Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 25

< June 24 June 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Padra (clinic)[edit]

Padra (clinic) (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)

Contested PROD. Sourced to PR material, likely to fail WP:NCORP.

See: Draft:Padra Clinic KH-1 (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep‎. Withdrawn, sources found (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki Way[edit]

The Wiki Way (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 commentary/reviews/etc. A few things citing this book, but none talking about it. Both authors are notable so IDK if a redirect target would work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a review from Mute magazine. Worthington, Simon (2001-10-12). "The Wiki Way (Quick Collaboration on the Web, Bo Leuf, Ward Cunningham)". Mute. ISSN 1356-7748. Retrieved 2024-06-26. Someone with access to the book review sources that libraries use to make buying decisions might want to check those sources for reviews of the book. I also saw a reference to Ward Cunningham and the book in The New York Times here, but the reference isn't long enough to count as significant. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Kim, Eugene Eric (September 2001). "The Wiki Way: Quick collaboration on the Web". Web Techniques. Vol. 6, no. 9. p. 62. ProQuest 275002380.

      The review notes: "The Wiki Way will hopefully change that. Written by Bo Leuf and coauthored by Cunningham, The Wiki Way is a cultural and technical guide to the wonderful world of the WikiWikiWeb. ... Leuf and Cunningham do a good job of explaining what a Wiki is, and when it's appropriate to use one. They begin with a survey of collaborative tools, and outline Wiki's strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly, they explain the cultural values that make Wiki work. ... The authors answer these questions by providing much commentary on social structure and the Wiki culture-The Wiki Way-and by presenting several case studies."

      The review notes: "Leuf and Cunningham devote a good portion of the book to the Wiki's inner workings, and in particular, a version of Wiki called QuickiWiki. Those interested in installing and even hacking a Wiki will find these chapters straightforward and informative. The book would have been far stronger, however, if the authors had inserted the case studies before describing the software's technical details. I imagine that many people reading this book will want to be persuaded of the Wiki's utility before pouring over software innards.The Wiki Way is certainly a technical book. Wiki, after all, is simply another type of collaboration software. underlying the technology, however, is a fascinating insight into community and the nature of collaboration. In a sense, The Wiki Way is about the way we work, and that makes it a worthwhile read."

    2. Mattison, David (April 2003). "Quickiwiki, Swiki, Twiki, Zwiki, and the Plone Wars: Wiki as PJM and collaborative content tool". Searcher. Vol. 11, no. 4. pp. 32+. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26 – via Gale.

      The article notes: "In The Wiki Way (2001), the one and only book devoted solely to wild, Bo Leuf and Ward Cunningham define wild as ... Wikis are easy to learn and use. There are no complicated syntax or text formatting rules. Some wild clones permit the inclusion of HTML, but The Wiki Way authors recommend, with some exceptions, against this practice. ... The Wiki Way authors recommend never deleting a wild page, but deleting the content instead, leaving a note explaining why, and creating another page instead. ... The first wild product I tried to install myself was the QuickiWiki script that comes on CD-ROM with The Wiki Way. ... The scripts that came on the CD-ROM were damaged, but you can find corrected scripts on the book's support site at http://wild.org. QuickiWiki runs as advertised with or without a server. The script simulates the required server activity through an MS-DOS window, or you can set up a free server such as Apache (not recommended for the nontechnical) to run the QuickiWiki. Since I did not want t o be bothered with trying out all the useful "hacks" described in part two of The Wiki Way (2001), I moved onto other products."

    3. Worthington, Simon (2001-12-10). "The Wiki Way (Quick Collaboration on the Web, Bo Leuf, Ward Cunningham)". Mute. Vol. 1, no. 22. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.

      The review notes: "The Wiki Way book is a manifesto and a software manual in one, with the essentials for Wiki installation attached on CD. The authors have written this book with an almost mystical sense of wonderment at the achievements and ideals embodied in the Wiki concept, a web site where anyone can edit anything. ... The attached CD allows you to install a Wiki on most Os’s, even Windows, and then you too will be able to keep the flame burning for those early ideals of the WWW: empowerment, learning and collaboration."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Wiki Way to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks good, I'll withdraw. Surprised I couldn't find the one on ProQuest at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2024 (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. However if someone wants it to actively improve on, I'm happy to restore it to draft. Star Mississippi 02:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenstein (film)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Coverage is limited to promotional announcements of upcoming screenings in a local paper ([1]), awards published by non-notable film festivals and primary sources. Rotten Tomatoes lists no critics' reviews; searching online, I was able to find only this, which is an unreliable one-man blog. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As per my check, I searched for reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject but did not find anything promising that could make this film article notable. I also searched for reviews but found only reviews from blogs and some unreliable sources, which obviously can’t make this article notable. Regarding redirecting and draftification, I would say the director’s article itself is not in the main space due to notability issues, so there’s no point in redirecting. Additionally, there is no article available on Wikipedia for any cast member from the film. I also do not support draftification because the film was released in 2020, and since then, nothing has emerged to make the article notable. Therefore, it is unlikely that anything will change in the future. The single award the film received, the ‘Los Angeles Film Awards,’ is not an exclusive or particularly notable award in my view. Therefore, notability cannot be established based on this alone. GrabUp - Talk 16:14, 2 July 2024 (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. The eligibility of an article does not depend on its title. If the topic would meet our inclusion criteria under some title but not its current one, then it should be moved, not deleted. After discounting !votes based solely on the impropriety of the title, we're left with a clear consensus to keep. Any editor is welcome to move the page to a better title. Owen× ☎ 13:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto national football team[edit]

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

This isn't a "national football team". In an attempt to propose a move target, I determined that it should be deleted rather than renamed.

For the first match: some attendees at the 99º Universal Esperanto Congress had a friendly game of football during the event. [3]

The rest appears to be cosplay. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true... it literally played in two non-FIFA organization tournaments (COSANFF Cup and Zamenhof Cup) among other games against teams in non-FIFA organizations (Mapuche etc), and on top of that it does meet WP:GNG by any means. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Playing in a non-FIFA tournament is not the claim to fame you think it is... GiantSnowman 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passing GNG is the claim to notability we think it is, and I don't know how you could argue against the articles here which were published in clearly reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 09:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, Thanls, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to World Esperanto Congress or Universal Esperanto Association. The subject is notable given the multiple reliable sources talking about it, but there's not much long-term coverage and not an enormous amount that needs to be said about it, so it fits better in context with other things the same people have been doing. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third option could be Esperanto, maybe in the Culture section Mrfoogles (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also like to say that if it does not get merged or deleted, it should be moved to "Esperanto (football team)". I would move it, but this is during an AFD. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep only if the name is changed to "...football team" rather than "...national football team—It feels absurd to vote in favor of something this fluid, semi-official, and undefinable. We can't even figure out what to call it, much less exactly what it is. This is clearly not a national team, because Esperanto is a language, not a nation. It's also not a sub-nationality, ethnic identity, tribal affiliation, or diasporic community. I want to vote "Delete" so badly, but the sources are there to establish WP:SIGCOV, unfortunately. That said, this is a ridiculous article on a ridiculous subject that shouldn't really exist. But standards are standards, and this article meets those standards. Anwegmann (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article has been shown to meet GNG which no editor has refuted so should be kept. As it stands, there are one delete vote, one merge vote, and four keep votes. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Peshawar (1758)[edit]

Capture of Peshawar (1758) (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 this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG[11] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [12]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [13] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [14] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [15]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [16] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [17] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read wp:v and wp:synthesis Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did I accepted it was at least a battle, it is not even that now. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Mohammad Umar Ali completely fails to understand what significant coverage means, a sentence or two in several books is not significant coverage. I can find no significant coverage of this, presumably for the rather obvious reason that (assuming the article is correct) the Maratha forces simply took control over a city bereft of Afghan forces. So as absolutely nothing happened during the capture, there's nothing for us to write about. I would object in the strongest possible terms to a move to Maratha Conquest of Punjab or anything similar, that would be a clear WP:POVFORK of Afghan–Maratha War where this capture can easily be covered in context. So I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to that article either. FDW777 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not fulfil the WP:NOTABILITY in the slightest. The event is not a significant at all and has no significant coverage in WP:RS. PadFoot2008 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 25 June 2024 (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 Midlands Rugby League. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Junior League[edit]

Midlands Junior League (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)

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a contested PROD, this does not qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh90210, that is not an appropriate target article as it is a Redirect. It should be appearing with a green font color. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page was merged to Midlands Rugby League a few hours after my comment; presumably that would be the merge target now. That is, "selective" merge; other than that the league exists (and some senior teams have junior teams in the league) there is no content to merge. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2024 (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 Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing[edit]

