the wiki article does not reflect those facts? When I do a search there are not articles about the rider particularly, only varies results which is similar to what you will find for most cyclists at a higher level. All the references in the article are links to results and not about the rider.
    The rider does not meet any of the significant coverage on Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cycling:
    Significant coverage is likely to exist for a male cyclist if he meets:
    Won a UCI World Tour;
    Won (a stage, or an overall individual classification) a Grand Tour or finished on the podium of a Monument;
    Won the UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup;
    Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship);
    Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear it does not appear that Danny van der Tuuk has coverage. Someday he might, but at the moment it does not appear so. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just found two sources directly about him, which took about 1 minute to find with only a brief Google search, so there are definitely even more out there. It is important to do a WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion, as the current state of many articles does not reflect the avaiable sources and coverage that exists. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your aware that you can't vote since you are the nominator... Come on man, you can't pretend to vote as someone else.Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have just expanded the article with a variety of sources. Re-enforcing that the subject meets WP:GNG Paulpat99 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see based on this edit [19]
  • The first source you added [20], is a team announcement and WP:ROUTINE also fails WP:100WORDS.
  • The second source is a YouTube video.
  • The third, fourth, seventh, ninth, tenth and 16th sources again are WP:ROUTINE [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and fails WP:SIGCOV.
  • The fifth, eighth and 13th sources [27], [28], [29] are results page of a race and cannot be used to determine notability, and fails WP:NSPORTS.
  • The sixth and 11th sources [30], [31] are a basic biography of the person and cannot be used to determine notability, as its primary.
  • The 12th source [32] mentions the subject once, clearly failing WP:SIGCOV.
  • The 14th source [33], mentions the subject in the title only, another clear fail of WP:SIGCOV.
  • The 15th source [34], doesn't even mention the subject! Again, another clear fail of WP:SIGCOV.
This is a clear fail of WP:NSPORTS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, for these reasons, the article should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several of these sources are actual articles directly about him, I see sigcov and GNG being met: [35] [36] [37] [38]. Seacactus 13 (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is barely passable. The second one fails. The third and fourth ones fails WP:ROUTINE. One source does not indicate WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV is met. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why the second one fails and the first one looks fine to me, source 4 does not look to be routine, it discusses details about his personal life, not just coverage of a transfer or result. Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:55, 19 December 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! 18:05, 26 December 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! 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeevni Today

Sanjeevni Today (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. I am unable to find sources about the newspaper in internet. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:03, 26 December 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! 19:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dainik Hadoti Express

Dainik Hadoti Express (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 notability tag in the article from February 2013. I am unable to find sources about the newspaper in internet. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 17:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 26 December 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 Argon compounds. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organoargon chemistry