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing (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 NEVENT. No lasting effects. Saqib (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "No lasting effects" seems rather early to call three days since the bombing, the day after an overnight operation resulting from it was held. There's arguments that could be made in regards to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS, but WP:LASTING is not the one (yet), since that one specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable, and less-than-a-week-ago is certainly recent. AddWittyNameHere 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AddWittyNameHere, Noted. How about WP:TOOSOON ? — Saqib (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Pakistan has so much terrorism that the odds of an individual incident getting long term coverage are slim unless it is exceptionally high profile and deadly, which this is not. However, it is notable as part of Pakistan's overall problem, so the information should be retained. This is what we did with the 100 past Pakistani terrorism articles that were AfD'd the past few months (though a few stayed their own articles) PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA, Sure - I'm fine with merge into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the event has received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in international media: 9 June 2024, 11 June 2024, 16 June 2024. Maybe rename the article, but such events are almost always notable due to Pakistan Army connection. I'd suggest to defer this AFD for a year so we can see the lasting impact. 103.12.120.46 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP- As per this report, Pakistan witnessed as many as 245 incidents of terror attacks and counter-terror operations during the *irst quarter of 2024, resulting in 432 fatalities I'm sure each of them received similar amount of press coverage but do we need a standalone WP article on each one of them? I don't think so. This barely two paragraph long article should better be merged. WP is NOTDIRECTORY of terrorist attacks in Pakistan so we better focus on quality of our articles, not quantity. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:50, 18 June 2024 (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, 25 June 2024 (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 China–Pakistan relations as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China[edit]

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit. Saqib (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Pakistan. Saqib (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet WP:N. The remover Saqib WP:POINT, did not communicate directly with the creator (me) about how to "improve" this articles. Instead, after I continued to add numerous reliable sources, Saqib decided to simply delete it, which also violates WP:FAITH. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TinaLees-Jones, But the problem here is that the article just doesn't meet the WP:N. It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP. And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion. Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article. — Saqib (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Saqib: the first thing that needs to be emphasized is that the friendly relations between Pakistan and China are dependent on the exchange of visits by top leaders, the official visits themselves, especially since both Pakistan and China, both with hundreds of millions of people, are equipped with attention (WP:N). It's not a vlogger with millions of followers releasing a new song, it's not a visit by a minister or a senator, it's an official diplomatic event representing the will of the nations. I'm not fully aware of Pakistan's internal political tensions, and I don't really care what a specific Pakistani editor's favorites are for specific politicians. WP:N is judged on the basis of facts and sources, and if a visit lacks official coverage from both sides, then it naturally lacks attention. If the Western media also be aware of, then this proves that the event has really touched some people's interests, which strengthens the basis of WP:N. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as Nawaz Sharif's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum. then the correct way would have been to write the 2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be merged into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later. The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • TinaLees-Jones, Notability is not temporary and WP:LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage. Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT. The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT. I won't delve into this further. I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments. — Saqib (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. This is a rare case where I believe WP:ROUTINE applies. All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media. However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to !vote delete in good faith. Toadspike [Talk] 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Toadspike, But I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit. Take, for example, Nawaz Sharif's visit to China back in 2014. That was a big deal because it kicked off the CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions! But we don't even have an article about that visit. So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff. WP isn't a newspaper, right? — Saqib (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable. Your other argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. I already marked my !vote as "very weak" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want? Toadspike [Talk] 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Saqib. - Amigao (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 June 2024 (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, 25 June 2024 (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. There is a consensus to Keep this article and that sources in the article and those that have been brought up are sufficient. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rojda Aykoç[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rojda Aykoç (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)

Her notability cannot be proven by independent and reliable sources. Only IFEX source is good, but it is not adequate for passing GNG. As a result of the research conducted on the person, it was not possible to find independent and reliable sources. Considering there are not enough resources, deletion is appropriate. Kadı Message 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She is a notable singer, mostly known for musical performances in Kurdish. More than enough sources are available, from reliable news outlets like Rudaw, Evrensel, NTV, Hurriyet, Gazete Duvar
TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are promotional content for promote her new album. These sources do not contribute for passing notability criterias. You can read trwiki discussion by translating in order to see the analysis. Best wishes. Kadı Message 09:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the references in the article and listed in the first AfD at the top left of this listing shows a pass of WP:GNG in my view, including a 25 minute radio programme about her. Also she still has an article on the Kurdish wikipedia, and the deletion on the Turkey wikipedia may have a political context, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources above and those given in the first AFD. The claims that the sources are promotional are entirely spurious. These are independent mainstream media sources, not all of which are positive (such as the first source given above). The deletion on the Turkish Wikipedia does appear to have been politically motivated and based in a flawed and unethical argument not rooted in Wikipedia’s policies. That is concerning, and hopefully an admin on that wiki will do an AFD review on the Turkish wiki page. That article should be restored.4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2024 (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. (This does not appear to be the same subject as the 2007 deletion, therefore soft is fine. Also, no one arguing for retention so side of IAR) Star Mississippi 02:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Charles[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a journalist and added three references. Two are not independent, however, and the other is a passing mention. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. The article has been marked as possibly not notable since 2020. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (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, 25 June 2024 (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. Star Mississippi 02:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Malcolm (composer)[edit]

Carlos Malcolm (composer) (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)

Two different Carlos Malcolms, the other of whom invented Ska music, make it hard to source this one. Doesn't seem very notable though. — Iadmc♫talk  18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:34, 25 June 2024 (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. Star Mississippi 02:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G. B. Singh[edit]

AfDs for this article:
G. B. Singh (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 individual. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Fuller, Amy Elisabeth, ed. (2009). "Sing, G.B. 1954–". Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Nonfiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, and Other Fields. Vol. 270. Detroit: Gale. pp. 396–398. ISBN 978-0-7876-9528-6. ISSN 0275-7176. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Born September 5, 1954, in India, G.B. Singh eventually moved to the United States where he attended the University of Oklahoma. Educated as a periodontist, Singh joined the United States Army Medical Department, launching his career in the military. He gradually rose through the ranks, attaining the position of colonel, unusual in that he is one of few Sikh-American's to ever achieve such a high rank within a branch of the United States armed forces. Sikh-Americans who wear turbans must receive special dispensation if they are to be allowed to hold higher military ranks, and none of them are allowed to be part of units that go into combat. Singh wears his turban proudly along with his military uniform, a trait that has caused considerable talk in this post-9/11 world. While performing his duties, Singh has been stationed all across the country, and has also been stationed in Korea twice. Beyond his work for the Army, Singh is also a student of Indian politics, study- ing that nation's political history and religion, particularly Hinduism, and the life and works of Gandhi."

    2. Reed, Bill (2004-08-24). "Deconstructing Gandhi - Author claims 'Mahatma' guilty of racism, divisiveness". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "Yet, Col. G.B. Singh isn't obeying the rules. His first book, "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity," portrays Gandhi as one of the most dangerous leaders of the 20th century. ... The book is the culmination of 20 years of research, as Singh evolved from one of Gandhi's admirers to one of his harshest critics. ... Singh has a kindly face framed by a dense beard and turban. He appears gentle and soft-spoken until he delves into the subject of Gandhi. Then his passion flares. Singh was born in India to a family of Hindus and Sikhs. He was educated in the scriptures, and he was trained in the godlike worship of Mahatma Gandhi. ... Singh became a periodontist and emigrated to the United States in 1976. He joined the Army and rose to the rank of colonel, making him one of the highest-ranking officers in the U.S. military to wear a turban."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.B. Singh to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: More than enough coverage in the sources listed above; regardless of the validity of the theories, this person has been talked about in RS, enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The prior AfD was also a keep, for passing AUTHOR. Notability is not temporary, there was a valid discussion 13 yrs ago and it was notable then and still is today. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes no sense to cite past AfD in order to evade the existing concerns, otherwise there would be no option to renominate the article for deletion. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ArvindPalaskar It makes complete sense to mention the past AfD *unless there are new circumstances*, such as standards changing over time. In some topics we have increased our notability standards (i.e., sportspeople). The rationale used to keep the article back then, he is the writer of several notable books, is still valid now. The nomination is literally just incorrect, he passes both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M2001[edit]

M2001 (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 GNG, no SIGCOV outside the original paper Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (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. The Delete views based on the argument that only one review exists were discounted once multiple additional reviews were found, with plenty of time for all participants to assess the sources. Owen× ☎ 22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity[edit]

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

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. At best it has only received little coverage over disinformation it spread. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from more than just 2 twenty years old sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NBOOK does not require sustained coverage for a book to be notable, so the comment about "20-year-old sources" is not relevant. The comment about "garbage books" is also not relevant according to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have now been three journal reviews found, which is more than enough to meet NBOOK. If these reviews are critical of the book, then the article should make note of that. Astaire (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Steger, Manfred (2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". The Historian. 67 (4): 781–782. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2005.00130.x. EBSCOhost 19009759. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The review notes: "If the author had managed to present credible evidence for both theses, his book would have been nothing short of a scholarly sensation, not only invalidating diametrically opposed assessments emerging from nearly eight decades of academic “Gandhiana,” but also dismantling the Mahatma’s popular image. In addition, Singh’s study would constitute a valuable contribution to the existing social science literature on Indian politics. Concerning G. B. Singh’s first thesis, however, this reviewer could not find hard evidence for the sinister manipulations of the “Hindu propaganda machine.”"