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

No sources at all even mention "Organoargon chemistry". Nothing on Google Scholar or Google Books, or regular Google. Not surprising, even "organoargon" is hardly in use as a term. Not a notable field of chemistry. Fram (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I created the article): article has significant sources. The term "organoargon" can be found in use, but with a hyphen, e.g. in these papers: one (Other organo–argon and organo-silicon molecules derived from the above should be equally stable), two (Equilibrium structures, vibrational properties, and stabilities of organo-argon compounds), three (theoretical calculations have discussed the existence of whole families of organo-argon compounds), four (this study adds to the list of possible organo-argon compounds ... characterized theoretically as well as two new organo-argon molecules). I titled it without the hyphen and as "organoargon chemistry" per the guideline at WP:CHEMGROUP and consistency with the organometallics. Naturally it's a fairly new and small field, since its subject did not experimentally exist till this century. An alternative might be to merge it into Argon compounds, but that is already quite long. Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the guidelines of some project urge you to create a WP:NEOLOGISM, then you should ignore (or better yet revise) these guidelines. Fram (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the first paper:Thus, FArCCH is a gateway to a whole family of molecules, to organo-argon chemistry. It's not a neologism. We may argue about the hyphen, but Google gives a hit to Lomonosov State University for the hyphenless form: the quote Google shows me (I can't access the site for some reason) is(4) theoretical analysis of stability and development of experimental approaches to synthesis of organoargon compounds (molecules with H-Ar-C- fragment). Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • the combination "organoargon chemistry" is a neologism, there are (like I said) a few (a very few though) hits for "organoargon" as such. Fram (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have literally just quoted a case of that exact combination from here:Thus, FArCCH is a gateway to a whole family of molecules, to organo-argon chemistry. Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • With the hyphen, yes. See my comments about your guidelines above. Creating an article at a title which is never used, because there are a few sources which use a similar but different title, is not helpful. Fram (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • It then seems like the debate is not about whether the topic exists/is notable enough, but about the title. That seems more a thing for WP:RM than for WP:AFD. I also wonder how significant it is, when searching for "organoargon" without the hyphen in Google Scholar gets you the hyphenated versions just as well. Analogously, the fact that nobody has actually spelt out the name of CsAt in a paper (though the compound itself has been referred to by formula) does not make it a neologism to write "caesium astatide" when referring to it; that's just following common nomenclature rules. I argue that this is the same kind of situation. Double sharp (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • (multiple edit conflicts, please don't constantly change your posts) Searching for "organoargon chemistry" (the topic at hand) in Google Scholar gets "zero" results[41]. "Organo-argon chemistry" (with the hyphen) gives, er, 2[42]. So on the one hand this hyphen "is" significant" and I based my AfD on the actual article title you chose (a bit hard to guess that some other title might be better): and on the other hand should we have an article on a topic with just 2 Google Scholar hits and noGoogle Books results at all? A redirect or merge might be better here, no matter the title. Fram (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Argon compounds. While the term organo-argon (hyphenated) appears to be very much in use, sourcing is still very limited; I haven't found anything in the literature not linked above or in the article. Additionally, half the stub deals with hypothetical compounds, and recent sources haven't turned up, in particular no updates regarding the mentioned hypothetical compounds. As such, I'm not convinced there's enough to sustain a standalone article here, and I don't believe merging will decisively make the target article too long. No comment with respect to krypton as I have not investigated that matter (pun intended). Complex/Rational 16:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Argon compounds, not enough content to stand on its own. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or possibly merge to Ng–C article. Compounds containing argon–carbon bonding were still being studied over a decade after the original 2003 article, by multiple research groups. For example, argon bonded to methyl, nitrile, and acetylene, and those same groups in addition to a fluorine on the argon, are analyzed in doi:10.1002/qua.24804 (2014), so those are clearly "organo-argon" (of whatever punctuation); doi:10.1063/1.4766326 (2012) also looks at FAr–acetylide anions theoretically. Broadening a bit, doi:10.1021/jp410631y from 2013 studies XArCO+, which is argon–carbon, but uncertain if it would be considered "organo" vs a "carbonyl complex". That appears to be multiple research groups publishing about these things in WP:RS. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says a chemical has to exist, or even possibly exist, in order to merit an article...notability is based on discussion in lit, which surely includes purely theoretical studies. I don't think merging into argon compounds is best if we wanted to merge it. These articles almost universally discuss the argon ones as part of a set with other noble-gases, so I think there would be lots of redundancy in each noble-gas's article. Better to have a unified article about the noble-gas–carbon compounds if there is consensus not to have an article solely on the argon subset (if certain noble gas's compounds are notable enough as a subset, they can spin out of the Ng–C class article). DMacks (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    doi:10.1039/D2CP01523D (2022) discusses formation of various Ar–C species as potentially occurring in the atmospheres of various planets and moons, and that these structures are a useful type for studying several types of reaction-mechanisms. DMacks (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    doi:10.1007/s10876-021-02052-1 (2022) is theoretical analysis of several organo-argon compounds with respect to non-linear optical properties. We're getting lots of different types of analysis in several decades of publications, some specific to argon–carbon covalent molecules (broader sense including covalent-unit ions), not solely generalities to the noble-gases group. I think it's enough to spin out of argon based on amount of detail and range of different subtopics. DMacks (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And just for kicks, doi:10.1021/j100115a015 is from 1993, and cites multiple refs of synthetic work back to 1979, of van der Waals molecules containing specifically argon, and use of them as test-cases to develop various theories. DMacks (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect The two actual "compounds" (which are ions) are already mentioned in the argon compounds article in the argon compounds#Other ions section. But one reference could be added. I would say that "Organoargon chemistry" is not a notable topic. These ions are outside the realm of organic chemistry study, therefore "organo" is a bit inappropriate. Putting them together in an article might be a bit of a synthesis. However I would be happy enough to see a mention of "organo-argon" in the argon compounds article. The argon compounds article has avoided hypothetical compounds, as there are enough real argon ions and real molecules to provide content. DMacks idea of a noble-gas–carbon compounds sounds OK too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the paperdoi:10.1021/jz900274p aboutArCF2+2, it is called an organoargon species:More generally, the experimental evidence (Figure 1) in conjunction with the theoretical data (Figure 2) is clear proof for the existence of the metastable ArCF22+ dication, a new kind of organo-argon species in the gas phase. This is perhaps somewhat wishful wording considering that ions are not bottlable, but it shows that a group working on this is happy to consider cations as part of the organoargon umbrella. Double sharp (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That paper identifies the relevant reaction as unique to argon among the noble gases, which could help drive Ar–C as own article or else an additional detail for Ng–C class article that everything isn't just "all Ng are analogous". DMacks (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm no expert on chemistry so reading through all of the comments, I can't decipher whether the consensus is to Keep or Merge to Argon compounds. There does seem to be consensus that this article content shouldn't be deleted but debate continues on its destination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:44, 26 December 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 Root locus#Angle condition. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angle condition