      The review notes: "Numerous criticisms of Gandhi’s moral flaws do exist; one only needs to consult pertinent works authored by Ved Mehta, Partha Chatterjee, Joseph Alter, or this reviewer. Yet, out of fairness, these authors balanced their critiques against Gandhi’s impressive moral strengths. By launching a one-sided attack without offering the larger, more complex picture of Gandhi’s ethical and political engagements, the book under review turns into a strident polemic, thus diminishing the considerable value of some of its criticisms."

    2. Clark, Thomas W. (July–August 2006). "Gandhi in Question". The Humanist. Vol. 66, no. 4. pp. 45–47. ProQuest 235297768. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The review notes: "G. B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity subjects Gandhi the saint to death by a thousand cuts. The man is portrayed as an impostor who harbored racist attitudes toward South African blacks and whose efforts on behalf of Hindu "untouchables" were misguided half-measures, designed merely to build his own reputation and political influence. Using dozens of quotes from newspapers, letters, and biographies, most of which actually show Gandhi in a positive light, Singh aims to deconstruct what he calls Gandhi's pseudo-history. ... Singh also offers an unsubstantiated hypothesis that Gandhi, in cleaning out files, deliberately destroyed some incriminating documents sometime after 1906. But he has no evidence as to what the missing documents contained. That their content was racist and their destruction part of a coverup is simply speculation on his part."

    3. Terchek, R. J. (February 2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Choice. Vol. 42, no. 6. p. 1077. doi:10.5860/CHOICE.42-3580. ProQuest 225800157.

      The review notes: "For career military officer Singh, Gandhi's character and record are dark and troublesome. He finds his subject a racist, "macho," a propagandist, beholden to special interests, a liar, a "superb manipulator," a "witch doctor of the worst kind," the "most bribable of all Congress Party leaders," and the list goes on. The book lacks balance and refuses to acknowledge that people can grow and develop, learn from mistakes, and try to move forward."

    4. Narisetti, Innaiah (October–November 2004). "A Critical Look at a National Hero". Free Inquiry. 24 (6): 55–56. ProQuest 230077014.

      The review notes: "Mr. Singh's book attempts to expose the racial prejudices of Gandhi and his followers in South Africa and the sometimes violent nature of his satyagraha movement there and asserts that facts from that period were concealed as biographers, in years to come, relied primarily on Mr. Gandhi's own writings rather than independent research. The author provides a lifeline for Gandhi and a select bibliography as appendices. The book also comes with three unusual caricatures of Gandhi: "Dawn of the New Gandhi," "The Hindu Face of Gandhi the Avatar," and "The Christian Face of Saint Gandhi.""

    5. Volin, Katie (2005-01-02). "Gandhi as a racist doesn't add up". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Although changing people's notions of history can be done, it would take a strong argument to convince many people that Gandhi was racist. Establishing the book's incendiary premise becomes the Achilles heel of G.B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. ... Singh's failure to first define racism and second to demonstrate how Gandhi's behavior with regard to other races was socially aberrant in his lifetime weakens the author's argument irreparably. It is rather difficult to market one's book as a scholarly work if basic definitions and sociological conditions are not even given mention."

    6. Xavier, William (October 2004). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reviewer's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The review notes: "The mud slung at Gandhi by G.B.Singh only adds to the greatness of the Mahatma. (Mahatma means large minded)."

    7. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reference and Research Book News. Vol. 19, no. 4. Copyright Clearance Center. November 2004. ProQuest 199666401.

        The review provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and Gandhi, Singh tries to make some sense of the widely divergent images of the Indian leader by various interests appropriating him for their cause"

      2. Sudeep, Theres (2021-08-17). "Rediscover Gandhi this weekend". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

        3. The review notes: "The book written in biographical form nearly 60 years after the assassination of Gandhi, challenges his image as a saintly, benevolent, and pacifistic leader of Indian independence. It is told through Gandhi’s own writings and actions over the course of his life. ... The book has been criticised for it’s one-sided approach and sweeping statements."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:58, 25 June 2024 (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. The Keep arguments are stronger, but no consensus emerged. The broad participation makes it unlikely relisting would change the outcome. Owen× ☎ 22:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Under Cross Examination[edit]

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

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft keep. I can find two independent sources covering this book: this Vice article and this review in the journal Encounter. (I can find no evidence that the article "New Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" cited in the book's page actually exists.) Coverage from two independent sources is enough per WP:NBOOK. The journal Encounter does not appear to be very notable, lacking a Wikipedia article. The review's author Rufus Burrow, Jr. seems to be semi-notable but also lacks a Wikipedia article. Astaire (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astaire. And per the cover image, Hillary v. Gandhi, Obama, et al. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two sources have been provided above but Vice is an unreliable source for notability. Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from just 2 sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vice is "no consensus", not unreliable for the purposes of notability, and IMO this article doesn't fall into Vice's typical pitfalls so it is probably fine. Encounter looks like a decent journal. My issue is the Vice article is an interview - though it does have commentary on the book outside of that, so... eh? I was able to verify the "Book Shreds Fabrication of Indian Civil Rights Icon" source exists and what it said but it is a press release and doesn't count for notability.
    Even fringe books get reviewed, so that's not a guarantee. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there is no consensus over the reliability of Vice, it cannot be used for establishing notability at all. The source has to be undoubtedly reliable. I agree that the Vice source is insufficient even if the website was a reliable source. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no coverage is secondary reliable sources, vice and semi-reliable journal don't prove the book's notability. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. "Gandhi Under Cross Examination book review". Humanism Ireland. November–December 2009. pp. 22–23.

      This book verifies that Humanism Ireland reviewed the book: "638. "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination," book review, Humanism Ireland, Nov/Dec 2009, pp. 22–23".

    2. Burrow, Jr., Rufus (Fall 2009). "Gandhi Under Cross-Examination". Encounter. Vol. 70, no. 4. Christian Theological Seminary. pp. 61–72. ProQuest 216773616.

      According to this link:

      Christian Theological Seminary has published Encounter: A Journal of Theological Scholarship continuously since 1940. In each of three annual issues, the journal offers scholarly articles, sermons, and reviews of recently published monographs.

      Encounter is a peer-reviewed journal to ensure that its contents meet the highest standards of scholarship and relevance. In particular, the journal publishes works in biblical studies, the history of Christianity, theology, and the arts of ministry, including counseling.

      The review notes: "I was shocked when renowned Martin Luther King, Jr. scholar, Lewis V. Baldwin of Vanderbilt University, asked if I was familiar with the work of an author who argues in Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (2004), and the book under review, that Gandhi was consistently racist toward black South Afrikans during his roughly twenty-one years of living there and leading the Satyagraha campaign for racial justice essentially for the Indian community. ... The book under review is my first exposure to G. B. Singh's contention that Gandhi was a racist and that his story of being subjected to violent racist treatment during his 1893 train and coach ride from Durban to Pretoria was nothing more than a sham, a fabrication, “a ruse, a charade, and theatrical revelry of Academy Awards proportions..." (215). It is not clear just how much the co-author, Tim Watson, actually contributed to the writing of this book."
    3. Johnston, Paul (2008-08-04). "Montreal - Gandhi Was a Lying, Racist, Freemason Asshole (Says This Guy)". Vice. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      After reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media, I consider Vice to be sufficiently reliable in this context. I found the list of awards Vice won as discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news? to be compelling. The review notes: "But Tim Watson and G.B. Singh don't buy into the hype. In Gandhi Under Cross-Examination, they create an imaginary courtroom where they can put the screws to an imaginary Gandhi over his non-imaginary racial views, his rampant careerism, and the lies and fabrications at the foundation of his movement for the "firmness of truth." ... I still have no idea what compelled them to put Hillary Clinton on the book's cover."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gandhi Under Cross Examination to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source Humanism Ireland fails WP:V and we don't even know how much coverage there was. Your 2nd source is semi-reliable as already discussed above. Your last source Vice is a totally unreliable source and it cannot be used for establishing notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Humanism Ireland source is verified by this reliable source. It spans pages 22–23 so it is likely significant coverage. Based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Vice Media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Reliability of Vice news?, I disagree that the Vice article is a "totally unreliable source". Cunard (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are supposed to verify the source yourself. It can be ignored since you haven't done that. WP:VICE is clear that there is no consensus over reliability of Vice, and that's why it cannot be used for establishing notability. I consider Vice to be totally unreliable because most of its articles (including the one cited here) are misleading. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#2009 book review of Gandhi Under Cross Examination in Humanism Ireland for more information about the Humanism Ireland source. I maintain that Vice is a suitable topic for this subject matter. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the Humanism Ireland review was reprinted in the Midwest Book Review, December 2009 if that is easier to access. Astaire (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As noted here, there is a 1,582-word review of the Humanism Ireland review reprinted in the Midwest Book Review in December 2009. This verifies that the review is significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. I stand by my opinion Vice is fine for this topic, and there is review material in the article. The Humanism source is fine + the journal mentioned before. It's peer reviewed and looks reliable, it doesn't matter that it's obscure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three reliable and in-depth published reviews is enough for WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK for me. It may be partisan junk but that's not the question; the question is whether it's notable partisan junk and I think this demonstrates that it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vice, an unreliable source, hasn't actually provided any review for this book. Christian Theological Seminary journal has a doubtful reliability while Humanism Ireland is not accessible for us right now. This is far from meeting WP:NBOOK. The book has failed to attract any reviews from the experts of this subject. Orientls (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The interview contains critical and review material outside of the actual interview which does count here I'd believe. Vice is not an unreliable source, they are a source that has historically varied in reliability in different topics and editors have not been able to come to an agreement, that does not mean it is unusable for notability.
    Just because we can't access the source doesn't mean it doesn't count for notability, see WP:NEXIST.
    You've provided no evidence the other journal would be unreliable except it is somewhat obscure - there are plenty of obscure reliable journals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we have the source, and it's 1500 words. That is sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. There is a consensus for a Procedural close and no support, on any level for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrothelium chulumanense[edit]

Astrothelium chulumanense (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 meet WP:Sigcov required for all articles. No sources exist for this topic beyond the single cited (primary) source containing the initial description of the species. Esculenta (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2024 (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 Doctor Who series 13. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karvanista[edit]

Karvanista (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)

Though a decently recurring character in a series of Doctor Who, Karvanista doesn't really have significant coverage. Only sources cited in Reception are routine coverage for Doctor Who (Sources that are basically plot summary explaining who a character is for readers, which is done whenever a new character is introduced/re-introduced into the series) and the only sources findable in a search; beyond Flux, there really isn't anything talking about him in a significant capacity. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, an AtD redirect exists either at List of Doctor Who supporting characters or Doctor Who series 13. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be deleted, and a redirect can be created by any editor who feels strongly enough. Doctor Who series 13 works. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2024 (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 Liz Houghton. Rationale for merge looks strong and no arguments have been presented to the contrary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mint Velvet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mint Velvet (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 clothing brand. Most coverage discussing the brand is actually coverage of its founder, Liz Houghton. In a brief search I found only two detailed writeups: this piece in Vogue which reads like a press release, and this article indicating the brand was acquired by another company in 2019. What little content is here could easily be merged to Liz Houghton. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎ where a potential merger target can be identified, if needed. Star Mississippi 02:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New White Sox Stadium[edit]

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

This is a good example of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. This is one proposal, but it is so early in the process that this article is not warranted. Angryapathy (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep They are still in negotiations with the state of Illinois on the proposal along with the new Chicago Bears stadium. That's why they are categorized under Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States. If nothing becomes of this proposal, then the category on the page changes to Category:Unbuilt stadiums in the United States. That's the whole purpose of these categories... Roberto221 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of a category doesn't mean any subject that falls under that category gets its own Wikipedia page. WP:N is paramount, not categories. Angryapathy (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep(Duplicate vote struck) If you delete this, then what do you do with the other proposed stadiums/arenas?: [20], [21]

As I stated before, then it gets moved to [22] and in the case of arenas, [23] Roberto221 (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC) 22:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out other articles is not a valid argument in AFDs. Each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Frank Anchor 22:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this article different than all the other articles on the Category:Proposed_stadiums_in_the_United_States page? Don't give me the excuse that it's WP:TOOSOON since they all follow the same criteria. If you can see/read all the other articles, they are not different other than their proposed locations. And I'll use the other articles to make a point and show the inconsistencies in this logic...Roberto221 (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those probably could be draftified or deleted as well (each would need examined individually), but the sole topic of this discussion is the White Sox proposed stadium. Frank Anchor 11:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure the 2024 season is an appropriate target. The stadium won’t open in 2024, and I see it highly unlikely construction would even begin this year. Frank Anchor 11:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a merge, I suggest the merge/redirect go to The 78, which is the area where this stadium is suggested to be built. Angryapathy (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the exact purpose of draft space. Frank Anchor 10:29, 1 July 2024 (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 TvOne (Indonesian TV network)#News One. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kabar (TV program)[edit]

Kabar (TV program) (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under sng or gng. Has zero sources other than their own website, and has zero content on the subject other than a program schedule. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Pendergrass[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brent Pendergrass (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)

Pendergrass seems to be just under notability, with a partial nomination in a small award and few roles.

Pendergrass has voiced several side characters in multiple works in the Yo-Kai Watch franchise and characters in the PBS Space Racers series. He does not seem to have had any other roles. He states that he wrote several jingles for the Yo-Kai Watch franchise.

As part of a group of actors, he was likely nominated for Best Vocal Ensemble in an Anime Feature Film/Special by Behind the Voice Actors, a smaller source which is mostly a database but does produce the awards as editorial content. Details on the award are a bit muddled, as IMDB states that it was the 2017 award and gives the actor names, but their website states that it was the 2016 award, though the archived version does not display the actor names for the movie awards. QuietCicada chirp 17:47, 25 June 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Pennsylvania[edit]

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

This article was created by Aearthrise by copy-pasting sections from five already existing articles [24]. As with other articles edited by this user, the sources that are not copied from other articles are outdated and/or have been falsely given a more recent date. In this case two sources were added the publication by Kohl is from 1856 and does not mention the German translation given (which is also grammatically incorrect) and does not describe these two regions with this single term. The second source has a false publication date (it was printed in 1899 not in 1971) and also does not contain the term. Only four articles link to this page, all of them articles from which information was copied to make this one. The are no inter-Wikilinks and a Google search links back to Wikipedia. I propose this article is deleted for these reasons as well as consisting of information already present on Wikipedia. Vlaemink (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Germany, and Pennsylvania. Skynxnex (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely synthsis, not a cohesive topic. Please do not do this shit of just copying material from other pages and pretending it's its own article. Use appropriate summary style or excerpts if you want to reference other pages, rather than just introducing duplication with no new content. There is simply no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", you're just combining related topics. A more appropriate name might be something like Germans in Pennsylvania but not as an article that just copies content from elsewhere. Reywas92Talk 18:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a lot of evidence of this region, and it's mentioned in scholarship. German Pennsylvania was a larger historical region where the Palatines and other Germans inhabited (which included Germantown settled by Francis Pastorius, and is where Benjamin Franklin lived), and it's also now used to refer to the parts of the modern Pennsylvania Dutch Country. You say there is no such thing as "German Pennsylvania", and that we should make a post called "Germans in Pennsylvania" (which we already have Pennsylvania Germans) but that's incorrect. There is ample evidence for German Pennsylvania, especially reading older sources (because it describes an older area since colonial times).
    • The Centennial History of Kutztown, Pennsylvania, Kutztown Centennial Association (Kutztown, Pa.) Kutztown Publishing Company, 1915 pg. 120:
    • The Pennsylvanier was the leading mone-making paper of the county, because the language of the people was Pennsylvania German and all the sales of farm stock, commonly called "vendues," characteristic of German Pennsylvania to this day, were published in the German paper and well paid for.
    • German American Annals ...: Devoted to the Comparative Study of the Historical, Literary, Linguistic, Educational and Commercial Relations of Germany and America Volume 2, Macmillan Company, 1899 pg. 43:
    • Various strata of sources have been exploited in writing the history of the Germans in Pennsylvania- (1), the surface sources... (2), the German prints (consisting of early German prints issued in America and Germany presenting invaluable matter touching colonial events in German-Pennsylvania)
    • The Pennsylvania-German, Volumes 3-4, Rev. P.C. Croll, 1902, pg.180:
    • The first place the Germans are a most important numerical factor in our national life. German immigration began when on 6th of October, 1683, Daniel Pastorius and his company landed in Philadelphia and subsequently founded Germantown... Pennsylvania has always been a banner State of German immigration. It has been asserted it has been asserted that three-fifths of Pennsylvania have German blood running in their veins... A German Pennsylvania farmer by the name of Klein has recently held a family reunion. His four sons were present and their names had been changed to Kline, Small, Little and Short. There are today seven hundred thousand people in Pennsylvania speaking that homely and mellow Pennsylvania-German dialect, and as the Philadelphia Ledger said recently, "It were a pity if this dialect would soon die out."
    • The Pennsylvania-German Society, Volume 6, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1896, pg.36:
    • If these three of our eastern counties can boast of a group of men like these, who have done so much in but a single department of the modern sciences, it certainly furnishes good ground for laudable race-pride, and ought to put to shame that ignorant class of our country-men, who are wont to hold German Pennsylvania in much the same regard as Boeotia was held by the ancient Greeks.
    • Pennsylvania-German Dialect Writings and Their Writers, Volume 26, Harry Hess Reichard, Pennsylvania-German Society, 1918, pg.65:
    • For a Pennsylvania-German Kalenner which he edited in 1885 he wrote a longer poem in en parts entitled "Vum Flachsbaue." This is a veritable epic on the raising of flax in ten short cantos. This poem ought properly be illustrated with drawings of tools and implements found nowadays only on grandfather's garrett or in the museumns for, with flax-raising entirely out of vogue in German Pennsyvlania, or, whre it is still aised, by means of modern appliances, such terms as Flachs Britsch, Hechle, Brech, etc., are, to Pennsylvania Germans of today, words of a time that is past.
    • Pennsylvania Farming: A History in Landscapes Sally McMurry, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2017:
    • One Pervasive type, though, seems to have some association with Pennsylvania German culture. It was so common that it has been dubbed the "Pennsylvania farmhouse" and used as a key indicator (along with the Pennsylvania forebay bank barn) for charting what geographers call the "Pennsylvania Culture Region." The "Pennsylvania farmhouse" occurs throughout German Pennsylvania, but many extant examples and good field data come from Adams and York Counties.
    • This vernacular form seems to be strongly (though not exclusively) associated with German Pennsylvania, yet its cultural meaning is elusive.
    There are many more citations for German Pennsylvania that I can give, but this number should be sufficient to demonstrate that the concept "German Pennsylvania" is established and notable, and isn't just "synthesis" as purported by Reywas92. Aearthrise (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside to Vlaeminks charges about "outdated information," he doesn't make a case why the information from older books is outdated. He also claims I gave a false date of publication, but this can be disproven with the 1971 source here: [25].= Aearthrise (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aearthrise: You claim you have disproven that the source you added was published in 1899, some 125 years ago. Instead you reassert that your book was instead published in 1971 for which you provided a link. Could you please explain to me how this can possibly be correct, given that the author of this book (Julius F. Sachse) died in 1919 aged 77? Vlaemink (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making and argument that has nothing to do with what I said; I just pointed out that your claim that I added a false date was wrong, and I clearly showed the 1971 publication for the source. Books are republished all the time, and this is just a republication. Aearthrise (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that these are referring to a specific place or region, rather conceptually describing the state's Germans and where they live. I see this analogous to saying "Polish Chicago" or "Cuban Miami", referring to a population and culture. In your third quote, "A German Pennsylvania farmer" is combining two adjectives that he is a German farmer and a Pennsylvania farmer. Moreover, copy-pasting sections from other articles doesn't make a new article like this. Maybe start over in draft space so you're not just synthesizing content that was about the specific groups rather than the topic as a whole. Reywas92Talk 14:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the term is both awkward and ambiguous, but there is no topic here. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the quotes furnished above, I don't see a clear indication that "German Pennsylvania" is a well-defined geographical area, as opposed to a generic reference to parts of Pennsylvania where Germans live. Choess (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete which honestly surprised me - given the quote and the academic search I performed, I thought I'd be arguing to !keep this article. However, none of the academic literature particularly contributes to notability, only using the term in passing without defining it, or is part of a single academic's research, including their masters/PhD dissertation. I just don't see enough continued usage of the term in scholarly papers that would allow us to write an entire article on it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 27 June 2024 (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 British Rail Class 755 with a hatnote to Prussian G 8. Owen× ☎ 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Class 755[edit]