Angle condition (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 sensical; tagged since 2016; non specific title, since "angle condition" can be used in many applications of geometry. D.Lazard (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 26 December 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. Nobody appears to be arguing that this is currently notable, and absent any intent to work on a draft, the argument to draftify is weak. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Chimney

Copper Chimney (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 all about launch & Event based news. Fails WP:NCORP Lordofhunter (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 26 December 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. No significant advancements have been made on the rename target since the relist, so WP:RM is the way to go. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic bicycle

Islamic bicycle (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 exist Chidgk1 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can also consider the Persian Wikipedia article on this topic. SilverserenC 01:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A name change was discussed twice on the talk page years ago but nobody was interested enough to actually rename Chidgk1 (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note also Bicycling and feminism#Bicycle rallies 21 Century Pakistan which needs some serious copy-editing. PamD 07:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe there is a consensus to Keep but also Rename with several options mentioned. While this is typically discussed on the article talk page, I'm going to relist this discussion for a week because I fear after this discussion is closed, interested editors will just move on to the next article. So, over the next few days, let's see if we can come to a consensus on either an appropriate rename or whether the content should be Merged and, if so, where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is to keep I would like to merge into Bicycling and feminism Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not in fact a kind of bicycle known as an Islamic bicycle
The sources I posted above prove literally the exact opposite and that the production of them was approved in 2018. SilverserenC 03:17, 27 December 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! 07:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kal Tumi Aleya

Kal Tumi Aleya (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:NFILM 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 16:20, 29 December 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! 04:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Cuff

James Cuff (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)

citations 1 and 3 subject was not lead or co-lead author. Should be resubmitted to properly represent subject as in computing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooploop23k (talk • contribs) 20:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 17:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per his GScholar, he still appears to be the priamry or second writer on 4 papers with over 800 cites. Curbon7 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I agree that this person was an author on some highly referenced papers but I don't see any other signs of notability. I'm not sure if his role as director of a research office is anything equivalent to "named chair". I see this person as a capable, working scientist but not otherwise distinguished. I also note that he himself requested that the page be deleted for lack of notability. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that an encyclopedia entry should contain its own justification and answer, or hint at an answer, to 'what is this person known for?' Or at very least hints at where an answer might be found. It can be precise (discovered X) or based on authority (won XX prize) or vague (developed novel uses for ...). Known for being cited is circular. Hooploop23k (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I’m the subject of this article and have also requested deletion in the past. This article has also been requested for deletion a number of times by the original author. I would be more than happy to see this page simply go away so y’all can focus on properly notable humans in the encyclopedia.