Class 755 (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)

After 2 reverts, I have decided to start a discussion on whether class 755 should redirect to British Rail Class 755. The reason is because of the fact most of them searching this term is likely looking for the one in the UK. the pageviews also give a picture, having received over 10x the number of views. The only other topic is Prussian G 8 which is not titled that way so that is why I agree and propose to replace this with a redirect and add a hatnote to the other. This is an example of WP:BLAR - blank and redirect, but others have opposed my change. JuniperChill (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you also want this blanked, simplest is just to delete per above rationale. Next you can create a redirect as you wish. The disambiguation page is clearly unjustified, the rest is just editing. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to British Rail Class 755 as a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ONEOTHER. S5A-0043Talk 09:14, 26 June 2024 (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! 23:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avimator[edit]

Avimator (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Using Google Scholar, I can find plenty of mentions, but not anything substantial. toweli (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of these old non-notable software articles. I usually find WP:PROD a good tool for dealing with them. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (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 NCAA Division III independent schools. After discounting the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type arguments, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. However, the proposed selective merge target seems like a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 10:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division III independents football records[edit]

List of NCAA Division III independents football records (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)

Topic is not notable enough for a standalone article, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is a list of records for loosely-related college football team seasons. These teams are "independent" and do not belong to conferences, only joined together because they are in a division of college football together. The text in many of these templates also show up as wikitext because of improper code writing. This list was also created as a way to try avoiding deletion of the individual templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 13#Template:2023 NCAA Division III independents football records. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gesser[edit]

Gesser (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)

WP:ONEOTHER. My consideration is to redirect to the football coach and have a hatnote for the record producer, but I guess a straight up deletion also works. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of time zones by country. Owen× ☎ 16:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order in which countries enter the new year[edit]

Order in which countries enter the new year (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 citations, completely orphaned, and this topic is already covered by List of time zones by country. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:12, 25 June 2024 (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.

List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars[edit]

The result was ‎ Withdrawn , rename / refocus instead. Fram (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars (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 doesn't seem to be anything that makes this grouping of tornadoes special, that they are also (among other means) observed by mobile radar is not a defining characteristic, and is in many cases sourced to the most basic sources (twitter/X, primary sources like NOAA). An article on Mobile radar observation of tornadoes seems to be a better idea, perhaps this can be moved and the list trimmed to the most notable instances only? But specifically as a list grouping this seems like a never-ending list of a non-defining characteristic of the tornadoes, which get observed by many methods. Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Technology. Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Support renaming — As pointed out by Fram, the list should only have the most notable instances. That is actually sourced by a published paper by NOAA/OU ([26]), which is cited in the article. The authors specifically mention dozens of tornadoes have been observed by mobile radars. That said, only a handful (actually, roughly this current list) have been directly mentioned or directly published about. In that paper, several of the tornadoes on this list were directly called out, including with some of the max readings. In fact, that published study alluded to another study of 82 separate tornadoes measured by mobile radars (page 5), but yet, only 12 were directly named in the study. Those named ones are the most notable ones. As such, several of the tornadoes listed here have the mobile radar information mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia (see 2013 El Reno tornado, 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado, Tornadoes of 2009#June 5, 2024 Greenfield Tornado, Tornado records, ect…)
Secondly, the nominator claimed “the most basic sources” and called out Twitter (only used for tornadoes that occurred in the last month—directly published by the Doppler on Wheels account or a academically published meteorologists in the field of radars…i.e. meets WP:SPS very clearly (“Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications”)) and NOAA. However, the nominator stated inaccurately that NOAA was a “primary source” that is not the case. NOAA does not own the Doppler on Wheels (University of Illinois does) or RaXPol (University of Oklahoma does) and the NOAA publications listed here (example for this is this publication in 2016) are not primary sources for it. Per the FAQ for that NOAA website, “The NWS has 60 days to submit their data files to the NWS Headquarters in Silver Spring, MD. The NWS Headquarters (NWSHQ) then collects all of the data files from the 123 NWS Forecast Offices. The NCEI receives a copy of this database approximately 75 days after the end of the month. A publication and archive are produced and the Storm Events Database are updated within 75-90 days after the end of a data month.” Clearly not a primary source for the Doppler on Wheels data, which is not owned or managed whatsoever by NOAA.
To list a few secondary reliable source news articles (let’s ignore the tons of peer-reviewed academic papers already cited in the article currently), we have [27][28][29][30][31][32] as well these published in 2024: [33][34][35](TWP)[36]. Again, those are just a handful of news articles related to the mobile radars and how they improve science. I’m not going to go through and list every reference in the article, since a ton are secondary, peer-reviewed academic papers.
(Too Long;Didn’t Read Summary) Basically, Keep the article, bust just rename it. Invalid AFD in my opinion, as even the nominator gave an alternative to deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: With what you stated, I do agree with you. If you would wish, you could withdraw the AFD and move the article. I could reformat it and talk page discussions regarding what is/is not notable could occur. Since you gave an out for deletion, and I agree with the alternative, withdrawing the AFD and following that process may be best, rather than try to wait over a week to do the reformatting and such. So, would you be up to withdrawing the AFD and then renaming the article so I can reformat it appropriately? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the best solution! Fram (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3[edit]

IC 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination as it is not notable. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 15:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non notable. It's difficult to search on the galaxy identifier because it turns up a lot of false positives (such as IC 310), but a check in SIMBAD didn't turn up any article titles that referenced "IC 3". Nor does it show up in astronomy books. A few astronomy web sites mention it briefly, but without any substantial discussion. Praemonitus (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Tiger Development[edit]

Flying Tiger Development (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 videogame development company, seemingly, from the limited information I have found, a subcontractor the actual studio hires for certain tasks such as localization. The entire article's sources list consists of links to the company's website and IMDb, and I've been unable to find adequate sourcing to write a better article, so don't think it can be done (feel free to prove me wrong though, I may have missed something!). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not even fit WP:ORGSIG, with little to no coverage in independent sources as well as the lack of independent sources available. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2024 (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 Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies#Material ejected from nuclei. ✗plicit 14:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UGC 224[edit]

UGC 224 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. I suggest to turn it to a redirect Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies#Material ejected from nuclei. C messier (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 01:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Suman[edit]

Nicholas Suman (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 GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Skibidi Toilet episodes[edit]

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

The article seems to have had numerous issues when created and nonsense text, little sources have been found and I question whether the article's topic is even notable. TwinBoo (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of hispanophones[edit]

List of hispanophones (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)

WP:SALAT, some notable Spanish-speaking people does not seem like a well-defined criterion. Extremely incomplete list. There are ~530 million Spanish speakers in the world, this list could potentially contain millions of entries. Broc (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan Gupta[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kanchan Gupta (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 journalist, articles depend on totally one reference, fails WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article relies almost entirely on one source, and therefore fails General notability guideline. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (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 11:20, 25 June 2024 (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. With significant and valid input arguing both POVs, it is clear that a consensus to delete is not going to emerge here and it appears some of the issues have already been resolved via editing. I encourage that to continue to see if it can resolve all concerns before this is re-nominated. Star Mississippi 02:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Janisch[edit]

Maximilian Janisch (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)

Wikipedia:Autobiography translated from dewiki. Perhaps the subject is notable, but this is not the way to an article compliant with WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thank you @Joe Roe: for starting a discussion of deletion. There is currently a discussion because of a WP:COISELF problem: The article in its current form was created as a translation of the German article de:Maximilian_Janisch by myself, the subject of the article. COI disclosures can be found at the article talk page, as well as my user page. I agree that the process through which the article was created is unfortunate as I should have suggested it through WP:AfC. My apologies for this mistake. Nonetheless I will argue that deletion is not the appropriate reaction below.
I have suggested steps to resolve the COI problem at the article talk page. I will now argue that deletion of the article is not the right thing to do since none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met. Instead I suggest WP:ATD, specifically editing and discussion. It would be great to have other Wikipedians ensure that the article is written based on solid evidence and from a WP:NPOV.
I now provide reasoning why I believe that none of the criteria at WP:DEL-REASON are met.
  1. Speedy deletion criteria are not met.
  2. Copyright violations are not present.
  3. Vandalism is not present.
  4. The article is not spam, notability has been discussed in a deletion discussion in the German Wikipedia, de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._Februar_2018#Maximilian_Janisch_(LAE), in 2018, when there were many less independent references about me than now. An incomplete list of such references can be found through a Google Search.
  5. Content forks do not apply.
  6. Article is well-referenced and satisfies WP:Reliability.
  7. See point 4.
  8. Does not apply.
  9. Does not apply.
  10. Does not apply.
  11. Does not apply.
  12. Does not apply.
Best, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it follows the general notability guideline. OhHaiMark (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment I have edited the article significantly in an attempt to remove material that I consider unjustified or not cited in reliable sources. Among other points:
Removal of Scientist infobox, as currently Janisch is known for his child prodigy status and coverage associated with that; replaced with infobox:Person.
Removal of Masters Thesis title; not cited reliably and did not receive significant coverage. If one is completing a PhD, you would expect that to take precedence as the thesis in the infobox.
Removal of Bibliography- not cited, and none of the titles are notable.
Change to the opening paragraph; replacement of "mathematician" with "child prodigy" and inclusion of more relevant reasons why the subject has received coverage
Removal of mentions of advocacy for young people attending University; links with some of these organisations with the subject are not justified enough, and in addition this advocacy has not received significant coverage
Removal of his mother (unreliable source, unpublished, from 1992)
Removal of his CV and website as sources
Removal of German citizenship; uncited
Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries; no need to include dates etc.
Removal of personality traits section- not relevant.
Removal of weblinks.

Please feel free to revert, continue editing, etc. if you feel these edits are not warranted. Hopefully the article now has (close to) a neutral point of view. I thought it was important to do this, as if the article is deleted I have experienced that it becomes exponentially harder to justify the article in the future; I therefore would really recommend keeping the article in this edited form, or continuing edits if you feel they would be conducive.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Spiralwidget: I will answer to your edits here since I think editing the article myself would now be very much frowned upon. I would prefer continuing this discussion on the article talk page, however, so I have posted a copy of the text below there.
First off, thank you very much for your extensive work aiming at having the article be written from a WP:NPOV. Here is what I think of each of the edits:
  1. Removal of Scientist infobox: Agree (it was not added by me).
  2. Removal of Master's Thesis title: Agree.
  3. Removal of Bibliography: Disagree with. The book Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form, after M. Vishik has been published in a very renowned venue (Annals of Mathematics Studies) and furthermore in the two years since its publishing as a preprint it has been quite influential in the field of mathematical fluid dynamics (see e.g. Google Scholar). We could also discuss the relevance of my autobiography. I feel that mentioning a book written by the subject of a Wikipedia article is routine and would be justified in this case.
  4. Change of opening paragraph: Agree.
  5. Removal of mentions of advocacy: Unfortunate but ok.
  6. Removal of his mother: Strongly disagree. Her dissertation exists as a book, cf. Katalog für die Bibliotheken der Universität Heidelberg, you can order it here [39]. It was an influential work in its research area with over 400 citations listed on Google Scholar. Furthermore, mentioning both parents in the article about a "child prodigy" seems very reasonable.
  7. Removal of his CV and website as sources: Agree.
  8. Removal of German citizenship: Disagree, I am a German citizen. How would you suggest I prove my German citizenship?
  9. Removal of demasiado coverage of the documentaries: Fine.
  10. Removal of personality traits section: I very much agree with this (I took those over from the German article but they were not added by me).
  11. Removal of weblinks: Fine, although I believe it is not unusual to have links to Webpages in Wikipedia articles.
--Maximilian Janisch (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again.
I feel like I do have to respond here, though I do not think it is really too appropriate for you to respond to every point in this deletion nomination- it makes it feel like a negotiation between the subject of an article and Wikipedia editors et al. (with me as the metaphorical leading author). I think it is very hard to maintain a neutral point of view if you continue commenting on the deletion discussion thread. I will make it clear that the default in this situation is a delete, and you are not helping by being so deeply involved. With that being said, I think I should respond to the points you provide here.
Removal of Bibliography: Janisch was not the leading author on Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2D Euler equations in vorticity form would be my counterargument. I see his point on his autobiography, and it is in fact used as a source in the article already. I could see the section therefore being added.
Removal of his mother: I see the point that the dissertation was an influential work in her research field. However, I would like to see a source linking Janisch with Janisch before it is added back to the article- I would expect one to exist.
Removal of German citizenship: I would suggest that someone would have to find a third-party reliable source that states clearly that he holds German citizenship.
I also would express doubt that Janisch will be able to keep his hands off the metaphorical editorial cookie jar of editing his own article. Just my two cents. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if my point-by-point reply came off as overly involved. I assure you that I am acting in WP:GF and am happy to use whatever venue you suggest to reply to content-wise issues related to my article (I'd like to do this on the article talk page) and will refrain from further interacting with this deletion discussion unless absolutely necessary --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's best. Let's be clear though: this is not "your article." Please see WP:OWN. If the article is not deleted. you should completely abstain from making any further changes to the article to avoid any further COI. Instead, post requests for edits on the article's Talk page and one of us will get to it. Qflib (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is only a graduate student and none of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied here. One could make a case for general notability under WP:BIO, but since this is a WP:AUTO case, the article is highly promotional in nature (I'd say a borderline G11 case) and notability is mainly asserted on scholastic/academic grounds in the article, I feel that 'delete' is the correct outcome here at this stage. If and when the subject makes substantial research impact, the matter can be revisited. Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This subject clearly and obviously does not pass WP:PROF. For someone this early in their academic career, I think significant international recognition of a major result (at the level of the Salem Prize, say) would be necessary to overcome the usual obstacles, that the work has not had time to accumulate recognition in the normal way (citations) and the researcher is too junior to disentangle their work from that of their academic advisors. The only case for notability is through WP:GNG and through media coverage of the subject as a child prodigy. All that said, I don't read German, the language of most of the coverage, so I don't feel comfortable making an evaluation of notability that way. I have some concern that the many sources may really all be echoes of a single story and that we should consider WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources 2 and 15 are directly about the subject, in RS. I'm not sure what else is required, a rewrite perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear I'm not contesting whether subject is notable either way (though David makes an interesting point above w.r.t. to WP:BLP1E). The argument for deletion is that this is an autobiography that would have to be rewritten from scratch to conform to WP:NPOV. – Joe (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Have read the sources given in the article in German and French. I am knowledgeable about the education system in Switzerland. I confirm that Janisch had an absolutely extraordinary path through our schooling system. When he wanted to become a student at the ETH Zurich at an early age, he was not allowed to enter as a regular student due to a minimal age requirements of the ETH, of which I am an alumnus. Translation of a comment concerning Maximilian Janisch by Michael Hengartner, president of the University Zurich in 2018, quote: «I am glad that he had some more time for his personal development.» Hengarter is president of the ETH Board by now, the supervising administration of the ETHs in Zurich and Lausanne. It is exceptional that such a personality makes a comment about a particular student. ("Das Wunderkind an der Uni." In: "SonntagsBlick", October 14, 2018 (in German). Retrieved June 26, 2024) In my opinion, Janisch is an outstanding prodigy in mathematics who fulfills WP: GNG through WP:SIGCOV.--BBCLCD (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BBCLCD: May I ask what brought your attention to this discussion? – Joe (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not meeting the academic notability standard and otherwise being only known for one event. Essentially, the problem is that if you cut out the puffery, nothing remains. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree WP:PROF does not apply to me. In response to WP:BIO1E please consider that news coverage about me started when I finished the final high school exams at age 9, der Spiegel, 2013, Die Welt, 2013, Tagesanzeiger, 2013. Then continued as me being France's youngest student Le Monde, 2015, Europe1, 2015, Tagesanzeiger, 2015. Then continued when I started the Master's at age 15 Sonntagsblick, 2019, and when I started my PhD at age 18 Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 2023. You may argue these stories are echoes of my high school exams, but considering WP:NOTBLP1E I find it hard to argue in favour of WP:BIO1E. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Too soon. Zero pass of any categories of WP:Prof. No evidence of significant mathematical achievement yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Straightforward GNG pass, which trumps all special categories: as Maximilian Janisch points out in his latest comment above, there is extended coverage in multiple reliable sources (Blick being a possible exception) from 2013 to 2023. In addition, there are enough biographical details to write more than a cv. It's unfortunate that the article was written as an autobiography; I note that Spiralwidget has done some rewriting (summarised above) and may do more myself to make full use of the sources. But he's notable, so deletion and recreation is not appropriate, particularly since policy does not actually forbid autobiographies. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by Yngvadottir's reasoning –Tobias (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG, although I think it is remarkably inappropriate for the creator to be the subject and for the subject to be participating in this debate. May this article wear the COI badge of shame for all time. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if you mean the article "A major contributor to this article appears...", that should be removed if/when appropriate (though not by User:Maximilian Janisch). The talkpage cc, sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yngvadottir. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the subject would not meet notability standards at all if it weren't for the subject's age. I do feel that this is an example of WP:BIO1E - the one event being the subject's age. Here, the press coverage for the student achieving at a series of young ages what would otherwise be nice, but non-notable, achievements (earning degrees, entering grad school) is the only thing that generates notability. Technically these could be viewed as separate events, although I personally don't see it that way - so that's GNG for you. Anyway, I hope that this subject's future is bright and many more reasons for their notability become clear in time. Qflib (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a sequence of exceptional steps in the education of a prodigy a singular event as defined by WP:BIO1E ? BBCLCD (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see it both ways. The way I look at this situation is that they aren't exceptional steps at all. They certainly would not be considered exceptional for anyone who was not this young. When a person does these things at the usual times, they would not be notable enough occurrences to merit any coverage. They are unexceptional steps that happened at an unusually young age - which of course is why the coverage was generated. The coverage itself is enough to merit a "weak keep" recommendation. The really singular event I see is completing the bachelor's degree in a single year - that must have been done by examination, I suppose. Of course, when the subject finishes their education they will not be the youngest person to receive a Ph.D. - that appears to be Karl Witte, who did it at age 13. Qflib (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of arabophones[edit]