(Also sorry if I messed up this comment, I have no idea how this works, but wanted to add a little color.

All the best,

J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrCuff (talk • contribs) 17:24, 31 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Su fei-erh

Su fei-erh (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 don't know who created this entry, but this entry is full of mistakes! First, you can't find any information about Su-Fei-Erh or 苏菲尔 on Chinese Internet, whether on simplified Chinese or traditional Chinese Internet. So I tried to search from the official history book of Song Dynasty called History of Song which was compiled under the direction of First Minister Toqto'a and Prime Minister Alutu. Guess what I have found? NOT ANY INFORMATION ABOUT SO CALLED SU FEI-ERH IS RECORDED IN THIS BOOK! Therefore , I continued to read this entry, tried to find more information. And I've found that more mistakes than I've expected!

  1. First, the article says:"The Song Dynasty hired Muslim warriors from Bukhara to fight against Khitan nomads. 5,300 Muslim men from Bukhara were encouraged and invited to move to China in 1070 by the Song emperor Shenzong to help battle the Liao empire in the northeast and repopulate areas ravaged by fighting.[2] The emperor hired these men as mercenaries in his campaign against the Liao empire. Later on these men were settled between the Sung capital of Kaifeng and Yenching (modern day Beijing). China's northern and northeastern provinces were settled by Muslims in 1080 when 10,000 more Muslims were invited into China."
    Don't you know that Song Dynasty never regained The Sixteen Prefectures, which contained nowadays Beijing and nearby areas? All these areas we're filled by Liao Dynasty that times.
  2. Secondly, "Many of Su fei-erh's descendants have wielded political power and prestige from the 12th century to the 19th century. One of the sons of Su fei-erh was appointed governor of Shandong while a grandson called Shams Shah was given the title of "Protector of the Tatars". Kamal al-Din, a great grandson, was made commander-in-chief of the army under Emperor Gaozong. In turn, Kamal's son Mahmud served as governor of Yunnan and Shaanxi. Further descendants were also appointed into high positions within the Song dynasty."
    Well well well, Song dynasty was ended in 1279 BCE. And nowadays Yunnan was an independent country called Dali, not rulled by Song dynasty, nowaday's Shannxi Province was belonged to Yongxingjun Circuit, Qinfeng Circuit and Jingxinan Circuit. Also Emporer Gaozong never had a commender-in-chief called Kamal al-Din(Who want to be a commender-in-chief under Emporer Gaozong?).

All the articles this page has cited have no relation with so called Su Fei-Erh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel Shen (talk • contribs) 21:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I looked at the first reference in the article, a book entitled Islam in China by James Frankel. It mentions Su fei-erh under the romanisation Su Fei'er (蘇菲爾); the same source also refers to him by the name Sayyid Safar and describes him as a "Bukharan nobleman" which fits with the article's lead which describes him as a "Muslim Bukharan Emir". I don't have access to the whole book, but the snippet preview on Google Books mentions "5,300 Arabs from the Central Asian city of Bukhara", which lines up with what is written at the start of the "Life" section of the article. (Although "Muslim men" may need to be amended to "Arabs"; the article uses a different reference for that line, so perhaps not.)
I also took a quick look at Islam in China: Religion, Ethnicity, Culture, and Politics by Raphael Israeli, the third reference in the article. It mentions him as "Amir Sayyid So-fei-er of Bukhara". It likewise seems to follow what's in the article, and the references actually quote this source.
The sixth reference, First encyclopaedia of Islam, also quotes its source, and if that quote is correct then the book mentions him as Su fei-erh, which is the romanisation used in the article title.
I suspect any factual errors can be amended by verifying the references given and amending the text according to what is written therein. It's fairly evident that the proposed deletion is mistaken, and that references discussing this subject do in-fact exist and are used in the article. Deletion is almost certainly excessive. (I doubt this is a case of WP:TNT.) – Scyrme (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've amended the text of the article following the reference given (following the quoted text) in order to clarify that Yanjing (Yenching) was not Song territory, thereby addressing the first dispute raised by Axel Shen. – Scyrme (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scyrme's comments. On the text on James Frankel's book I can provide relevant excerpts. Page 42 says "In 1070, during the reign of Emperor Shenzong, (r. 1067-85), a group of 5,300 Arabs from the Central Asian city of Bukhara came to the imperial court at Kaifeng. Their leader was the Bukaharan nobleman Sayyid Safar (known in Chinese as Su Fei'er (蘇菲爾)..." It goes on to mention that Safar arrived during a period of conflict between the Song and the Liao. Shenzong allowed Safar and his group to settle near the border of Liao and Song to act as a pro-Song buffer zone. The text also says "The emperor appointed Safar Marquis of Yining 伊寧 (in present-day Xinjiang)."
As for Safar's descendants, page 43 elaborates that "Safar's descendants rose to prominence in the twelfth century and continued to grow in power and prestige in all the way through the nineteenth century." The text mentions some notable personalities by stating "One of Safar's sons was made governor of Shandong province. His grandson, Shams Shāh, was given the title of 'Protector of the Tatars' while his great grandson, Kamāl al-Dīn, was appointed commander-in-chief of the Chinese army under the tenth Song emperor, Gaozong (r. 1127-62). Kamāl al-Dīn's son, Mahmūd, served as governor of Yunnan and later Shaanxi province. His sons and grandsons were also honoured with influential positions in the Song state."
This article is definitely worth keeping and much of the content is reliably sourced but double-checking would be a great idea. SlackingViceroy (talk) 19:36, 27 December 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 AfD nom withdrawn and article merged.. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NECBL All-Star Game

NECBL All-Star Game (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)

Relies nearly exclusively on primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Merge content into new section in New England Collegiate Baseball League. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Goulbourne

Neil Goulbourne (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 executive/civil servant. Mooonswimmer 15:41, 26 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakota Tech High School

Lakota Tech High 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)

Not even having reliable coverages, notability is too far. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure about the reliability of your first sources but if see Newscenter1.tv not having any journalist name, above that it is just an announcement by Dr. Anthony Fairbank. 2nd link Rapidcityjounral is again an announcement about the partnership, that too with no journalist name. None of them establish notability. It is not an independent coverage. Lordofhunter (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Newscenter1.tv article is credited to "NewsCenter1 Staff" (and the copyright at the bottom is to KNBN-TV, a local news station) so that should be good enough in terms of determining whether this was written by a journalist. Not all reliable source publications have every article under a specific employee name. Also the portions by Fairbank are in quotation marks, which is exactly what a reliable source should do. Not all of the article is statements by Fairbank. The second one is written by "Journal staff" (employees of the newspaper), and so this should satisfy that it was written by journalists. Rapid City Journal is the newspaper of the area. The fact that the articles are credited to the newspaper/TV station employees shows that they indeed are independent coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not satisfied here based on one piece of news. Newscenter1.tv is not independent news at all, heading itself says that it is an announcement. There is no analyse related to this edu institute. We can't declare every institute notable based on its existence, construction and few coverages in local media based on launches and announcements. Lordofhunter (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again it is an announcement, with no analyse or comment by the journalist. The article itself says "Gov. Kristi Noem and Oglala Lakota County School District officials announced". I suggest, lets wait for other editors to share their analysis. Lordofhunter (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds, it is meeting NORG ? Lordofhunter (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Rapid City TV stations and newspapers have covered the school. However, meeting NORG isn't required. So what's your point? 174.212.224.74 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 olcsd School Website, is not reliable.
2 Argusleader It is not indepth and the news is about the event of "Multiple Native American schools opt to cancel or suspend fall sports".
3, 4, 5 & 7Newscenter1, Argusleader, Rapidcityjournal [43] It is partenership annoncement & Construction update, not independent.
6 Lakotatimes, School Starting timing details, not indepth
8,9 newscenter1, Rapidcityjounral only quotes of spokesperson about finishing 1st year of school, no independence. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your source analysis.
I use the following guidelines to determine a subject's notability:
See Wikipedia:Notability for Beginners:
and Wikipedia:One hundred words:
I added these sources to Talk:Lakota Tech High School:
Please note, the sources exist, even though they have not yet been added to the article, per WP:CONTN:— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Notability for Beginners & Wikipedia:One hundred words are not the coummity driven guidelines. These are just discussions. It has not been thoroughly vetted by the community, please read first paragraph. Ok, "let's assume" if 2 para is considered as in-depth, then at least those para should be independent, and not based on PR material or just a mention that the schools are getting open. I assume some independent commentary is required. Here, same coverage is exactly in multiple sources. How can we consider this independent? Lordofhunter (talk) 07:50, 30 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dignio