List of arabophones (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)

WP:SALAT. The selection criterion for this list is internationally well-known personalities that speak Arabic which is absolutely arbitrary. Broc (talk) 10:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arabs[edit]

List of Arabs (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)

WP:SALAT. There are currently ~400 million Arabs in the world, many of whom are notable and have a page on Wikipedia. This extremely incomplete list is way too broad, as it could potentially grow to millions of entries. Broc (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3441[edit]

IC 3441 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 00:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3403[edit]

IC 3403 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3389[edit]

IC 3389 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 01:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Agencies Association[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NORG, has never been anything other than a promo for the association. Cabayi (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Zitouni[edit]

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

The article does not meet the notability requirement NBV2010 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted as an uninvolved admin in my individual capacity, per WP:NACD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Internet challenges#Crime. Owen× ☎ 16:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallon smashing[edit]

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

While this probably seemed like an interesting topic at the time, it seems to explicitly fail WP:SUSTAINED (cf. also WP:10YT) as the coverage happened in 2013 with very little after that. Therefore, in hindsight the fad seems short-lived and confined to that time period with little impact (WP:IMPACT) beyond that. An alternative way to proceed could be a broader article about criminal "challenges/pranks" directed against grocery stores/food places, as gallon smashing seems closely related to ice cream licking [40] etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of internet challenges. I looked at the titles of the sources and thought that an Internet challenge still getting media coverage eleven years after the fact might indeed merit its own article, but then I checked the sources. The articles listed as being from 2024 are actually from the mid-teens, merely archived in 2024. Possible mislead but also possible NBD. Given that, the entry in "List of Internet challenges" seems sufficient to me. Would reconsider if there is in fact analysis of this challenge from 2020 or later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2024 (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 issue with notability has not been adequately addressed, leaving in place a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 16:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film festivals in Pristina[edit]

Film festivals in Pristina (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)

Omnibus article that's merging a bunch of unrelated events into a single "topic" in an attempt to bypass around the fact that most of them likely wouldn't meet notability standards on their own. Essentially, this is a compilation of mini-articles about six different film festivals, one of which does also have its own separate article but the other five do not, and none of which have any obvious connection with each other beyond happening to be held in the same city -- and most of the article's content is referenced to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as tourist information guides and content self-published by the festivals themselves, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage about them in reliable sources.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation of articles about some or all of the individual film festivals in Pristina as their own standalone things if they can be properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria, but collating a bunch of unrelated film festivals together into a single omnibus article isn't a way around having to use properly reliable sources to establish each festival's own standalone notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"hmm....yeah, that's what the page is about" is not a mic drop on anything. It was precisely my point that while obviously that is what the page is about, it is not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about, so the very fact that the page is about that is precisely the problem with it. Collating a bunch of non-notable things together into one giant list is not a way around any problems establishing that the individual things would be notable enough to have their own articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment, unless it's just a rewording of your rationale, in which case, yeah, sure, I heard you the first time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You "heard me the first time", and yet argued "keep because the page is about what the page is about" while completely ignoring the important point that pages aren't supposed to be about that? Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just re-read my comment carefully and don't misquote me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3278[edit]

IC 3278 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3222[edit]

IC 3222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 02:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3053[edit]

IC 3053 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. Also, having an observed supernova in the galaxy is trivial. C messier (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 12:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3031[edit]

IC 3031 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is non-notable. ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 12:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 848[edit]

IC 848 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 838[edit]

IC 838 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2024 (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! 05:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Four Uganda[edit]

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. The sources were solely based or more about the founders arrest. Hence if this is going to be beneficial, I would consider redirecting to Nicholas Opiyo. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I want this to be notable. However it does not seem to me to have a valid claim to notability, and the references, or lack of useful references, confirm this. Most are about the founder and his arrest, Others are snippets actually about C4U, but are not independent dent, not significant coverage 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 30 June 2024 (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! 07:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Toghtua Bukha[edit]

Wang Toghtua Bukha (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)

Contested prod. Uncited. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented above. Other encyclopedias having an entry is a good sign we should as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion divided between Redirect and Keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 25 June 2024 (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! 05:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of British scientists[edit]

List of British scientists (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)

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by city, by field by century,...), there is no need for this overarching list. Broc (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (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! 05:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of American scientists[edit]

List of American scientists (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)

WP:SALAT, very incomplete list that could potentially contain tens – if not hundreds – thousands entries. We have much more selective categories (by field by century, by field by state,...), there is no need for this overarching list. Broc (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2024 (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! 07:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Sharma[edit]

Himanshu Sharma (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)

Failes WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Nothing special found any search engine! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review newly added sources to the article, especially the nominator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:RFD, not AFD, is for redirects. It would probably not be a good idea to nominate it there either, considering sources like Britannica: Turkish: “Kemal, Father of Turks” , i.e. that he is closely associated with the name Father of Turks. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Father of Turks[edit]

Father of Turks (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)

"Father of Turks" is the rough meaning of the last name of Ataturk, but it does not justify creating a redirect from this term to the Ataturk article. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2024 (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! 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Frameworks[edit]

Wolf Frameworks (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 the notability guideline for companies. Sources are trivial or non-independent. Ineligible for PROD. – Teratix ₵ 04:05, 25 June 2024 (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! 03:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne McDonald (businessman)[edit]

Wayne McDonald (businessman) (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 substantial independent coverage of this businessman/bodybuilder. Writing a long undergrad thesis is not a claim of importance. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2024 (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. This is clearly a SNOW situation without any support at all for Deletion but the nominator. Any further decisions on splitting articles are editing choices that can occur outside of this AFD. I urge the nominator to listen to the opposing side, who are editors who focus on this subject area, and not reject their expertise as if it is a matter of cliquishness. They probably know the sources and literature better than the rest of us. Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024[edit]

Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim that this was a single event is WP:SYNTH by Wikipedia editors. I haven't checked all 99 sources, but at a glance none of them talk about a week-long "tornado outbreak sequence". Because these events aren't part of a single outbreak sequence. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You...nominate an article for deletion with 99 RS sources, including one of the strongest tornadoes in history, with full RS sources published within the last 48 hours? Really? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 exists separately from this article, which appears to be about individual tornadoes on these dates which no source appears to claim were a single "outbreak sequence". Walsh90210 (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A tornado outbreak sequence is just multiple back-to-back tornado outbreaks. That definition is scientifically published and sourced. Tornado outbreak#Tornado outbreak sequence. You should not have AfDed this, but rather gone to the talk page for split attempts. I absolutely highly oppose a deletion of this article, given it is absolutely notable for Wikipedia and no one can question that. You have an issue with the article name and should have used WP:SPLIT and WP:RM...not AfD. You did not look at what to do before nominations for deletion, which would have mentioned that. Just to note, you are directly saying (through a deletion nomination) the article should not exist...despite having 99 RS sources, including a high WP:LASTING impact with clear LASTING coverage. So no, you will not gain any support for this AFD as this is a very botched AFD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy oppose and recommend a fast-paced WP:SNOW-close for the above reasons by WeatherWriter. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to withdraw this; this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article. List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 is suitable, and Draft:2024 Greenfield tornado probably would be as well; this is not. The concept of a "tornado outbreak sequence" that conflates every weather event across 2000 miles for 8 days is not supported by the sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote has been noted. You believe the article's content should not exist, meaning you are challenging the notability of it, more or less over the idea that it is a "tornado outbreak sequence" name, which could easily be fixed with splits and requested moved. I do appreciate you clarifying that your deletion reason isn't strictly the name "tornado outbreak sequence" but rather "this is still clearly not a suitable topic for an article." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Walsh90210: If I may ask, why do you oppose the idea of splitting this into multiple tornado outbreak articles? The idea of "tornado outbreaks" are supported by the sources ("A deadly tornado outbreak..."[48] Also, it is very obvious that there were several tornadoes across the United States during that timeframe. Why are you opposed to something like "May 19-27 severe storms" or even splitting it up into individual events like the sources do (i.e. Tornado outbreak of May 19, 2024, Tornado outbreak of May 20, 2024, ect..) or renaming it to "severe storms" when sources use it more. For example, "The May 19, 2024 Severe Weather Event" as named by the U.S. government. I am asking the question, because your arguing that none of the information should be on Wikipedia, yet also saying there are 99 RS sources for it. I just provided a couple of RS sources, helping prove why the content is notable.
That is more what I am asking. Are you challenging the exact term "tornado outbreak sequence" or the content in general? That is actually unclear here. Specifying that would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily the term "tornado outbreak sequence" (which I hopefully have criticized enough already); I am not claiming that none of this content should be on Wikipedia in any form. Some of the content might be reasonable for a stand-alone article (though the various WP:MILL weather bulletins don't count for GNG), other content might be reasonable at the existing article List of United States tornadoes in May 2024. A blank-and-redirect to List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 would still require an AFD discussion. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Walsh90210: I promise, my last reply to you/in this AfD. To note, no a "blanking" does not require an AfD. See Wikipedia:Merging. The only instances for AfD are when it directly meets the deletion policy, specifically one or more of the "reasons for deletion". AfD should be used when the nominator feels the content should not be on Wikipedia at all. Based on what you have described so far, you really should not have used AfD (as I and other editors in here now) have stated. Merge discussions, split discussions, renaming discussions, or just a general talk page discussion were all very much valid options. For a simple term, such as "tornado outbreak sequence", that doesn't meet any of the deletion reasons. The only real actual valid deletion reason you partially mentioned was that it may not meet the notability guidelines. In short, for this specific AfD, that is the only thing really being looked at by editors, whether it passes those deletion reasons.
Now that 3 other editors have also someone stated a similar thing (i.e. keep the content, discussion for "tornado outbreak sequence" should occur elsewhere), I would honestly recommend withdrawing the AfD and then starting either a merge discussion (WP:MERGE), a renaming discussion (WP:MOVE), a split discussion (WP:SPLIT) or just a general talk page discussion to see what other editors think should occur next (Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024). Wikipedia isn't a vote and discussions are based on the merits of comments and reasonings, but hopefully you can also see what others are saying. Very short summary: Your concern is valid and should be addressed, just you happen to pick the one process that isn't for addressing that type of concern. Any of the things I mentioned above are absolutely perfect for discussing that issue. But not a full-on deletion discussion. I won't comment in this again, and you are welcome to keep the AfD open, but as an editor, I would highly recommend withdrawing the AfD and starting one of the four processes above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article seems to be a well-researched, well-sourced, and significant event which definitely does deserve to be an article, let alone content on here at all. /srs
Thanks, NorthStarMI. (Talk in the galaxy) 13:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – That's literally how these types of articles are stringed together. They always have been that way and always will be (probably).
Poodle23 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Auto keep I'm not going to even grace this with an answer. ChessEric 16:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the continued contempt and refusal by "weather" editors to acknowledge that the concept of a "tornado outbreak sequence" appears to be something they made up is the reason I continue to refuse to withdraw this AFD. If some uninvolved admin wants to close this in lieu of a discussion at some other forum (and starts that discussion procedurally), they can. But I stand by the claim that this (and, other similar) titles should be expunged from Wikipedia. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta break my promise of not replying again for this new comment. “Contempt and refusal” to acknowledge that “we” made it up? Yeah…this is very much a time you should back away from the discussion, since we didn’t make it up ([49]).
Now, if I may have a moment for a joke comment (seeing how it is obvious which way this WP:1AM AfD is going. If “we” made it up, then that would mean the Wikimedia Foundation controls the Storm Prediction Center and National Severe Storms Laboratory. But wait! Since those are U.S. government agencies…that would mean…Wikipedia controls the U.S. government! :O! Conspiracy Theory Time! (Now my fun time is over…I’m actually done here since this is a very much one-against-many AfD). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was one paper 21 years ago that nobody followed up on because the idea that tornadoes 1000 miles apart and 8 days apart are the same "event" is stupid. That's it for external usage of the term. The Google search results are Wikipedia mirrors, Wikipedia-content books, and "fiction" wikis. The Google Scholar results have 23 total hits for "tornado outbreak sequence" (many of which refer to Flint–Worcester tornado outbreak sequence, which is a "tornado outbreak" from a single storm). This. Is. Not. A. Single. Event. and you continue to insist (erroneously) that it is. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I would be sympathetic to this line of argument if it were re-structured as a discussion (RFC, etc.) about splitting events like this instead of a Hail Mary AFD. Penitentes (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if this was made up by wikieditors then why does the nws uses the titles for other sequences? 67.58.252.227 (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The event is notable, and looking at both Google Scholar and Google Books, the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence" is used in scientific settings. Most recently, it appears in "An Introduction to Severe Storms and Hazardous Weather" by Dr. Jeffrey B. Halverson, a climate and storm scientist, which was published in 2024 by Routledge. He did write that they are "sometimes called simply an outbreak". The ISBN for anyone who wants to investigate is 978-1032384245. Since the issue does seem to be regarding the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence", there are more appropriate venues than AFD to handle this as other users have noted. CatharticHistorian (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – Many have fleshed out the reasons to keep above, but to keep it short: It's well researched, cites good sources, this should not be the first step to write your grievances, and if you wanna get rid of this one then you should nominate every single other article that uses the term "Tornado Outbreak Sequence," most notably Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011, one of the worst sequences in modern history that was 6 days long. Nobody's getting rid of that one, and thus this one is staying too. SouthernDude297 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that getting rid of everything that contains this blanket term would also imply getting rid of other infamous outbreak sequences such as the May 2019 tornado outbreak sequence which saw hundreds of twisters touch down. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2024 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rheji Burrell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rheji Burrell (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 am not sure how this article looked back in 2012 when the first AfD came about, but now the article is confusing because it doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be about Mr. Burrell alone or about him and his brother. At any rate, the article discusses a non-notable production team(?) whose own discography hasn't seen them ever having charted; and the list of albums that they supposedly produced for other artists isn't sourced. It doesn't help that the article reads like the brothers themselves wrote it. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 25 June 2024 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Anantnag encounter[edit]

2023 Anantnag encounter (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)

WP:NOTNEWS, counterterrorism/counterinsurgency such as this are not uncommon in the long running Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir (part of the broader Kashmir conflict). I am not seeing from the sources how this is notable as a standalone or any lasting significance of it. Gotitbro (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am not disputing what the nominator says, but our threshold for acceptance is not commonality or lasting significance but widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With events, lasting significance is very much a factor, which I think this fails. An event can get a lot of reliable coverage at the time, but without lasting significance, it is usually deleted at AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Basil High School for Superiors[edit]

Al Basil High School for Superiors (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 notability. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Bassel High School for Outstanding Students Quick-ease2020 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Alread PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CarReg UK[edit]

CarReg UK (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)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've fixed the citation issue. A before search on Google reveals that "CarReg UK" meets the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV especially within the English world. Consider keeping this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazi Culze (talk • contribs) 10:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands - rests on primary and WP:GUNREL sources. Google hits are not a measure of notability, please review WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are occasional articles about personalised number plates which quote the company founder, such as those referenced in the present article and this BBC item. These don't provide the depth of coverage about the company needed for WP:CORPDEPTH; the most detailed that I can see is a 2021 "London Post" item ("CarReg Private Number Plates Celebrating 33 Years!" - link blocked here) but that is advertorial in tone. Overall, fails to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2024 (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.

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search