Dignio (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 company Mooonswimmer 14:42, 26 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Higher Institutions in Gombe State

List of Higher Institutions in Gombe State (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:NLIST. Promotional ("The alphabetical listing below is expected to aid teachers, researchers, and learners in easily making an informed decision about their desired tertiary institutions in the State."). Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 26 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hall M. Lyons

AfDs for this article:
Hall M. Lyons (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 AfD'd back in 2007, nothing has changed since then, (since he was dead). Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Nothing has changed? There's sourcing. Dead? So are so many other article's subjects. Delete? Sure, if you plan to delete most other politicians that, in some way, failed. The fellow editor who objected to my use of the word FAILED in the short description clearly disagrees at least in part with the tone of "nothing has changed since then, (since he was dead)" I did this as an outgrowth of my response to a widow's outcry to her fellow humans at wiki. WHAT?? Chi Modu is filed under "M" and the only RedLink at his AlmaM is at "L" - this Lyons person. Delete the article? At least it isn't nonsense (as the first article, which I haven't seen, was tagged. 'Nuf said. Nuts240 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited per WP:NOTINHERITED, so the fact that he was part of the Lyons Petroleum family business isn't a sufficient reason to keep. Per WP:NPOL, merely being an unelected candidate for office does not guarantee notability either. The sources cited in the article are mainly mentions in passing, as are the 5 articles found on ProQuest. If I had to choose a page to redirect to right now, it would probably be Louisiana's 3rd congressional district. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cielquiparle. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so he doesn't automatically get an article just for being related to other people, whereas unsuccessful candidates for office don't get articles just for being candidates either, and instead get articles only if they can show credible evidence that they were already notable for other reasons independent of the candidacy. But family and candidacy are the only notability claims being attempted here at all, and the referencing (which depends mainly on primary sources and paid-inclusion obituaries that aren't support for notability at all) is nowhere near sufficient to claim that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any SNGs. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Afganiladin

Mohammad Afganiladin (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 appreciate that this footballer is still quite young, but he doesn't seem to be notable just yet. I have done an extensive WP:BEFORE, which includes an Indonesian source search. Best sources found were Goal, Bolasport and Bola. All of these were mere mentions in a squad list. I could not find any indication of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Please note that playing in an WP:FPL is no longer enough per WP:NSPORTS2022. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:07, 26 December 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 2014 FIFA World Cup#Awards. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 12:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014 FIFA World Cup awards

2014 FIFA World Cup awards (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)

Nothing on this list can't be (or isn't already included) in the main 2014 FIFA World Cup article.

There are two pieces of WP:INDISCRIMINATE information - man of the match and "goal of the tournament" awards that have no sporting merit and are decided by a spectator poll.

In short, WP:NOTSTATS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NLIST and the main article is not large enough to warrant a WP:SPLIT Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Tosh

AfDs for this article:
Bert Tosh (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 satisfy WP:BIO as a BBC radio producer. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 26 December 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 Palawan#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 08:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity University

Holy Trinity University (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:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories and news reports won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:42, 26 December 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 Tagbilaran#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 08:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Spirit School of Tagbilaran

Holy Spirit School of Tagbilaran (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:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories and news reports won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:41, 26 December 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 Digos#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cor Jesu College

Cor Jesu College (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:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories and news reports won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:37, 26 December 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 Dasmariñas#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 08:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the King College of Cavite Foundation

Christ the King College of Cavite Foundation (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:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. No hits on Google News. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:34, 26 December 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 General Santos#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canonico Antonio Institute

Canonico Antonio Institute (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:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. No hits on Google News. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:33, 26 December 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 2012 European Trophy. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2012 European Trophy games

2012 European Trophy games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. Some duplicate info. Merge rest to 2012 European Trophy. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:33, 26 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero Networks

Cicero Networks (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, not enough notability. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 03:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. While I found three national news sources (in the Irish Times), which seem to deal with the subject as a primary topic (and added them to support the text), they do not support notability under SIGCOV. (All three are mainly based on quotes and press release material which appears to originate from the company, and therefore not independent and instead of the "churnalism" type common around just about every company everywhere). Otherwise there is nothing to suggest that this small company, which had perhaps max 30 employees at its peak, attained notability during its 20 or so years in existence. The apparent SPA/PROMO nature of the article's initial creation does little to help matters. Guliolopez (talk) 13:41, 28 December 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! 03:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Rain

Out of the Rain (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, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Radio Times. Needs one more review or significant reliable source to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these sources? Mike Allen 04:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have striked my "Delete" since reliable sources have been provided to satisfy WP:GNG Mike Allen

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! 03:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Hardy

Stephanie Hardy (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Can't find much that proves notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:02, 26 December 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 history may be restored on request if a viable merge or redirect target is identified. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BackSlash Linux

AfDs for this article:
BackSlash Linux (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Article was previously deleted in November 2016 and was recreated about eight months later in July 2017. The sources in the article are still not enough to meet WP:GNG and since the distro is now discontinued it is unlikely to get additional coverage in the future. Sources in the article amount to primary non-independent sources and blogs, none of which contribute to the notability of the subject, and I couldn't find anything online showing notability. GBooks and Scholar show absolutely nothing either. Aoidh (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Longstanding consensus at Talk:List of Linux distributions is that the entries listed there very specifically must have a standalone article for inclusion; without a standalone article its entry would be removed so merging there is not feasible. Interviews are not independent so that does not contribute to notability in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like there is much meaningful activity on the List of Linux distributions page recently. Maybe it's time to revisit the policy, allow distributions that aren't independently notable to be listed (as long as there is at least one source) and clean up the page, which is need of an update? Otherwise there might be other merge targets like Debian which has a couple of different sections for forks and derivatives. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That the list has maintenance tags on it does not mean the inclusion criteria should be relaxed by any means. That list page is quite long enough as it is, but that would be a consensus to try to change on that page not here, so unless that criteria changes, that's not a merge option. BackSlash Linux is also not in any way meaningful to Debian or its development, so a merge there would be even more inappropriate and WP:UNDUE; the amount of coverage that BackSlash Linux has received in relation to Debian is zero, so the Debian article should include zero content about it. As far as I am aware there's no valid merge target for this article and it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements to warrant a standalone article. - Aoidh (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to comment on the recently added references to the article, the Linux.com piece was written by the developer of BackSlash Linux, so it's not an independent source. The Linux Journal article is a trivial mention that mentions the distro in a sentence that references this source, which also is a trivial mention. I had seen all of these sources before nominating the article for deletion but none of them contribute to the notability of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so it's clear – that source was already there in the article – I just edited the text and cleaned up the formatting – but yes, very interesting that the author of the Linux.com article was or became involved in BackSlash Linux development, given the somewhat critical review and the text (which I had removed) that was calling out the coverage. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the article relies heavily on primary sources and other non-reputable sources whilst not meeting WP:GNG alongside being established that it is likely to get more coverage due to its discontinuation. Given the above discussion over it not being appropriate to merge and redirect to the the list of linux distributions page, the most appropriate action is to delete. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 05:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Linux distributions. Understand that this deletion discussion isn't the right place to change the inclusion policy for List of Linux distributions, and that that discussion needs to happen on the Talk page over there; in the meantime, I've gone ahead and added some information about Backslash Linux to the entry over there. Having taken a closer look, it looks like a lot of the distributions listed on that page might not survive current Wikipedia notability guidelines and may no longer be able to justify having standalone Wikipedia pages, so it may make sense to have that discussion over there in the near future. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a viable redirect target; without a standalone article the entry on BackSlash Linux would be removed from List of Linux distributions per consensus on how entries are listed there, and it doesn't make sense to redirect to an article that doesn't include anything about what's being redirected. I do think maybe a few more entries listed there wouldn't survive an AfD, but that's a discussion for those individual AfDs. - Aoidh (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there are any other possible Redirect or Merge targets as that is result some participants want but there hasn't been a viable target identified yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 26 December 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 02:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed

Changed (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 video game – no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Only the game's page on Steam [46] (not independent) and a couple of reviews on blogs (not reliable) appear to exist, which is not enough to sustain an article. I should also note that I removed a game synopsis from the article as an apparent copyright violation of the game's page on Steam. Complex/Rational 02:33, 26 December 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 2022–23 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final#Junior. as an ATD, similar to what happened with his skating partner. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tioumentsev

Daniel Tioumentsev (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 deprodded with the rationale, "Baram does meet notability guidelines according to WP:NSKATE. However, like his skating partner, he is an ISU Junior Grand Prix Final medalist." However, NSKATE says, in reference to Junior skaters, "Have won a medal at an international senior-level event or the World Junior Figure Skating Championships". In looking at World Junior Figure Skating Championships, that does not appear to be the same thing as the ISU Junior Grand Prix. Therefore, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSKATE. If those two article regarding the World Juniors and Junior Grand Prix are actually duplicate articles, please ping me and I'll speedily close this. Onel5969 TT me 02:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 26 December 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 2022–23 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final#Junior. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Baram

Sophia Baram (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 deprodded with the rationale, "Baram does meet notability guidelines according to WP:NSKATE. She is an ISU Junior Grand Prix Final medalist." However, NSKATE says, in reference to Junior skaters, "Have won a medal at an international senior-level event or the World Junior Figure Skating Championships". In looking at World Junior Figure Skating Championships, that does not appear to be the same thing as the ISU Junior Grand Prix. Therefore, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSKATE. If those two article regarding the World Juniors and Junior Grand Prix are actually duplicate articles, please ping me and I'll speedily close this. Onel5969 TT me 02:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Sophia registers her name as Sophia with the International Skating Union, hence the use of it in this article as it is her full name. Sonia is her nickname, but she appears to go by it more often and registers it as her name with U.S. Figure Skating. That is where the discrepancy lies. Clemkr (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware of any secondary sources that could help to establish notability? Cielquiparle (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 26 December 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! 00:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gamble Breaux

Gamble Breaux (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 all but one source being either not independent, interviews, or a WP:SIGCOV fail. A PROD nomination was contested by page author. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page is known for only one thing too. Fails WP:GNG on grounds of not having a range of notability items. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:34, 26 December 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! 00:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Levy (musician)

Dan Levy (musician) (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 the only source being a WP:SIGCOV fail. A PROD nomination was contested by article creator. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on a single source. Failes GNG. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:36, 26 December 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_December_26&oldid=1131281504"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 26, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.